Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 01-21-85REPORTS NO. 1 1-21-85 PLANNING COI~ISSION I~EETING - January 14, 1985 The Minutes from the January 14, 1985, meeting are the last attachment on Public Hearing No. 3 of this agenda. Please refer to them for this item. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COI~TSSION REGULAR FLEETING JANUARY 14, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEG[ANCE/ZN¥OCATZON ROLL CALL: White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett, Sharp PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON l!4E MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/DR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December lO, 1984. m 2. Resolution 2201, Use Permit 84-27, 6th Street Mini Warehouse. CONTZNUED PUBLIC HEARXNGS 3. VARIANCE 84-4 Applicant: Location: Request: Mr. William Brown 153 N. Yorba Authorization to vary from the minimum lot width, front yard setback and maximum lot coverage requirements of the Single Family (R-l) District. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Planntng Commission Agenda January 14, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEAR[#GS 4. DEIR Applicant: Location: Request: 84-2, GPA 84-1a, ZC 85-1 Poston Tanaka on behalf of The Irvlne Company Bounded by I-5 freeway, proposed Jamboree Road, proposed Laguna Road and a line 192 feet east of the E1Modena Channel. Actions regarding the East Tusttn Planned Communtty/Tustin Auto Center Ae Certification of Draft Environmental Impact Report 84-2. Amendment of Tustin Area General Plan from Residential-Single Family to Planned Community Commercial, GPA 84-1a. Change of zoning designation from Planned Community-Residential to Planned Community-Commercial, ZC 85-1 Presentati on: Edward M. Knight, Senior Planner 5. PARCEL MAP NO. Applicant: Location: Request: 84-1032 Poston Tanaka on behalf of The Irvine Company Bounded by I-5 freeway, proposed Jamboree Road, proposed Laguna Presentation: Road and a line lg2 feet east of the E1Modena Channel. To subdivide the property for the East Tustin Planned Community/Tustin Auto Center. Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner 6. USE PERMIT NO. 85-1 Leonard Construction Walnut Plaza Center, Walnut and Newport Avenues To install a pole sign of (50) fifty feet. Applicant: Location: Request: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Presentation: AOMINISll~ATIVE NR1TERS Old Business 7. Continued consideration of Tentative Parcel Map 84-1033, Dow Avenue. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner New Business 8. Report Concerning the Appropriate Zoning for Yorba Street from First Street to Irvine Boulevard. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Planntng Commission Agenda January 14, 1985 page three STAFF CONCERNS g. Report on Counctl Acttons January 7, 1985. Presentation: C0~#I$$[O# CO#C£R#$ ADJOUR#ME#T Donald D. Lamm, Dtrector of Community Development Adjourn.to January 28, 1985. MINUTES PLANNING COI~IISSION REGUtJ~R ~I[ETING DE~3qBER 10, 1984 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/[N¥OCAT[ON ROLL CALL: White, Wet1, McCarthy, Puckett, Sharp PUBLIC CONCERNS: None CONSENT CALEIIDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting November 26, 1984. 2. Parcel Map 84-1027, 18231 Irvtne Boulevard, 8urnett rhline. Commissioner Sharp moved, Wetl second to approve Consent Calendar. 5-0. Motion carried PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. VARIANCE 84-4 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Mr. William Brown 153 N. Yorba Authorization to vary from the minimum lot width, front yard setback and maximum lot coverage requirements of the Single Family (R-l) District. Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Mary Ann Chamberlain presented staff's report as contained in Report to Planning Commission dated December 10, 1984. Chair,~an White opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. and the following people spoke: Martin Schwartz, owner of 175 Yorba, asked a few questions and differed with staff on the age of the buildings on the street. He also felt the granting of this variance would encourage the property owner to do something with the property that is not to the benefit of the city. Bill Groob, Contractor, explained that Mr. Brown is in the hospital tonight and could not be here. They are asking that the lot be changed to allow an additional 400 sq. feet lot coverage. Mi nutes Planntng Commission Dec. 10, 1984 page two Commissioner Sharp questioned if Mr. Brown plans to live in the house and clarified that Mr. Brown owns the property on the corner of Pacific and Main, and his mother owns the house next door. Mr. Groob responed that he did. Commission discussion ensued concerning the architecture destgn plan and the interior. They questioned the fact that Mr. Brown would travel through the garage and a shop to get to the rumpus room and he plans to install an elevator. Commissioner McCarthy further expressed concern that tt appears the building is being designed for commercial use rather than residential. And, pointed out that on that side pf the Street this would be the only two story structure. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Cbartman White closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Commissioner Well moved, Puckett second to continue to January 14, lg85 to allow Mr. Brown to recuperate and comment to the Planning Commission at their next meeting. Motion carried 5-0 4. USE PERMIT 84-27 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Hughes/Calder on behalf of Lyle Foster $$0 West Sixth Street Authorization to construct a storage facility with on-site caretaker's residence and to vary from the minimum parking and side yard setback requirements of the zone. Mary Ann Cham6erlatn, Associate Planner .... ::'il.i Mary Ann presented staff's report as contained in Report to Planning Commission dated December 10, 1984. Commissioner McCarthy questioned if the land along the Santa Aha Freeway is dedicated to Caltrans. Mary Ann responded yes, Caltrans is proposing to take ten feet. He has shown a 25 foot setback for the rear so when they take the ten feet there will still be 15 feet and will be up to code. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. The following person spoke: Bill Hughes, applicant, agreed with the staff report and answered the Commission's questions. Commissioner Wetl questioned the reason for a Variance on the easterly side. Mr. Hughes responded that it is dead space. The building has to be sprinkled and so they don't have to provide fire access, so the closer the two buildings are, the better. Chairman White clarified that this is in fact a Variance and stated he could find a hardship based upon the constraints on the westerly side of project requiring larger than normal setbacks and consequently, less land. