HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 03-03-86ACTION AGENDA
TUSTIN PLANNING COI~MISSION
REGULAR NEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 1986
REPORTS
NO, 1
3-3-86
CALL TO ORDER:
7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Wetl, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
PRESENTATIONS:
None.
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes from Planning commission meeting February 10, 1986.
Commissioner Puckettmoved, Baker seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. )lotion
carried 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. USE PERMIT NO. 86-6
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Presentation:
Ron Ba~burger on behalf of La Mancha Development Co.
13482 Newport Avenue, Unit A
Authorization for an off-site beer and wine sales license.
Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner
After public testimony Comtsstoner Puckett moved, lqcCarth) seconded to deny Use
Permit 86-6 and directed staff to prepare an appropriate resolution. Motion carried
4-0.
· Action Agenda
February 24, 1986
page t~o
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2a
Applicant: The City of Tusttn
Request: An amendment to the Circulation Element of the City of Tustin,
adding text and diagrams to the extsting Element.
Presentation: Edward M. Knight, Senior Planner
Commissioner Puckett moved, NcCarl~) seconded to adopt R?olutton 2307 recomendtng
adoption of the amended Circulation Element to the City Council. Motion carrted
4--0.
4. USE PERMIT NO. 86-7
Applicant: William Hockenberry on behalf of Dopp and Curl Development Corp.
Location: Northeasterly corner of 2nd and "C" Streets (185-195 "C" Street)
Request: Authorization to develop an office building in the C-2 Central
Commercial Zone.
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Commissioner #cCartlq moved, Puckett seconded to approve Use Permit 86-7 by the
adoption of Resolution Z306. Notion carrted 4-0.
AI)MI#ISTRATIVE MAI-rEP. S
Old Business
None.
New Business
None.
STAFF CONCERNS
5. Oral Report on Council actions of February 18, 1986.
Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
COMMISSIOM CONCERNS
Commissioner Wetl requested the Cfty Council Agenda and Action Agenda reflect, under
"Recommended Action", when items are recommended by the Planning Commission Instead
of the Community Development Department.
Action Agenda
February 24, 1986
page three
Commissioner Puckett questioned how many sites are available in the Auto Center. Don
Lamm informed that staff is still negotiating with a few dealers, there are three
committed at this time.
Commissioner Baker asked when Bryan Avenue would open again. Don Lamm answered that
Bryan is due to open in March.
Commissioner Well announced she would be absent from the Planning Commission meetings
on April 14th and June 9th.
Commissioner Well requested the City Attorney's office provide the Commission with a
copy of a publication entitled Best and Krie~er labeled "Potential Personal Liability
of Board and Council Members under State Law, Government Code Section 825.6
ADdOURIIMEIlT
Cnmmtsstoner McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to adjourn at 8:46 p.m. to the next
;egularly scheduled Planntng Cmmwisston meeting. Motion carried 4-0.
AGENDA
TUSTIN PLANNING COI~qlSSION
REGULAR NEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 1986
CALL TO ORDER:
7:30 p.m.
· ROLL CALL: Wetl, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Ltmfted 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 MA1-FERS 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 February 10, 1986.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. USE PERMIT NO. 86-6
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Ron Bamburger on behalf of La Mancha Development Co.
13482 Newport Avenue, Unit A
Authorization for an off-site beer and wine sales license.
Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner
Agenda
February 24, 1986
page two
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2a
Applicant:
Request:
Presentation:
4.
The City of Tustin
An amendment to the Circulation Element of the City of Tustin,
adding text and diagrams to the existing Element.
Edward M. Knight, Senior Planner
USE PERMIT NO. 86-7
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
William Hockenberry on behalf of Dopp and Curl Development Corp.
Northeasterly corner of 2nd and "C" Streets {185-195 "C" Street)
Authorization to develop an office building in the C-2 Central
Commercial Zone.
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
ADMINISTRATIVE I~ATTERS
Old Business
None.
New Business
None.
STAFF CONCERNS
5. Oral Report on Council actions of February 18, 1986.
Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
COI~IISSION CONCERNS
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
HTIIUTES
-TUSTIN PLANNZ#G CO~NXSSZO#
REGULAR ~E:E*'rI NG
FEBRUARY 10, 1986
CALL TO ORDER:
7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Wet1, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy
Absent: White (resigned to run for electton to Counctl)
PLEI)GE OF ALLEGIANCE:/ZNVOCATIO#
PRESENTATIO#S: None.
PUBLZC CONCERNS:- None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes from Planntng Commission meettng January 27, 1986.
Puckett moved, Baker second to approve the Consent Calendar.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY
A. DRAFT EZR 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:
Presentation:
Motion carried 4-0.
An .application filed jointly by the city of Tustln and Monica
Florian on behalf of The Irvtne 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 Irvtne to the east.
To amend the General Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to
permit the development of 7,960 dwelling units, plus
neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use (which
includes commercial, office, research & development) and related
public facilities on 1,740 acres.
Ed Knight, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10, 1986
page two
After informing the audlence of the 3 minute speaking llmtt, Chair Wetl opened the
public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
John Asder, 13075 Ranchwood Road, concerned with agriculture preserve withdrawal
areas scheduled immediately to the east of East Tustin and the impact it would have
on the residents of Tustin especially along Future Road.
Jeffrey Oderman,. Rutan and Tucker, representative for 100 properties in
unincorporated area west of specific plan area. The plan still has the same defects
as at the last meeting and his clients still have the same concerns involving: the
design and location of the future northward extension of Jamboree Road; the four east
west connector streets; problems with con~atiblltty with existing neighborhoods;
density; and, schools. Requested the Commission continue the matter until staff can
report on the final decisions of staff and Irvine Company representatives regarding
issues raised on the EIR.
Ron White, 14431 Raintree Rd., submitted a letter dealing with circulation, density
transfer, parks, capital facility construction, community services operating cost,
and obligation to implement mitigation measures,
Larry Ahl, 1871Rtverford Rd;, Colonial Bible Church, inquired about plans for church
sites
Roy Gold, 11872 Simon Ranch Rd., concerned with the I-5 freeway congestion and the
i~act from East Tusttn on existing residents. Homes should not be built until there
are sufficient transportation facilities for existing residents.
Karlzn Boppell, 10931Saddle~, expressed concern with the Lower Lake connector road
and the impact of additional traffic on existing neighborhood.
Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman Well closed the hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Don Lamm explained this meeting represents a continuation from the last Planning
Commission meeting. The request was made to continue the hearing to allow ample
opportunity to see the final written comments submitted on' the EIR. The EIR review
period ended January 31st; all written comments have been received and included in
the document entitled Comments and Responses Section to the East Tustin Specific
Plan. Every written comment submitted has a written answer to it. It is available
~the public and will be on file at the library, planning department and the police
department. Loaner copies will be available.
Ed Knight explained that one Commission request was to include in the staff report a
summary of basic issues. All the public testimony boiled down to about 17 major
issues which have been addressed in the staff report. In accordance with the MOU
involving the School District and Irvtne Co, any a condition has been proposed for
Section 3 of the Specific Plan which reflects the language of the agreement and talks
about certain financing for schools and the conditions the city will place to ensure
the facilities area constructed. Staff recommended a condition be put into the draft
resolution deleting Racquet Hill Drive from the land use plan. Language has been
added to the draft resolution for the circulation element designating La Colina as a
secondary highway from Browning Avenue to Future Road but restricts the in~rovement
to only two lanes in the city of Tustin.
Lois Jeffrey, deputy City Attorney, outlined the action needed by the Commission.
Planntng Comaflsston Minutes
February 10, 1986
page three
Don Lamm addressed questions raised as follows:
l) Asder: The property between I-S and Irvtne Blvd., Myford to Browning, came out
of i~rtcultural preserve status in January lg8¢. The property north of Irvine
Blvd. and adjoining the county area caae out of 'agricultural preserve January l,
lg86, The remetntng strip, Sectors 2 and 6, will be released January l, 1988. Until
those properties are released from the preserve they cannot be constructed upon.
2) Odermen: He raised the same comments made at the last meeting. No new issues
have~atsed that are not in the response to comments documents.
3) White: His letter is on file with the city and doesn't really raise questions
but me'~es position statements.
4) Ahl: The entire East Tusttn zoning allows churches subject to a Conditional Use
PermT~-in all of the residential zones and the two commercial zones. It does not
allow them in the mixed use area. All Sectors except Sector 12 would allow churches.
The community concerns that there be adequate churches to serve this area will be
passed on to Council by staff.
5) Gold: Terry Austin explained that this type of project doesn't change the
freeway situation very much. The best that can be done is to support the I-5
widening program.
6) Bo__~: Staff has attempted to address this question as many times as 'possible
in the EIR response to comments and will address it again at the Council level. It
will probably be the number one policy issue for the Council to decide upon in its
relationship with the Board of Supervisors. Staff will continue to look at it.
Don Lamm concluded that since the last meeting staff has met with Mr. Oderman and
property owners in Red Hill Ridge area; the meeting was very constructive. He
outlined the procedures for the Commission to follow.
Commissioner McCarthy expressed concern with Government Code Section 65915 regarding
affordable housing and questioned if the city can waive that requirement. Lois
e reSponded that there can be a development agreement between the city and
r wherein an automatic density bonus can be waived.
Commissioner McCarthy continued by commenting on paragraph 2.C. of the school
facilities agreement. The Mello Roos Community Facilities District should spell out
that this wtll be the East Tusttn property owners only and the boundaries of the area
designated as East Tusttn so that future school boards and future Irvtne Company
executives have a clear understanding of just what is designated as East Tusttn.
Lois Jeffrey advised that procedurally the Commission could make a recommendation to
the school district that there be such a change made in the agreement.
Commissioner Puckett is in favor of the EIR.
Commissioner Baker expressed concern with the flooding, density, and the possibility
of the Eastern Corridor being placed inside the specific plan area.- He questioned if
it would alter the density of the plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10, 1986
page four
Don Lamm responded that if the Eastern Corridor is planned to be withtn East Tusttn
it would wipe out all of Sector 7, probably 6 and down into 1! and 12. It would
cause a total rewrite of the specific plan. Whatever land that was deleted for the
corrtdor or freeway would be taken away from the density count.
Commissioner Baker clarified that there is a mechanism ~o amend the plan if it
becomes necessary and what is being recommended tonight is strtctly a recommendation
and not the final issue.
Chair Wet1 opened up the Commission dtscussJon on Resolution No. 2300.
RESOLUTION NO. 2300
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENOING CERTIFICATION OF ORAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 85-2, PLUS
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES, AS FINAL EIR 85-2.
Commissioner McCarthy recommended the Ctty Council consider the following:
The EIR covers too long a period of 12-15 years. There are too many major areas that
are based on assu~tions since the particular areas are still under study, or funding
has not been appropriated or identified such as: ~) Eastern Corridor; 2) Foothill
Corridor; 3) Santa Aha Fwy widening; 4) Bottleneck study; 5) Flood control; 6)
Geologic study; etc. There are too many major concerns of many residents that have
been answered with a lot of verbage but ltttle to no substance. The implementation
of the specific plan.should be realized in four to five phases. Each phase should
cover a three year butldout; wtth each phase a draft EIR will be required. The
expense wtll be mere than satisfied by timely information. Buildtng out East Tustin
in phases, a current EIR will be more meaningful with more up to date data. A
project of this magnitude wtll be more easily accepted by the public if they can
review it in phases and observe that each phase has been completed to projected
estimations. The present draft EIR and mitigating responses may have validity for a
three year period.
Commissioner McCarthy moved the Commission not approve Resolution No. 2300, EIR
85-2. (This raised applause from the audience) The motion died for a lack of
second.
Commissioner Puckett stated that the document is good and represents a lot of hours
of work, very controversial; good for the city; agreed with staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded adoption of Resolution 2300 to recommend
approval to the City Council. Motion carried 3-1, McCarthy opposed.
Chatr Wet1 opened Commission discussion on Resolution No. 2394.
RESOLUTION NO. 2294
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ~JSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL AOOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT 86-1a, AMENOING THE LANO USE ELEMENT
TEXT ANO DIAGRAM OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNOED 8Y THE SANTA
ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIOENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF
TUSTIN ANO THE UNINCORPORATEO COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE
WEST; UNINCORPORATED LANO TO THE NORTH; ANO UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST; ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO)
Planntng Comlsston Minutes
February 10, 1986
page five
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend adoption of Resolution No.