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman White closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m Mtnutes Planning Commission December 10,1984 page three Commissioner Wetl rebutted Chairman White's assessment that there is a hardship. She feels it is a self Inflicted hardship in that they are using the lot with knowledge of our standards. Unless we change the 3 foot standard, we should stick with the standard. Co,,m, lssioner McCarthy questioned and Mary Ann ~esponded that the adjoining property has a variance and also has a 6 inch sideyard setback. Commissioner Well expressed further concern with granting variances based on a previous variance. Lyle Foster, owner of Foster property, explained the variance was granted because they intended to buy the adjoining land and continue their building to the west. The footings in the building were built with the assumption a variance would be granted for this piece of property so they could Join the two buildings. But, due to inheritance taxes they are forced to sell the property. He feels that if anything, these two buildings should be joined rather than have a foot of space between them. Mr. Hughes further explained that a hardship could be income. They have an on-site caretaker's residence and they need square footage to cover operating expenses as well as fixed expenses. There is a reason to have a setback when it benefits the community but when you have an existing building on the lot line it doesn't benefit the community. Commissioner Puckett questioned the type of wall protecting the space between the two buildings. Commission discussion ensued concerning the size of space. Mostly they favored six inches because there would be less of an undesirable area and it would act as a sound attenuation wall for the restdetial area from the freeway. Commissioner Sharp asked the City Attorney if.there are sufficient findings in Resolution 2201 to protect us with a variance consideration on the basis of hardshi-p~ ~ '~ ~ * '" ~ Suzanne said it is a little weak. Chairman White determined a hardship exists because of the excessive width on the west side of the property for the 40 foot encumbrance. If he has a right to do three feet normally, but the property is burdened with a setback, it would appear to be a setback. It puts you at a competitive disadvantage when you try to sell the property and develop it, you don't get the full utilization and square footage out of it. Commissioner Sharp moved, McCarthy second to approve Use Permit 84-27 and continue Resolution 2201 to the next meeting to allow staff to find sufficient findings to allow a variance due to hardship. Motion carried 4-1 (Well opposed) Minutes Planntng Commission December 10, 1984 page four AOMIMISTRATIVE Old:Bustness,~ None. New Business 5. EXll~NSION OF USE PERMIT NO. 83-26, SALTARELLI REALIT CO. Location: Request: Presentation: 13751Redhtll Avenue A one year extension of use Permit 83-26 which is due to expire on December 12, 1984. Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Commissioner Sharp moved, Puckett second to allow a one year extension of Use Permit 83-26. Motion carried 5-0 The following two items were late additions to the agenda: 5.(a) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-1033, DOW AVENUE Location: Request: 2911 and 2961 Dow Avenue To subdivide one parcel into two parcels Presentation: Mary Ann C~amberlatn, Associate Planner Mary Ann presented staff's report as contained, in Report to Planning Commission dated December 10, 1984. She pointed out the applicant requested item 2.B. of Resolution 2202 be amended to reflect separate sanitary sewer services, domestic water services and any required fire service shall be provided to each parcel. Council policy has been that every parcel have it's own sewer. Per the letter request from Mr. Bell, they are requesting they record a covenant with the map which would provide for upkeep and continued maintenance of the system as well as for the parking and drive surfaces and also provide for reciprocal rights for ingress, egress parking. This covenant would run in perpetuity with the land. He would like to be exempt from taking out one sewer which services both buildings. Commission discussion ensued concerning hook-up fees for the Sanitation District and the City Council policy for separate connections. Commissioner Sharp moved, Wetl second to continue to January 14, 1985 for staff to answer the following questions: 1) What is the Council policy on sewer connection fees for individual parcels; and 2) What is the Sanitation District policy for lot splits relative to two separate sewer hook-ups to the trunk line. Motion carried 5-0. Mtnu~es Planning Commission Meeting December page five 5.(b) Location: Request: Presentation: PARCEL MAP 83-1027, LAGUNA ROAD 1122 to 1192 Laguna Road To subdivide one parcel into ~wo parcels Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associat~ Planner Commission discussion ensued concerning Caltrans' future plans for freeway widening and the posstbtlt~ that the City may have 11abtlt~y for approving this project with knowledge ~hat a portion of ~hts property may be ~aken. Commissioner Sharp moved, McCarthy second ~o adopt Resolution 2133 and recommend to the Ctty Council for approval. Motion Carried 5-0. STAFF CO#C~R#S 6. Report on Counctl Actions December 3, 1984 Presentatl on: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner CONMISSIO# CONCERNS Commissioner McCarthy expressed concern over the "No Right Turn on Red" sign on the corner of Redhill and Bryan. He thought it may be giving children a false sense of security in light of the fact that the sign is violated a great deal. AOJOURNNENT Commissioner Well moved, Puckett second to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. to January 14, 1985. RONALD H. WHITE Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2201 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SELF STORAGE FACILITY WITH NINE PARKING SPACES AND ON-SITE CARETAKER RESIDENCE AND A SIX INCH SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE AT 550 WEST 6TH STREET The-Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 84-27) has been filed on behalf of William Hughes, Stuart Calder~ to construct a storage facility with on-site caretakers residence while varying from the side yard setback at 550 W. 6th Street. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. Ce That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this ca§e, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The use is in conformance with the land use element of the Tustin Area General Plan. Eo The proposed six (6) inch side yard (easterly) setback will match the existing six (6) inch side yard setback in the adjoining development. 3. The westerly side yard setback of 31'X 9" must remain free .of structures because of existing easements. A twenty-five rear yard setback was required because of future freeway widening. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2201 page two II. That a Negative Declaration has been applied for to conform with the Environmental Quality Act. Final devlopment plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 84-27 to authorize the construction of a self-storage facility with on-site caretakers, nine parking spaces and a six inch side yard setback on the 'easterly property line, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A": PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman UUNNA URR, Recording Secretary Report to the Planning Commission ITEM #3 DATE: JANUARY 14, 1985 SUBdECT: APPLICA.T: VARIANCE NO. 84-4 ~. WILLIA~ BROWN 1001 St. Johns Place Santa Aha, CA 92705 LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST:. 