2294.
Chair Well questioned a discrepancy on page 1.! of the Specific Plan which reads 1820
acres and 8000 units; it should read 1740 acres and 7950 units. The Resolution
should reflect these changes.
Wetl moved, McCarthy seconded to amend the resolution to reflect 1740 acres and 7950
units and making the specific plan consistent with the Resolution. Motion carried
4-0. Motion to adopt Resolution 2294 carried 4-0.
Chair Well opened discussion on Resolution No. 2295
RESOLUTION NO. 2295
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-tb, AMENDING THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY
{I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CIl~ 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 ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST llJSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED
HERETO)
Commissioner Puckettmeved~ Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2295. Motion
carried 4-0.
Chair Wetl opened discussion on Resolution No. 2296
RESOLUTION NO. 2296
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNDIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1c, AMENDING THE SEISMIC SAFETY
ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY
(1-5) 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 ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHJIBIT "A"A ATTACHED
HERETO).
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2296.
Chair Wetl moved, Baker seconded to amend the motion regarding Chapter 8 Policies.
a. to add, "slope stability analysis, including identification of bedding planes and
slip planes, the location of ancient landslides and the provision for surface and
sub-surface drainage control."
Tom Smith, Michael Brandmen Assoc., explained that the addition suggested is not
unusual from an environmental standpoint. The question staff may address is whether
or not those are appropriate for a policy document such as the seismic safety
element. It would be a very specific engineering detail.
Motion on the amendment carried 4-0. Motion on the original motion carried 4~0.
Plannln9 Commission Mtnutes
February 10, 1986
page stx
Chair Well opened discussion on Resolution No. 2299.
RESOLUTION NO. 2299
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL THE REZONING FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/RESIDENTIAL;
PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL; PLANNED COMMUNITY/MIXED USE AND PLANNED
COMMUNITY/COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR THE AREA BOUNOED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5)
TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIOENTIAL DEYELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN ANO THE
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS ANO COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST;
UNINCORPORATED LANO TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF
INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAO) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" A1TACHED
HERETO).
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2299. Motion
carried 4-0.
Chair Wetl opened discussion on Resolution No. 2297.
RESOLUTION NO. 2297
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF llJSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION, BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, SECTIONS I.O ANO 2.0 OF THE EAST
TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8)
Commissioner Puckett moved~ Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2297. Motion
carried 4-0.
Chair Wet1 opened discussion on Resolution No. 2298.
RESOLUTION NO. 2298
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION, BY ORDINANCE, OR SECTION 3.0 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC
PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8) AND EXHIBIT "C" AS THE LAND USE PLAN.
Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2298.
Chair Wetl requested amendments the motion to reflect changes to Attachment "A" as
follows:
7. The word "insured" changed to "issued".
10. Add "except in the case of special events in which case a city permit would be
required".
13. Reword to, "The Tusttn Unified School District and The Irvtne Company shall enter
into the necessary agreements to enable the school district to obtain financing for
the acquisition, construction and/or use of school facilities necessary to
accommodate the students generated by the East Tustin residential development. Final
approval of the residential maps shall be contingent upon this agreement or in the
absence of such an agreement upon the determination of the City Council." The basic
change gives the City Council the final determination in case there is an impasse
between the school district and the Company. Her main concern is that the school
district has been extremely cooperative to date, but there are 15 years until build
out. This development is in the city and the City Council is the final judge for the
city on any land use issue in the city of Tustin.
Planning Commission Htnutes
February 10, 1986
page seven
14. In the Specific Plan, Section 3.0, page 3-19. O. Noise Attenuation. Add: "
. highways or freeways and also under the Browntn~ Corridor .... " Also add,
"Prior to any approvals for residential development under the Brownin~ Corridor an
aircraft noise i~act study reflectin~ the i~acts of single incident events will be
completed and'forWarded to the Commission." She is specifically looking for further
noise attenuation measures under the path of the helicopters
Vtnce Mestre, Mestre Greve Associates, noise consultants addressed the methods used
in doing noise studies by different agencies and the problems in doing single event
noise studies. He suggested the city look at specific single event noise levels over
the Browning Corridor and solicit information about what those levels are and how
they interfere with speech levels on the interior of the structure. The city could
then, with that information, put a condition on the homes in the corridor that the
homes be designed to provide a certain amount of attenuation for helicopter noise.He
further recommended the city look at known noise levels that interfere with face to
face conversation (percent intelligibility). He suggested the city look at interior
noise levels and compare it to how it rates with speech intelligibility.
Chair Wetl then decided to delete the condition proposed at the end of the paragraph
O. but replace it with wording dealing with noise mitigation measures that would
~ttgate the helicopter noise.
Comdss~on and staff discussion ensued regarding the mechanisms to accomplish
mitigation measures for helicopter noise. It was decided that Section 3.0, page
3-19, O. including Chair Well's first amendment to include the Browning Corridor
covers this issue. It was further decided to delete the addition to the end of
paragraph O.
Chair Wetl continued with amendments:
15. In the specific plan, Page 3-46, C. Residential Off-Street Parking
Requirements. Change the credit for guest on-street parking in categories Medium Low
and Medium Low & .High Detached from 100% credit to 50% credit.
16. In the specific plan, Page 3-46, 3. Multiple Family (apartments). Change the
allocation for a two bedroom apartment to have two complete spaces rather than 1.8,
plus the .25 guest spaces either covered or uncovered.
Montca Flortan con~nented on three of the items:
School Agreement: The Company has negotiated and discussed the MOU in good faith
with the district. Obviously, the agreement doesn't bind the city. Since all the
parties are acting in good 'faith they wtll continue to work with the district and
find a solution that meets all the needs put on the table.
Noise Attenuation: If the proposed change is passed, the Company could address the'
issue and resolve it.
Parking: The Company has some concern in raising the standard and supported the
existing recommendations in the plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10, 1986
page eight
Commissioner Puckett supported the parking plans as they stand.
Commissioner McCarthy questioned how this would affect what has been changed already
in Phase II and the credit for off-street parktng.
Don Lamm explained that in the ftrst residential 1.8 was the standard applied to the
residential area for the apartments along the Auto Center/Jamboree Road - 2.0 for the
condominiums and townhome units. The guest parking requirement of .25 space per unit
is the same. The Commission raised the off-street parking for the Medium Low area as
a concern. The Bren Co,any site plans submitted allocate at least every other house
to have a driveway with parking on it which is equivalent to about SOU.
Chair Net1 clarified that Page 3! of the Phase II Residential has sltghtly different
wording, "no more than SOU driveways"".
Commissioner Puckett has not seen a parking problem In the [trine Company projects;
opposed to 2.0 spaces, agreed with SOU.
Chatr get1 moved~ McCarthy seconded to approve and amend Resolution No. 2298 as
outltned above excluding the 2.0 parking spaces for two bedroom units. Motion
carried 4-0.
Chatr Wet1 moved, McCarthy seconded to change the parking allocation for the two
bedroom apartment to 2.0 spaces per unit rather than 1.8 space per unit. Motion
carried 3-!~ Puckett opposed.
Chair Wet1 moved, McCarthy seconded, to approve Resolution No. 2298 wtth amendments.
Morton carried 4-0.
Chair Wet1 recessed the meeting at 9:!2 p.m. Convened the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
PUBLIC IEARI#GS
3. USE PERMIT
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Thomas Caudt11
17361 Norwood Park Place
Authorization to retain an unauthorized installation of a ten
(!0) foot dtameter satellite dtsh antenna.
Presentation:
Donald O. Lamm, Director of Community Development
Chair Wetl opened the public hearing at 9:32 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak,
she closed the hearing at g:32 p.m.
McCarthy moved~ Baker seconded to receive and file. Motion carried 4-0.
Planning Commt ssi on Mi nutes
February 10, 1986
page nine
4. USE PERMIT 86-2
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Setsuko Takayagt
[4460 Newport Avenue, Sutte F
Authorization to obtatn an on-stte ltquor license in conjunction
wtth a restaurant.
Presentation:
Jeff Davis, Associate Planner
Chair Wetl opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak,
she closed the hearing at 9:35 p.m.
Puckett moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 86-2 by the adoption of
Resolution No. 2301. Motion carried 4-0.
5. USE PERMIT 86-5 AND VARIANCE 86-1
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Lincoln Properties
southerly terminus of Newport Avenue.
Authorization to develop 160 multi-family residential rental
units and a request to vary with the required amount of parking
spaces to reduce the number of guest spaces.
Presentation:
Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Chair Wetl opened the public hearing at 9:42 p.m. The following people spoke:
John Withers, Lincoln Property Company, made himself available for questions.
Stephen Baker, 14802 Newport ~11A, President of Sycamore Gardens Condominiums,
requested no variance be granted for the parking due to the already crowded parking
condition on Newport Avenue.
Don Lamm clarified the parking situation. Right now under present code two spaces
per-unit times 160 units would be 320 covered assigned spaces for this project for
the tenants. Guest parking is one forevery four units; 40 guest assigned spaces.
Reversing the situation, instead of the variance, the Commission could require the
same 40 guest spaces be required and only the studios be lfmited to one covered
assigned space per unit. There are 22 studio units and they are 22 spaces short in
asking for the variance. The two bedrooms would have two spaces per unit, the oqe
bedrooms would have one space per unit and it would still have the 40 guest spaces.
Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Well closed the hearing at 10:00 p.m.
McCarthy moved~ Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 86-5 and Variance 86-1 by the
adoption of Resolution 2302 with amendments set forth below:
1) The above recommendation by Oon Lamm regarding parking shall be included as
Condition 22 in the Resolution.
2) Chair Wet1 requested dropping the option of redwood or cedar set forth in
Condition I, leaving only masonry wall for sound attenuation and protection from
pollutants from the freeway. It would read, "The development shall be surrounded by
a masonry wall."
3) Chair Well also requested adding Condition 23 in the Resolution that the roofing
material will be of red concrete tile.
Motion carried 4-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 10, 1986
page ten
ADMINISTRATIVE RATTERS
Old Business
None.
New Business
6. Tentative Tract 11370~ Subdivision map for Use Permit 86-5
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
McCarthy moved~ Puckett seconded to approve by the adoption of Resolution 2304.
Motion carried 4-0.
7. Request for General Plan Amendment, 6th Street west of "B" Street
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Puckett moved~ McCarthy seconded to direct staff to advertise for a publtc hearing to
Include lots in Alternative 1. Motion carried 4-0.
8. Oral Report on Counctl actions of February 3~ 1985.
Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development'
COFIIZSSZON CONCERNS
Commended staff for their handling o¢ East Tusttn.
AD,]OURlg4ENT
Commissioner McCarthy moved~ Baker seconded to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. to thetr next
regularly scheduled meettng. Morton carrted 4-0.
DONNA ORR, RECORDING SECRETARY
KATHY WEIL, CHAIRMAN
Planning Commission
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
FEBRUARY 24, 1986
USE PERHIT NO. 86-6
LA HANCHA DEVELOPHENT CO.
11440 SAN VICENTE BLVD.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
13482 NEWPORT AVENUE, UNIT A
CG - COlflERCIAL GENERAL
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15303)
TO AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF AN OFF-SITE BEER AND WINE LICENSE AT
13482 NEWPORT AVENUE
RECOI~ENDED ACTION:
That the Planning Commission deny Use Permit 86-6 and direct staff to prepare an
appropriate resolution.
SLle~ARY:
La Mancha Development has applied for this off-site beer and wine sales license
on behalf of Seven-Eleven stores. The proposed location for this Seven-Eleven
is to be in Unit A of the La Mancha Center which is currently under construction
at 13842 Newport Avenue at Walnut Street.
As is typical with most convenience markets, Seven-Eleven proposed to sell a
variety of grocery items. Currently, Tustin has four (4) Seven-Elevens: (1)
16791 McFadden Street, (2) 15202 Williams Street, (3) 14460 Newport Avenue, and
(4) 610 W. First Street. All of these locations have obtained a license for
off-site beer and wine sales. To be consistent in the services provided and to
maintain the corporate image that Seven-Eleven has established, La Mancha
Development Company is requesting authorization for an off-site beer and wine
sales license so that Seven-Eleven can locate in their new shopping center. All
Seven-Eleven stores are open 24 hours a day as will this proposed location.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
February '24, 1986
page two
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSXONS:
The proposed location for this market Is 'within 600 feet of Tustin High School
and C. C. Lambert Elementary School. The shopping center is also in an area
that is heavily used by students who walk to and from Tustin High School (see
Exhibit "A"). Staff has raised concerns regarding the possiblities of loitering
and truancy due to the availability of alcoholic beverages and video machines
which are usually present in Seven-Eleven stores.