153 YORBA SINGLE FMIILY (R-l) RESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAHILY DWELLING VARYING FROM THE FOLLO#ING R-1 DISTRICT REqUIREHENTS: 1. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 2. FRONT YARD SETBACK 3. HAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE RECOI~ENDED ACTION: It has been conveyed to the Community Development Department that as a result of an illness to the applicant and because of additional time necessary to consider revisions to the architecture of the structure, the project proponent wishes the hearing for Variance 84-4 be continued. Therefore, it is recommended that the Commission receive any public .testimony concerning this project and then continue the matter as an open public hearing to the January 28, 1985 meeting. Assistant Planner OD:do attach: Original staff report dated 12/10/84 Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: DECENBER 10, 1984 . SUBJECT: VARIAMCI: MO. 84-4 APPLICANT: XR. ¥ILLIAM BRONX 1001 St. Johns Place Santa Aha, CA 92706 LOCATION: 163 TORBA ZONING: REQUEST: SINGLE' FAMILY (R-l) RESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT 'A SINGLE FAMILY DNELLING IN YARIAN(~ tilTH THE FOLLOMING R-1 DISTRICT REQUIRENENTS: 1. #INII4UM LOT ¥IDTH; 2. FRONT YARD SLrTBACX; 3. #AXII4UR LOT COVERAGE. BACKGROUND: .' The application before the Commission ts a request to construct a stngle famtly residence on a R-1 lot replacing a home destroyed by f~re. The subject stte ts located tn an older residential area of the community and does not meet the mlntmum 'lot stze for the district. Thts circumstance ts not a major tssue tn that Sectton 9271q of the Ctty Code provtdes that stngle famtly d~e111ngs only may be constructed on any parcels of substandard area. However, the proposed project ts deflctent tn lot width,front yard setback, and maxtmum lot coverage requirements. ISSU[ ANALYSIS: Lot Htdth The subject parcel has a lot wtdth of only 50 feet When the dtstrtct requirement ts 60 feet. The granttng of a vartance wtth thts requirement ts Justifiable tn that dental would deprive the property o, ner privileges enjoyed by others tn the vicinity. As such the approval of a vartance would not constitute a grant of spectal privilege. Front Yard Setback As shown on the stte plan the structure ts setback 30 feet froa the property 11ne. However, development of thJs project requtres an Irrevocable offer of dedication of lS feet of frontage that would be uttllzed for future wtdentng of Yorba..Therefore, the front setback ts only 15 feet. Mtntmum requirement ts 20 feet . Community Development Department Planntng Commission Report Yartance 84-4 page two Although the offer of dedication ts required, tt ts unltkely that Yorba wtll be widened in the tmmedtata future. Also, locattng the structure as Indicated on the stte plan would place tt approximately in 11ne with the extsttng structures on the street. Agatn, grenttng a vartance wi.th thts dtstrtct requirement ts justifiable when considering existing conditions of the vicinity. · Maximum Lot Coverage Unltke the prevtous two tssues, maxtmum lot coverage is of concern. The applicant ts proposing a 2,800 square foot butldtng foOtprint constituting a 47% lot coverage. The maxtmum lot coverage allowed by the R-! district is 40%. Further, the 47% calculation does not take Into account the 15 foot dedication a]ong Yorba. If the loss o'f the Z$ feet ts considered,the actual lot coverage would be Staff has noted that there is no major -problem with butldtng setback variance, and therefore would suggest the developer be permitted to use his entire property. However,' there is no circumstance present that justifies the granting of a variance to the maximum lot coverage of that property. The butldtng foot print should be reduced to 2,400 square feet. .. Architectural Review · An issue aside from the variance proceedings, is that of architectural review. The architectural design of this project is a departure from the established style prevalent in the area. Specifically, the proposed house is two stories,while all others on the block are one story bungalow type structures approximately 40 years old. An excellent example of Provincial Style architecture conducive to the area is a home situated across the street from the subject site. '' In accordance with Section 9272a(3)c of the City Code Eew structures are to enhance their sites and are to be harmonious with the highest standards of improvement for the surrounding area. Staff is concerned that the bulk and volume of the proposed structure is excessive and should be reduced. Archttactural treatment to the side yard elevations should be utilized to reduce the stark appearance of the walls. Additionally, the vtsual impact'of the mass of the front elevation should be reduced. This could be accomplished by breaking up the symetrical configuration of the butldtng or reducing the stze of the turret features. Proper landscaping techniques also may he used to soften the vtsual impact. The applicant should be requtred~ to modify the proposed elevations and return them to the Planntng Commission for review prior to issuance of building permits. Community Development Department Planntng Commission Report Yartance 84-4 page three, RECOI~I£#DED ACTXO#: It ts recommended that the Planntng Commission adopt Resolution No. 2199 authorizing the following variances to the Ctty Code: 1. Approving a 15' front yard setback from ultt~ate right-of-way of Yorba. Approvlng construction of a stngle famtly d~elltng a lot ~tth substandard lot wtdth of 50 feet. Xt ts' further recommended that the request for variance of m~xtmum 1ot coverage requirement be dented, and that rev(sed a stte plan and elevations be submitted to the Planntng C~mmtsston for approval prtor to butldtng permtt Issuance. Assistant Planner 3D:do attachment: Resolution No. 2199 Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 -6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24: 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. 2199 A RESOLUTIO# OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VARIANCE (NO. 84-4) W~TH THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY (R-l) DISTRICT AND THEREBY AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AT 153 YORBA. The Planning Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: The Planntng Commission ftnds and determines as follows: Ae That a proper appllcatton, (Variance No. 84-4), was filed by Mr. William Brown requesting authorization to vary with the requirements of the Single Family (R-l) District to permit construction of one single family dwelling with a 15' front yard setback and upon a lot with a substandard lot width of 50 feet at 153 Yorba. The request also is to permit variance from the maximum lot coverage of the district. B. That a public hearing was duly celled, noticed and held on said application. Ce That because of special-circumstances applicable to the subject property, relative to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification, evidenced by the followin9 findings: 1. The use is in conformance with the land use element of the Tusttn Area General Plan. 2. The use is in conformance with the intent of the single family (R-l) Residential District. ® That development of the project with a front yard setback of 15 feet would be consistent with the existing structural setback of the other single family dwellings in the vicinity. That development of the project on a 50 foot wide lot is consistent with the land uses on similar size lots in the vicinity. That the variance from lot coverage requirement will not be authorized. De That the granting of a variance as herein provided will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. 