The Tustln Police Department has been contacted for their comments regarding
this application. Although they have not compiled any statistics which involve
teenagers and alcohol, they do experience problems with truancy and loitering at
other convenience markets in Tusttn.
Tustin Unified School District, Tustin High School and C. C. Lambert Elementary
School have been contacted in regards to this Use Permit. However, both the
District and the school principals decline to comment in favor or opposition of
this request.
As evidenced by the attached copies of letters sent to Alcoholic Beverage
CQntrol and the Tustin Planning Commission; Parents Who Care and a local
resident strongly oppose this request for off-site alcoholic beverage sales.
This oposition is based upon the proposed market's proximity to Tustin High
School (within 600') and to residentially used and zoned properties (less than
100').
Based upon the comments and information received regarding this application,
staff has determined that Use Permit 86-6 should be denied based upon the
following findings:
1)
That an alcoholic beverage sales establishment is inappropriate at this
location due to its proximity to C. C. Lambert Elementary School and
Tusttn High School;
z)
That an alcoholic beverage sales establishment at this location is
inappropriate due to its proximity (less than 100') to residential
-properties;
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
February 24, 1986
page three
3) That there are eight other off-site alcoholic beverage establishments
operating within one-half mile of 13842 Newport Avenue, Unit A.
LP:em
Attachments:
Enclosed:
Exhibit
Letters of Opposition
Site Plan
Community Development Department
EXHIBIT A
LAMBERT
,
~llillillllllllllllllllllll~llallllal IIIllalllllllallllt
- '- !. ~ jl~k~l ~ I
, I .
~ .. I ' II
· . : I . I!
TUS~I" HIGH SCHOOL · I 'r il
. . ,. , ' . . .. .
~lllll~llllllllll;llllllllil'lllll~lllllllllllllliltlil
PATH TO SCHOOL
7-11 LOCATION
I · ,I
SCALE
TUSTIN
P.O BOX 318E*
TUSTIN. CA 82G8!
Planning Commission
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
DepL of AIc~olic Beverage COntrol
January 30, 1986
Dear Commissioner:
It has come to our attention that request for a condi-
tional use permit has been submitted to the Commission by a
fast-service mini-market proposed at the location of Walnut
Street and Newport Avenue in Tustin, and that application
for a liquor license is planned.
We urge you to deny permit for the off-site sale of
alcoholic beverages at this location because of its proximity
to Tustin High School.
Our main concern, of course, is that the monitoring of
sales to the adolescent is typically so very difficult in the
mini-mart situation. You know, too, that we feel that the
number of licenses should be limited to the needs of the
community. Tustin does not need. another off-site sales
location.
Thank you for your consideration of our position.
Sincerely,
Ethel D.
Co-Founder
EDR:mm
cc: /Mr. Ken Kelly, ABC
Mrs. Peggy Lynch, Principal,
Tustin High School
Dr. Maury Ross, Superintendent, TUSD
School Board Members, TUSD
p.O BOX ;]lSe
TUSTIN. CA O~elll
~t. OI AIco,,h_olJ..c Bevera&e Con
, na trol
January 30, 1986
Mr. Ken Kelly
District Administrator
Alcohol Beverage Control
28 Civic Center Plaza, Room 369
Santa Ana, California 92701
Dear Mr. Kelly:
It has come to our attention that application has been
made for a license to allow off-site sales at a new fast-
service market to be located at Walnut Street and Newport
Avenue in the city of Tustin. PARENTS WHO CARE urges that
this request be denied in view of the location in relation
to Tustin High School.
Sihcerely,
Ethel D. Rey
Co-Founder
EDR:mm
cc: ~nspector Wright, ABC
Mrs. Peggy Lynch, Principal,
Tustin High School
Dr. Maury Ross, Superintendent,TUSD
School Board Members, TUSD
Planning Commission
BATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
FEBRUARY 24, 1986
GENERAL PLAN ANENDHEtiT 86-2a
CITY OF TUSTIN
AN AMENDHENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
ADDING TEXT AND DIAGRAMS TO Tile EXISTING ELEMENT.
SII~MARY:
In 1984, the City retained the services of Austtn/Foust Associates, a traffic
and circulation consultant, to prepare a traffic analysis for the City of
Tusttn. The consultant utilized the City's Arterial Highway Plan, current
conditions and future projections to analyze the current and future traffic
conditions in the community. Additionally, he presented recommended changes to
the arterial plan to deal with future traffic conditions.
The study was finished in early 1985, and presented to the Council in a workshop
in February, 1985. The staff recommendation was to receive the study and
utilize it in the preparation of an amended Circulation Element. Further
changes were incorporated into the study and it was completed in May and
presented to the Planning Commission in August, 1985.
After the Commission workshop, staff has incorporated the work contained in th*is
traffic study, along with other pertinent items, to produce the proposed
Circulation Element. Elements of this document include:
1. Current traffic conditions,
2. Projected traffic in the year 2000,
3. Goals and traffic policies,
4. The relationship to the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways,
5. Implementation Program,
6. Financing Methods.
Also incorporated into the Element are public transit goals and objectives,
incorporation of the County Bikeway Program, and transference of the Scenic
Highways Element to the Circulation Element.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
February 24, 1986
page two
Staff does not recommend any changes to the current arterial highway plan, with
the exception of Irvine Boulevard, between Newport Avenue and Browning Avenue,
where a recommendation to upgrade to a six lane primary is made.
RECO~ENDEO ACTION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2307,
recommending adoption of the amended Circulation Element to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The first General Plan for the City was adopted in 1966, and at that time the
County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways was used as the diagram for the future
circulation. The City formally adopted the County's Master Plan of Arterial
Highways as the City's Arterial Plan and made it a part of the Tustin Area
General Plan in 1970. Annually, a resolution is adopted by the City Council
certifying that the Arterial Plan of the City of Tustin is in conformance with
the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
In 1984, the City retained the services of Terry Austin of Austin/Foust
Associates, a traffic and circulation planning firm. They prepared a traffic
analysis report for the City of Tustin present and future, utilizing the
existing arterial highway plan. The study was prepared and submitted to a City
Council workshop in February of 1985. Further changes were made and the report
was completed in May and presented to the Planning Commission in August of
1985. The recommendation from both bodies was to utilize the subject report in
the preparation of an amended Ct6culation Element.
DISCUSSION:
In the intervening months since August, staff has utlized the information in the
traffic study, plus additional information, to produce the'proposed CirculatiOn
Element. Most of the information in the Element is not new to the Commission or
Council, since is was presented in the Austin study. The Element examines the
current traffic conditions and capacities, and uses' existing demographic data
to project growth for the City and outlying regions, since the City is
significantly affected by regional traffic. These data are used to project
traffic demand and capacity needs on the planned circulation system.
It is the intent of the City to maintain consistency with the County Master Plan
of Arterial Highways, and the Circulation Element contains a section on the MPAH
and its relationship to the City's plan. The final section identifies the
implementation program, the City transportation system, and the possible funding
resources for those improvements.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
February 24, 1986
page three
The City proposes to maintain its current arterial plan with only one change.
The EIR for the East Tustin project indicated a regional traffic load that would
require the upgrading of Irvine Boulevard between Newport Avenue to Browning
Avenue to a six lane major. The proposed element would upgrade this section of
Irvtne Boulevard to a six lane primary to increase the capacity. The six lane
primary would allow the City to upgrade the capacity within the existing
right-of-way, and not require expensive acquisition and reconstruction to a
major highway right-of-way.
Also included as a part of the Circulation Element will be the County's Master
Plan of Bikeways and a section on public transit in the community. Further, in
keeping with a recent change in State law, the scenic highway element will be
incorporated into the Circulation Element.
EMK:em
Community Development Department
1
3
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2307
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 86-~a'~ AMENDING THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve
follows:
as
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
Ae
That Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of
California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public
interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General
Plan.
That the City of Tustin is the applicant, requesting this
amendment to the Circulation Element of the Tustin Area General
Plan.
Ce
That in accordance with Section 65358 of the Government Code of
the State of California, a public hearing before the Planning
Commission was duly called, noticed and held for the purpose of
amending the Circulation of the Tusttn Area General Plan. The
amendment is presented in text form as Chapters I through VIII
plus appendix of the Circulation Element. The City of Tustin
Arterial Highway Plan is shown as Figure V-4 of the Circulation
Element.
That an initial study was prepared for the subject amendment,
and a Negative Declaration is hereby recommended to the City
Council, based on the following findings:
1. That the City of Tustin has considered EIR 85-2, which
recommends that Irvine Boulevard between Newport Avenue and
Browning Avenue be upgraded to a six lane capacity, and the
significant effects of that change have been considered as
part of that review.
2. That the City of Tustin does not propose any additional
changes to the currently adopted Arterial Highway Plan.
3. That the proposed text will not have a significant effect
on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration
satisfies the requi-rements of CEQA for this text.
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
28
Resolution No. 2307
Page t~o
That the proposed amendment will be in the public interest and
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
II.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that General Plan Amendment 86-2a be approved, amending the
Circulation Element of the Tustin Area General Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 198
RATHY WEIL,
Chairman
DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
ITEM NO. 4
Planning Commission
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST: '
FEBRUARY 24, 1986
USE PERMIT 86-7
WILLIAN HOCKENBERRY, ARCHITECT
DOPP & CURL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF 2ND AND "C" STREETS (185-195 "C" STREET)
CENTRAL COI~ERCIAL (C-2)
A NEGATIYg DECLARATION HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR TO CONFORN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENYIRONNENTAL QUALITY ACT.
AUTHORIZATION TO DEVELOP AN OFFICE BUILDING OF APPROXINATELy
,ooo SQUARE FEET.
RECOI~IENDED ACTION:
Approve Use Permit 86-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2306.
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
The subject stte of 14,000 square feet presently has 5 separate units for
housing accommodations. The zoning for this property prior to 1978 was R-3
(multi-family) residential.
The owner ts requesting authorization to construct a +_9,000 square foot buildtng
which would consist of 100[ offtce space.
The Central Commercial District Code states the following requirements for
office uses:
Use Criteria - Office Development
Office developments within the Central Commercial District (C-2) shall
conform to retail commercial use parking standards for the first floor
area unless otherwise specifically exempted pursuant to the approved
conditional use permit.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
February 24, 1986
page two
Findings, including but not limited to the following, shall be made by
the Planning Commission prior to approving a conditional use permit
for construction of a building where greater than fifty (50) percent
of the total floor area, or any portion of the ground floor area is
designated for occupancy for office uses.
(a)
Development or construction of professional or general office
buildings would be more compatible with the surrounding uses in
the area than permitted retail comme6cial uses on the subject
property.
Development or construction of buildings restricted to a mixture of
uses in which th~ retail commercial floor area exceeds fifty (50)
percent of the total building .floor area are exempt from office
development use criteria {Ord. No. 157, Ord. No. 896, Sec. 8,
11-21-83).
The proposed project falls under No. 2 when greater than 50%.of the total floor
area is designated for office use, a finding must be made that the office
building 'would be more .compatible with the surrounding uses in the area .than
100% retail uses on the property.
The developer has provided the following findings for this particular sitei
o
The pass-by vehicular traffic counts (on bdth West Second Street and
"C" Streets) are too low to support strictly Commercial use of the
property.
The Professional Office (Non-Medical) use of the subject property is
more consistent and compatible with the adjacent properties.
The Use Permit will allow the .continued, positive, revitalization of'
01d Town Tustin.
4. The project as designed will provide a more appropriate back drop for
Pepper Tree Park, and environs.
The surrounding uses are general office except for the antique store (Ginny's)
on the northwesterly corner of 2nd and E1Camtno Real. Staff concurs With these
findings, and they have been included in the draft resolution.
The building elevations submitted indicate that the exterior finish will be
cement plaster with a heavy machine applied stucco coat. The proposed roofing
is painted metal and the proposed glass will be solar bronze with dark aluminum
frames. The color .scheme of the building will be earth tones to match the
neighboring buildings on "C" Street.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
February 24, 1986
page three
The site plan shows 30 parking spaces with 47~ of the spaces designated for
compacts. This percentage of compact spaces exceeds the City's standard, and
staff suggests that the site plan be modified to show the parking stalls at the
easterly end of the site as standard size spaces. This would reduce the
percentage of compact size spaces to 30%. Also, the driveway on "C" Street
needs to be widened to City standards. These items are a part of the proposed
conditions in Resolution No. 2306.