1 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 1,5 16 17 18 19 20 ~.1 27 25 Resolution No. 2199 page t~o II. E.. That thts property ts categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Oualtty Act. F. That the granttng of the vartance as heretn provtded wt11 not be contrar~ to the tntent of the Zontng Ordinance or the publlc safety, health and welfare, and satd vartance should be granted. G. Proposed development shall be tn accordance ;wtth the development poltctes adopted by the Ctty Counctl; Untform Butldtng Codes as administered by the Butldtng Official; Ftre Codes as administered by .the Orange County Ftre I~arshal; and street Improvement requirements as administered by the Ctty Engineer. H. Ftnal development plans shall requtre the revte~ and approval of the Planntng Commission.. The Planntng Commission grants a vartance wtth the front setback and mtntmum lot wtdth requirements and authorizes the construction of a s~ngle faintly d~elllng at 153 Yorba, subject to the following conditions: A. That an Irrevocable offer of dedication for a 15 foot strtp of land across the property frontage wtll be required. B. That a gradlng plan must be submitted and approved prtor to the tssuance of butldtng permtts. C. All tmprovemunts w~thtn the public right-of-way must be shown on the ftnal stte plan and delineated wtth the appropriate ctty standard drawtng numbers. D. Street 11ghttng my be required. Three coptes of the stte plan must be submitted to the Southern California £dtson Company for a street 11ght layout. Confirmation of the need or lack thereof of street 11ghts lnstellatton must be submitted to the Butldtng Department prtor to the tssuance of butldtng permtts. E. The structure must comply ~tth the Untform Butldtng Code adopted by the Cfty and must provtde an extt for the "shop" and "rumpus room" that does not pass through the garage. F. A complete landscape plan sho~tng front lawn area, other ground cover such as hedges, and the locatton of trees on s~te, shall be subnfltted along wtth the ftnal stte plan and mudtfled elevations that sho~ a reduction tn the bulk, volume, and stark nature of the project. The Planntng Commission must revtew and approve these plans prtor to butldtng permtt Issuance. G. Ilo plumptng ftxtures shall be located tn the "shop" or "rumpus room" Indicated on the floor plan. 1 $ ? 9 10 11 14 16 17 lg 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution tto. 2199 page three H. The lot coverage of the proposed structure shall not exceed 2,400 square feet. I. A covenant, t~ t~ recorded wtth the Orange County Recorders Offtce shall be submitted to the CommuMty Oeve]opment Oepar~ent for revte~ whtch s~tes that the ftrst floor of the struc~re shall not be utt]tzH for residential ren~] space, nor shall the area t~ used ~n conjunction wtth an unauthorized. home occupation pursuant to Ctty Ordinance No. 330. J.. Prtor't~ ;ssuan~ of but]d~ng permtt~ all applicable development fees ~ust t~ remitted. P~S[D AND ~OP~D at a r~gular meeting of the Tust~n Planntng Commission, held on the day of , lg8 . RONALD H. iff'liTE, Chatrman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 4 DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: t OCATTON: GENERAL PLAN: ZONING: ENVIRONI[NTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JANUARY 14, 1986 EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COfl~UNXTY/TUSTIN AUTO CENTER THE IRYINE COIqPANY: NORTH OF I-6 FREENAY, SOUTH OF PROPOSED LAGUNA ROAD, EAST OF PROPOSED ~U~ORE[ ROAJ). I~SIDERTIAL'/SINGLE FNqILY PLANNED COIgg&NITY A DRAFT ENVIRONHENTAL I]4PACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE SUBJECT PROJECT. TO AlqEND THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN, AND ADOPT ZONING AND PLANNED CoPIqUNITT REGULATIONS TO PEIUqIT THE BEYELOPtqENT OF A REGIONAL AUTOROBILE SAI.£S CENTER. THE COI~IISSION IJILL ALSO BE RECOPI[NDING THE CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONIqERT OOCUlqENT PREPARED IN REGARD TO THE ABOVE PROGECT. BACKGROUND: One of the first objectives of the East Tustin Spectftc Plan process was the preparation of background data to define the opportunities and constraints of the subject area. One of the background report~ tncluded a marketing report done to research the potential of residential, office, and commercial retail uses. The report indicated a strong potential for retail and offtce uses Immediately north of the I-5 freeway, and avery strong potential for a regtonal car mall tn this same area. A potential opportunity developed to process and begin construction on the auto center on a shorter time frame than the overall East Tustin specific plan process. The Irvtne Company requested that the auto center entitlement process be accelerated and removed from the specific plan process; and the City agreed to thts proposal. The ortgtnal site was on the west stde of Jamboree Blvd., and extended as far west as the Kathryn spur railroad tracks, approximately 800 feet east of Browning. At that time, in order to accommodato the increased Interest tn the auto center, the stte expanded west to Browning Avenue and encompasses slightly over 100 acres. Community Development Department REPORT TO THE PLAHNIHG.COMMISSION EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY/TUSTIN AUTO CENTER PAGE THREE As stated in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project and to indicate the manner in which each significant effect can be mitigated or avoided. Essentially, an EIR serves the dual purpose of an information and disclosure document, which informs governmental decision makers, identifies ways that environmental damage can be avoided or reduced, require changes to prevent stgntftcan~ effects and disclose to the public the reasons why p governmental agency approved a project if significant effects are involved. To accomplish this set of parameters, the State has identified a series of methods that the lead agency can use. These methods include: changing a project; imposing conditions; choosing an alternative way; adopting plans or ordinances; ~isapproving the project; finding that changing or altering the project is not feasible; in the case of unavoidable impacts, a statement of overriding considerations. In certifying an EIR, the lead agency states that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that the decision making body has reviewed and considereU 'the information in the final.EIR. This action is taken before the decision making, body can consider project approval. As a part of the EIR certification process, the lead agency must make certain findings as to the disposition of each significant effect identified in the body of the EIR. These findings can either show that the significant effect has been avoided or substantially lessened, or is the responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. For each unavoidable environmental impact that cannot be fully mitigated, the decision-making body can balance the benefits' of a proposed project against these impacts. If the benefits outweigh' the avoidable adverse effects, these adverse effects may be considered acceptable. In what is known as a Statement of Overriding Consideration, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action on the final EIR. All the findings and statements must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tusttn Auto Cente~ was prepared in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and .in accordance, with the CEQA guidelines. inventories the existing environmental conditions, potential significant environmental effects and possible mitigation measures. 