Assocta~CPlanner
MAC:em
Attachments:
Resolution No. 2306
Exhibit "A"
Site Plan
Elevations
Community Dev~iopmont Department
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
115
16
17
18
19
~0
9.1
9.2
~5
~7
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2306
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 86-7 FOR
AN OFFICE AT 185-195 "C" STREET.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
The
A.
Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
That a proper application (Use Permit 86-7) has been filed by
William Hockenberry to allow a +_9,000 square foot office
building at 185-195 E1Camino Real.
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application.
That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use
applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings:
The use is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and the
Tustin Area General Plan.
Development or construction of professional or general
office buildings would be more compatible with the
surrounding uses in the area than permitted retail
commercial uses on the subject property.
The pass-by vehicular traffic counts on both West Second
Street and "C" Street are too low to support strictly
Commercial use of the property.
4. The project as designed will 'provide a more appropriate
back drop for Pepper Tree Park, and environs.
D. 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.
E. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development
policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as
administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered
by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement
requirements as administered by the City Engineer.
That a Negative Declaration has been applied for to conform with
the California Environmental Quality Act.
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. 2306
Page two
G. Final development ~l~ns shall require the review and approval of
the Community Development Department.
Ii.
The Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit No. 86-7 to
authorize the construction of a +9,000 square foot office building
subject to the conditions in Exhtb-)t "A" attached hereto.
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
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR USE PERMIT 86-7
EXHIBIT "A"
A grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval and should be
based on the Orange County Surveyor's Bench Mark Datum.
A separate street improvement plan will be required by the City of Tusfn
Engineering Division. This pla6 shall show all existing public
improvements, utilities and topo adjacent to this development along with
all proposed construction. All new construction shall have construction
notes with reference to the applicable City standard drawing numbers.
Construction or replacement of all missing or damaged public improvements
adjacent to .this development will be required and shall include but not be
limited to:
a) curb and gutter,
b) sidewalk,
c) street trees,
d) drive aprons,
e) street lights,
f) .sanitary sewer service,
g) domestic water/fire service,
h) alley improvements.
Payment of additional Orange County Sanitation District fees will be
required at the time a building permit is tssued~
Payment of East Orange County Water District fees will be required prior to
the building permit being issued. Contact Earl Rowenhorst with the Tustin
Water Service for fee amounts.
This plan should be revised to.show the existing cur'b and gutter at 20 feet
from centerltne on both streets.
Additional right-of-way dedication will be required for the corner cut
off. Submit a legal description and sketch along with a copy of the latest
vesting to the Engineering Division.
The drive-isle widths shall meet City minimum standards of 27 feet.
A new water main may be required on "C" Street or 2nd Street.
This development will be subject to the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee
Program, if a building permit has not been issued prior to the effective
date of March 1, 1986. This development falls within Zone B and will be
subject to a fee of $1.05/s.f.
Community Development Department~
Exhibit "A"
page two
10. The building shall' comply in all respects with the Building Code, other
related codes, City ordinances, and State/Federal laws and regulations.
11. Grading plans and soils report required by registered civil engineer.
12. All roof top equipment shall be screened from view by a parapet wall 'or
mansard roof.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
A master sign plan must be submitted prior to issuance of any sign permits
for the project;
A complete'irrigation and planting plan is required, which should indicate
the following:
a) point of connection;
b) back flow prevention device(s);
C) location and types of valves;
d) location and sizes of piping;
e) sprinkler head types and locations; and
f) location, size and type of all plant material.
That medical uses cannot 'be
additional on-site parking as
review.
located in the building without providing
may be determined by Planning Commission
The final site plan and elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director.
The site plan shall be modified to show the parking stalls at the easterly
end of the site as standard size spaces.
Community Development Department
7:01 I.
ACTION AGENDA OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 18, 1986
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL
EXCEPT GREINKE WHO ARRIVED AT 7:28 P.M.
THERE WILL III. COMMUNITY NOTES
BE A TpamkcK CLINIC FOR BOYS AND GIRLS BORN BETWEEN 1971 AND 1978 AT llJSTIN HIGH SCHOOL.
NONE IV. PUBLIC INPUT
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A~mENDED MINUTES OF 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 29, 1986, SPECIAL MEETING
F~B. 3RD, PAGE 2 UNDER FEBRUARY 3, 1986, REGULAR MEETING
FUND RAISING SUB-COI~qlTTEE, JANET SCHWARTZ REPLACED lq~. HOESTEREY ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR
THE NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION
APPROVED
2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $507,590.91
RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $145,248.01
APPROVED STAFF 3.
RECOMt~ENDATION
REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 85-42; CLAIMANT: ISOBEL FIELD; DATE OF LOSS:
8/30/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 9/9/85
Reject subject claim as recomme.nded by the City Attorney.
APPROVED STAFF 4.
RECOMMENDATION
-'~D ADOPTED RESOLUTION
~. 86-25
REJECTION OF BIDS - POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS CENTER BUILDING
MODIFICATIONS
Reject all bids received to date; and adoption of Resolution No.
86-25 approving plans and specifications for Communications Center
upgrade in the Police Department Facility and directing the City
Clerk to advertise for bids as as recommended by the Chief of
Police.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 5.
NO. 86-22
RESOLUTION NO. 86-22 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PERSONNEL RECORDS
Adopt Resolution No. 86-22 as recommended by the Director of
Community and Administrative Services.
APPROVED STAFF 6.
RECOI~/qENDATION
RELEASE OF SUBDIVISION WARRANTY BOND - TRACT NO. 11586 (EASTERLY SIDE OF
HOLT & BETWEEN 292-458 FEET SOUTHERLY OF WARREN AVENUE)
Authorize release of Subdivision Warranty Bond No. K01530252 in the
amount of $1,750 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 7.
NO. 86-24
RESOLUTION NO. 86-24 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR NEWPORT
AVENUE FAU PROJECT M-M016(O02)
Adopt Resolution No. 86-24 as recommended by the Director of Public
Works/City Engineer.
APPROVED STAFF 8.
RECOHMENOATION
NEWPORT AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT FEDERAL AID URBAN (FAU)
PROJECT
Approve Program Supplement No. 7 to Local Agency/State Agreement
No. 07-5271 covering installation and modification of traffic sig-
nals and interconnect on Newport Avenue from E1 Camino Real to
Sycamore Avenue as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City
Engineer.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA
Page I 2-18-86
A-QPROVED STAFF
'OMMENDATION
e
ADOPTED 10.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-21
ADOPTED 11.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-23
APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
VI.
CONTINUED TO
3-3-86
POSTPONED TO
CLOSED SESSION
SANTA ANA VALLEY IRRIGATION COMPANY (SAVI) QUITCLAIM DEED
Authorize the Mayor to execute a Quitclaim Deed; and direct staff to
record said document subject to receipt of $90 transfer fee as
recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-21 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN APPROVING FOURTH REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 11370 (SOUTHERLY TERMI-
NUS OF NEWPORT AVENUE)
Adopt Resolution No. 86-21 as recommended by the Community Develop-
ment Department.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-23 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEED-
INGS FOR THE "ANNEXATION NO. 136 - TENTATIVE TRACT 11370 TO THE CITY OF
TUSTIN"
Adopt Resolution No. 86-23 as recommended by the Community Develop-
ment Department.
12. AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 1985, & JANUARY 6,
1986
Approve amendments to City Council Minutes as contained in the
report dated February 18, 1986, prepared by the City Clerk.
ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
1. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - ORDI-
NANCE NO. 964
Recommendation: Continue to March 3, 1986, as recommended by the Com-
munity Development Department.
2. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 965 - REGARDING JOINT POWERS A~ENCY - FOOTHILL/
EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
ORDINANCE NO. 965 - AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 948 AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE
THEREOF
VII. NEW
APPROVED STAFF 1.
RECOMMENDATION
BUSINESS
AWARD OF CONTRACT - FISCA£ YEAR 1985-86 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION &
ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY PROGRAM
Recommendation: Award the contract for subject project to Blair Paving
and Planing, Anaheim, in the amount of $145,575.53; and authorize staff
to add additional work to the contract in order to utilize a)l funds
available for street maintenance as recommended by the Engineering
Division.
APPROVED $1,000 2. DONATION TO SOUTH COAST REPERTORY THEATRE - ORAL REPORT
DONATION TO SOUTH COAST REPERTORY 'THEATRE
VIII. REPORTS
'IFIED
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA
1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - FEBRUARY 10, 1986
All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by
the City Council or members of the public.
Page 2 2-18-86
'CEIVED AND FILED 2. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF JANUARY 31, 1986
Recommendation: Receive and file.
STAFF TO NOTICE 3.
A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THIS ITEM TO GET
INPUT AS TO THE
DESIRES OF THE
PEOPLE
MAIN STREET ZONING STUDY
Recommendation: Consider pursuing one of the following alternatives:
1) Receive and file: Leave Main Street zoned R-1 and not allow change
in land usage..
2)
3)
Initiate Zone Change to Allow Professional Office with Existing
Residential Homes: Allow both occupancy of existing homes and/or
allow operation of a single tenant professional office in the same
home. The office use would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
Initiate Zone Change to Allow Professional Office and Bed & Break-
fast Inns with Existing Residential Homes: Allow both occupancy of
existing homes and/or allow operation of a single tenant profes-
sional office in the same home, or total conversion of the home to a
Bed & Breakfast Inn. Both the Office and Bed Breakfast Inn would be
subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
ROURKE IX. OTHER.BUSINESS
REQUESTED A CLOSED S~SSION FOR LEGAL MATTERS REGARDING LOPEZ & PO1TS -VS. CITY OF TUSTIN AND
POSSIBLE LITIGATION BY THE TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL OISTRICT.
iAR REQUESTED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AOJOURN IN lIE)tORY OF AGNES BACON'S BROTHER, KENNETH
,dTHON, A FORMER CITY COUNCILMAN, WHO PASSED AWAY A FEW OAYS AGO.
STAFF TO AGENOIZE THE BOTTLENECK STUOY, DOUBLE DECKING OF FREEWAYS, AND POSSIBILITY OF MAKING
IRVINE BLVO., MOULTON PARKWAY, ANO WALNUT STREET SUPER STREETS.
GREINKE ANNOUNCED THE JAYCEE'S MISS TUSTIN PAGEANT ON FEB. 22N0 AT 7 P.M.
GREINKE ANNOUNCED THAT THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY ON FEB. 25TH WILL HAVE "A SALUTE TO
BUSINESSES."
llJSTIN
MARCH 8TH, gTH, AND lOTH THE SO. CA. AQUATICS CLUB WILL SPONSOR A MAJOR SWIM EVENT AT TUSTIN
HIGH SCHOOL.
PHILIP COX PRESENTED PETITIONS REGARDING POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF A RAMP TO THE PARKING
STRUCTURE FROM EL CAMINO REAL ON A LOT OWNED BY THE CITY AT 450 EL CAMINO REAL.
8:25 X. ADJOURNMENT - Recessed to the Redevelopment Agency, thence to a Closed
Session for legal matters, and thence adjourn to the next Regular Meeting on
March 3, 1986, at 7:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA
Page 3 2-18-86
ACTION AGENDA OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF
THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FEBRUARY '18, 1986
7:00 P.M.
8:25 1. CALL TO ORDER
ALL 2.
PRESENT
APPROVED 3.
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 3, 1986, REGULAR MEETING
APPROVED 4.
APPROVAL OF DEMANDS - JANUARY, 1986
Recommendation: Approve demands in the amount of $568,217.16 for the month of
January, 1986, as recommended by the Director of Finance.
ADOPTED 5.
RESOLUTION NO.
RDA 86-2 WI1}l
ADDITION OF 10
PARKING SPACES
DESIGN REVIEW FOR USE PERMIT 86-5 - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-2
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-2 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN OF A 160 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS
'N PtJ~CE OF OF NEWPORT AVENUE IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
SOME LANDSCAPING.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. RDA 86-2 as recommended by the COmmunity
Development Department.
NONE 6. OTHER BUSINESS
8:34 7.
ADJOURNMENT
To the next Regular'Meeting on March 3, 1986, at 7:00 p.m.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA
Page I 2-18-86