'It analyzes the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and the growth inducing impacts. It further lays out alternatives to the proposed project. As a result of submitting the draft EIR to interest groups and community I~"voloprnent Department REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY/TUSTIN AUTO CENTER PAGE TWO A Notice of Preparation was submitted to affected public agencies and local citizen groups. Citizens and local groups surrounding the auto center site reacted negatively to the proposed location and the Company and the City held several meetings to Outline these issues. As a result of these meetings, the site was moved to its present location, and reduced in size to approximately fifty (50) acres. A meeting was held with local citizen groups to present the revised location and proposed development. The original auto center site of 100 acres is now being proposed as a residential project by The Irvine Company and wasalso removed from the East Tustin Specific Plan process. A Notice of Preparation has been submitted and an Environmental. Impact Report is being prepared for the proposed project. It is anticipated that a public hearing will be held on the proposal within the next few months. APPLICATION In order to facilitate the Tusttn Auto Center, the following actions must be taken' in the following order: Recommend certification of Draft Environmental Impact Report 84-2. Recommend an amendment' to the Tustin Area General Plan'from Residential/ Single Family.to Planned Community/Commercial as shown in Exhibit A. Recommend a change of zoning designation' from Planned Community to Planned Community/Commercial. A set of Planned Community regulations will also be enacted to govern the development of the auto center. 1. DRAFT E#VIRONMENTAL ])IPACT REPORT (DEIR) The following is a synopsis of the environmental process leading up to a public hearing. An initial environmental study was done for the proposed project and reviewed by staff, and it was subsequently determined that an environmental impact report was required for the subject project. The City retained the firm of Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) to prepare this document and at the same time prepared a Notice of Preparation and submitted this to interested local groups along with state and local government agencies. MBA began preparing the document and subsequently incorporated comments from the NOP into the document. This document was submitted to City staff for review as a "screencheck" with additional information and revisions incorporated. This revised document Pepresented the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) which was submitted to local groups, state and local agenct.es, along with a Notice of Completion. The normal review period is 45 days for a draft EIR, but the City requested and received a thirty (30) day review. All the comments and responses received during that review period have been enclosed along with this staff report.. The minutes and actions of both the Planning Commission and City Council will also be incorporated into the body of the final environmental impact report. Community Developrnen~ Departrnen~ R£PORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY/TUSTIN AUTO CENTER PAGE FOUR governmental agencies, the City has received comments regarding the content of the draft EIR. The City's consultant has responded to these comments and they have been enclosed in this staff report as a part of the record. At each stage of the environmental process, the documents submitted for review have represented the independent evaluation and analysis of City staff. The consultant was retained by the City, and is answerable to City input. The screencheck document was reviewed by staf~ and revised by the consultant. The draft document was further reviewed by staff. Staff recommends to the Planning Commission that Draft EIR 84-2, plus amendments, is an acceptable document and in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines, and the policies of the City Council. The resolution recommending certification of this document to the City Council has been enclosed, and a part of this resolution is an Exhibit A which details each impact, and its finding of signlfance. Unavoidable significant effects have been balanced with a statement of overriding considerations. ~N~t~L. PLAN AH£NDH£NT AND ZONE CHANGE: The initial urban designation the subject site received was in the 1973 revision to the Land Use Element, where the site was shown as Residential/Single Family. The definition of this designation is detailed in the land use element as a "traditional residential subdivision with detached, owner-occupied units, each on its own parcel of land. Population densities within this classification will vary from 2 persons to 20 persons per case". Prior to this land use designation, the subject area was shown as Open Space/Agricultural, which' has been its use of the land to the present. The area has been in an agricultural preserve up to January 1, 1984, when its non-renewal status ended. What this means essentially, is that the Irvtne Company placed the land in a non-renewal status in lg74, which dictates that the land loses its perferred tax advantages in ten years, and cannot be renewed. This action was taken in anticipation of urbanizing the site based on its residential designation. The City of Tustin annexed the subject area in January of 1977, and prezoned the site as Planned Community. One of the conditions of the prezone was that prior to the issuance of any building permits, a specific plan would be prepared for the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. The intregrated land use patterns could consist of support commercial, mixed residential and public facilities. The East Tustin Specific Plan process begin approximately a year ago as the result of the Company's interest in planning for the urbanization of the East Tustin Area. Their willingness to begin the planning process was further defined by the fact that most of the total study area was removed Community Development Department REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY/TUSTIN AUTO CENTER PAGE FIVE from the agricultural preserve in 1984, with the remaining areas removed in 1986 and 1988. This planning process is a comprehensive program geared to examine more than land uses in the East Tustin area. Providing need infrastructure, environmental concerns, public facilities, affordable housing and balancing revenue to costs are all aspects of this plan. Although the entire existing land use plan for the East Tustin will not be revised, the proposed East Tustin plan should reflect new conditions since lg73, community values and local attitudes. Early in the planning process, the City's consultants reviewed the area north of the I-5 Freeway between Jamboree and Myford Road, and South of Bryan Avenue for non-residential uses. This was done because of this areas proximity to the I-5 Freeway, the market potential for commercial uses, and its potential to create a revenue surplus to the City. Although the area can be mitigated for residential uses, it was felt that this area could serve as a buffer to future residential areas to the north, while providing needed commercial on a community level. The essential aspect of any general plan amendment is. that the change be "in the public interest" and be compatible with the goals and policies of the community. The'proposed auto center site can accomplish these parameters by. several means. The change to a Planned Community allows a new set of standards to be applied to the proposed site. The land use element defines Planned Comunity as both a land use and a 'zoning classification that can integrate mixed ~uses compatibly by design standards. To assure the objective of compatibility of land use with the character of surrounding devel6pments, percise development plans are reviewed'and approved prior to authorization for developmemt. This land use definition is consistent with the zoning and regulations proposed for the subject project. The pre-zone for the area requires the development of a specific plan prior to permit issuance. This.requirement must be accomplished whether each project is reviewed individually, or the entire area is planned at one time. The Planned Community regulations regulate more than building height, setbacks, and landscaping. They address issues that are directly related to the uses compatibility with the surrounding area, such as noise attenuation and light intensity. Specific regulations governiQg lighting are included, along with sound attenuation walls. A set of Planned Community regulations allow staff to tailor the proposed land use to the surrounding areas. Currently, the proposed auto center site is not surrounding by any existing development. The closest existing residential uses are approximately-2,000 feet away. But it is anticipated that the area will someday urbanize, and the Company has applied for a General Plan Amendment to allow residential uses to the west of this site. It is staff's comrnun!ty Development Department REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY/TUSTIN AUTO CENTER PAG£ SIX contention that the proposed land. use designation change to Planned Community/Commercial can be compatible with the surrounding area, and is in the public interest. Further, that the adoption of a Planned Community/Commercial zoning designation and accompanying Planned Community Regulations allow the use to -be compatible with existing and future uses in the area, and ensure a development of high quality that will provide needed revenues to pay for the cost of governmental services. Staff 1. e recommends, that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Recommend certification of Draft EIR 84-2 as a final £IR to the City Council by .the adoption of Resolution No. 2204. Recommend that the land use designation of the Tustin Area General Plan be amended from Residential/Single Family to Planned Community/Commercial to the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 2205. Recommend to the City Council that the zoning designation for the subject auto center site be changed from Planned community to Planned Community/Commercial, .and a set of development regulations known as the East Tustin Planned Community/Tusttn Auto Center be'included aSoa part of the zone change, by %he adoption of Resolution No. 2206. £Dl~ARD M. KNIGh~r Senior Planner £MK:lg Community Development Department SEE ~ 1 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ~8 RESOLUTION NO. 2204 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 84-2 AND AMENDMENTS, AS FINAL EIR 84-2 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Con~nission finds and determines as follows: A. That an Environmental Impact Report would be required due to potential effects identified in an initial questionnaire done for the proposed Tustin Auto Center. That a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project has been prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, for the City of Tustin. That distribution of the Draft EIR was made to interested public and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on the Draft EIR. E. That incorporated within the Draft EIR are the comments of the public, commissions, staff and responsible agencies. That the Draft EIR and amendment~ were prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State guidelines and the policies of the City of Tustin. G. That the subject Draft EIR has been reviewed by staff, and represent their independent evaluations and analysis. That the Draft EIR and amendments have been reviewed and considered, and that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that eliminate or substantially lessened the significant environmental effects there of as identified in Draft EIR and amendments; and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are hereby found to be acceptable by the inclusion of a statement of overriding considerations. This statement and all environmental effects and mitigating measures are listed in the attached document, Exhibit "A". Mitigation measures are specified as conditions contained in this resolution. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ~5 26 27 28 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2204 page two II. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does herby recommend certification of Draft £IR 84-2, plus amendment~ as a final EIR 84-2 to the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1985. ~ONALD H. WHITE Chairman DONNA ORR Recording Secretary Pursuant to the CnlifolTlia Environmental Q~mlity ALt of 1970, as amended, and in aeoordanee with the City of Tustin guidelines, as amended, this document presents the findings and a brief explanation of the rationale for eeeh finding required for approval of the proposed project. The tn.nning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find that cbAn?s or alterations have been required tnt or incorporated tnt% the project which avoid oe substantially mitigate the significant advers~ impacts identified in the final EIR as speeLfically itemized below. A. Water Resources ~npaets: The site is currently subject to flooding ranging in depth from one to three feet resulting from the inability of regional drainage facilities to convey lO0-year flood flows. Findings: The projeLt includes the construction of an earthen berm extending from an existing berm to the west of the project site and wrapping around the project site to protect the project from flooding. This berm will protect the site without significantly altering existing drainage and flooding patterns tn the vicinity of the peojeet. Impacts: Short-term degradation of surface water quality will occur during grading and initial construction activities. Findings: A plan for site control of all storm runoff from the property during oonstruction will be prepared and submitted to the City of Tustin prior to the issuance of any grading permits. Impacts: On-site runoff volumes and velocities will increase and the on-site drainage pattern will be altered. Findings: An on-site drainage plan will be submitted to the City of Tustin for approval prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. Methods foe oontrolling the velooity end direetion of runoff will be ineerporated into the project design. Impacts: Development of the site will effect a long-term change in runoff quality from agricultural pollutants to urban pollutants. Findings: This impact will be partially reduced by the implementation of appropriate stormwater ponution control plans and periodic cleaning of storm drains. Resolution No. Pa~e 2 B. Land Use and Aesthetics Impacts: Findings: The project is not consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the site and surrounding areas. A general plan amendment and zone change are proposed as part of the project. The project design and performance standards included in the Tustin Auto Center Planned Community Regulations will ensure that the proposed project is compatible with land uses planned for areas adjacent to and near the project site. Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the introduction of high intensity night lighting in the Bast Tustin area. Findings: The Tustin Auto Center Planned Community Regulations contain lighting performance standards stipulating the type of lighting which may be used, the maximum height of each fixture, and the allowable wattage per square foot. Only sharp cut-off fixtures at a maximum height of 20 feet are allowed, thereby localizing light and glare impacts. C. Transportation/Circulation De Impacts: The propesed project will contribute a small increment to an existing and projected cumulative traffic impact at several intersections in the area. The project will generate 8,205 ADT and 845 p.m. peak hour trips. Traffic from the project will inerementRlly worsen traffic conditions at the Red Hill Avenue/I-5 ramps and the intersections of Red Hill Avenue and Irvtne Boulevard and Red Hill Avenue and Laguna Road. Findings: Construction of the Jamboree Road/I-5 interchange will provide substantial mitigation of project related traffic impacts by directing project related and other traffic from Red HLU Avenue. The Jamboree Road/I-5 interchange has been committed by the City of Tustin as a locally funded project (Tustin City Council Resolution No. 84-65). Noise Impacts= Activities at the auto center facilities will increase overall ambient noise levels in the area by a few decibels. The number of individuRlly audible and potentially intrusive traffic noise events win increase as a result of the auto center development. Resolution No. Page 3 Findings: Impacts: Findings.- Impacts: Findings: Ai~ Quality Impacts: Findings: Impacts: Findings: The Tustin Canter Planned Community Regulations contain operational performance standards which will mitigate noise impaet~ to an insigaifieant level. Other recommended operational and site pl~.'ng measures will also reduce project impacts. Short-term noise impacts will occur during project eonatruetion. Compliance with city noise standards regarding hours of operation and the use of muffled construction equipment will minimize construction noise impacts. The project site is exposed to noise impacts from the Santa Ana Froeway. Over one-half of the project site is exposed to freeway noise levels in excess of the City of Tnstin~ noise objective of $5 CNEL for commercial land uses. The project design incorporates a wall of at least eight feet in height along this edge. This wall will serve to attenuate noise from the freeway and will reduce on-site noise levels to acceptable levels. Short-term increases in dust and exhaust emission win occur in the vicinity of the project during construction. Compliance with Rule 403 of the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations and wetting of geaded areas will mitigate fugitive dust emissions during construction. Long-term regional increases in mobile and stationary-source emissions will result due to the increase in motor vehicle and energy usage. The proposed project includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities provided to reduce motor vehicle usage. Sidewalks will be provided along Jamboree and Laguna Road and on all internal roads. All roadways being constructed as a part of the project have sufficient width to allow for bicycle lanes. Resolution No. Page 4 e The Plnnninpl Commission of the City of Tustin further finds that although cbAn~es: altarations~ or conditions have been incorDorated into the Droject which will substantially miti~ate or avoid sila~nifieant effects identified in the final EIR~ certain of the m~mificant effects cannot be mitii~ated to fu~l.¥ acceptable levels. The remalnin~ impacts identified below may continue to oe of si[~nifieant adverse impact even when all known feasible and identified mitilalation measures are applied. Project implementation will result in the termination of on-site agTicultural production and the lo~s of 60 acres of "Farmland of Statewide Importance" as identified by the California State Department of Conservation. Findings: The project is currently committed to non-a~rieultural use. The Tustin General Plan Land Use Element currently designates the site for urban (residential) land use. The existence of an Irvine Ranch Water District improvement finance district and the issuance of bonds to finance urban level water and sewer improvements for the project site and surrounding areas further indicates the existing commitment to urban development of this area. There are no economically or physically feasible measures available to mitigate this impact. The proposed project will generate approximately 8,205 ADT and 845 P.M. peak hour trips. Traffic from the project will incrementally worsen traffic conditions at the Red Hill Avenue fl-5 ramps and the intersections of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard, and Red Hill Avenue and Laguna Road. Construction of the Jamboree Road fl-5 interchange will provide substantial mitigation of project related traffic impacts by diverting project related and other traffic from Red Hill Avenue. The Jamboree Road/I-5 interchange has been eemmitted by the City of Tustin az a locally funded project (Tustin City Council Resolution No. 84-65). Prior to construction of the interchange, the State Department of Transportation must approve connection of the interchange to the state freeway system and the City of Tustin must select and institute a mechanism to finance ~onstruetion of the interehenge. Until such time as these approvals and actions are taken and the interchange is censtrueted, traffic generated by the project will adversely impact operatin~ conditions at the Red Hill Avenue/I-§ ramps and the intersections of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard, and Red Hill Avenue and Laguna Road. Resolution No. Pa~e 5 The project site is located within the Eastern Corridor study area and approval and construction of the auto eenter project prior to completion of the route location study could influence the study by eliminating some potential .alternative alignments of the corridor. Findings: The City of Tustin will participate tn the TrensportaUon Corridor Study and cooperate with the County of Orange and the other local agencies involved and affected by the study. It is not considored economically feasible to delay approval and implementation of the project until the corridor study is completed. Short-term construction equipment emissions and long-term mobile and stationary emissions will occur with project implementation oreating an adverse impact on the air quality of the South Coast Air Basin. Findings: As with any urban development project, air quality impacts cannot be completely mitigated. In approving the project, subject to the conditions and mitigation measures set forth, the city has done all that is technically and reasonably possible at the munieipal level E. Increased demand for limiting regional water resources. Findings: The project necessitates increased water use and, therefore, tnoreased demand for regional imported water. This impact cannot be mitigated on an individual project basis although the city will require implementation of '~11 feasible conservation measures. F. Increased long-term demand for finite fossil fuel resoureas resulting from project electrical and natural gas requirements. Findings: The project necessitates an increased cumulative demand for finite fuel resources. Although servicing agencies anticipate adequate fuel supplies for the project, the long-term demand for fossil fuel resources will be unavoidably increased. The plsnning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find that certain ~hAn~es or alterations (e.g., mitigation measures) required in or incorporated [nt~ ~he oro~ect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public a~ene¥ other th~n {he City of Tustin and can or should be adopted by the respective agency as itemized below: A. California Department of T~ansportation: Approval of the connection of the Jamboree Road/I-5 interehange to the state freeway system. Resolution lqo. Pa~e 6 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has weighed the benefits of the proposed project agair~t its unavoidable environmental risks in determining/ whether to approve said Droject. The Planning Commission does hereby further find~ determine; and state7 l)ursuant to the provisions of Section 15093 o~f the state CEi~A Guidelines~ that the occurrence of the certain si~;nifieant environmental effects identified in the final FAR and set forth in ~araL~raph 2 above~ have been evaluated A?{,tqt the following overriding cohsiderations: AL The project will result in the following substantial eeonomie, social, and environmental benefits to the City of Tustin and surrounding areas: (1) At build-out, the project is anticipated to yield a positive annual fiscal surplus of $1,306,200 to the city's general fund. Total ann-A1 revenues are projected at $1,414,700 and total costs at $108,500. (2) The consolidation of auto dealerships in one location will result in less vehicle miles traveled than would be typical of a strip pattern of auto dealerships. This fact is reflected in the trip generation rates for the Irvine Auto Center, a similar type of development, which are considerably lower per aere than the observed rates for individual auto dealers. (3) The proposed project will provide improvements to the local circulation system consisting of the extension of Laguna and Jamboree Roads. B. The fonowing economic and social considerations make the project alternatives identified in the final EIR infeasible. (1) The "No Project" alternative is rejected because it fails to meet the objectives set forth for the project, particularly the objectives of providing an increased revenue base to the city and creating a development which provides for a range of auto-related uses to serve the City of Tustin and surrounding communities. (2) The "Existing General Plan" alternative is rejected because it fails to meet the objectives set forth for the project, particularly the objectives of providing an increased revenue base to the city and creating a development which provides for a range of auto-related uses to serve the City of Tustin and surrounding ~ommuntties. (3) The "Residential Development at Ten Dwelling Units to the Acre" alternative is rejected because it fails to meet the objectives set forth for the project, particularly the objectives of providing an increased revenue base to the city and creating a development which provides for a range of auto-related uses to serve the City of Tustin and surrounding eemmunities. Resolution No. Pa~e ? (4) The "Alternative Locations" alternative is rejected because development of the proposed project on the other available sites in the ~ity would result in gTeater environmental impacts than would development of the project on the proposed site. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2205 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, PROPOSED JAMBOREE ROAD, PROPOSED LAGUNA ROAD, AND A LINE 192 FEET WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" The Planning Commission of the City of Tustih does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Section. 65356.1 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. Be That in accordance with Section 65356 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the application of Poston Tonaka on behalf of the Irvine Company to reclassify the land use from Residential/Single Family to Planned Community/Commercial for an area bounded by the I-5 Freeway, proposed Jamboree Road, proposed Laguna Road, and a line 192 feet west of the E1Modena Channel, as shown in Exhibit "A". That a draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the subject project, and was recommended for certification to the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 2204. That a change in classification would be in the public interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property owners. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 84-1a be adopted, amending the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan from Residential/Single Family to Planned Community/Commercial for an area bounded by the I-5 Freeway, proposed Jamboree Road, proposed Laguna Road, and a line 192 feet west of the E1 Modena Channel, as shown in Exhibit "A". PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the day of 1985. RONALD H. WHI%E Chairman DONNA ORR Recording Secretary 0 II ~AV~ IN~AC)I:IB -- I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 10 2O 21 25 25 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2206 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING REZONING OF A AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, PROPOSED JAMBOREE ROAD PROPOSED LAGUNA ROAD, AND A LINE 192 FEET WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL, FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" AND INCLUDING THE INCORPORATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY REGULATIONS KNOWN AS THE EAST TUSTIN AUTO CENTER The Planning Con~nission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application, (Zone Change No. 85-1) has been filed by Poston Tanaka, on behalf of the Irvine Company, to change the zone for an area bounded by the I-$ Freeway, proposed Jamboree Road, proposed Laguna Road, and a line 192 feet west of the E1 Modena Channel, from Planned Community to Planned Community/Commercial as shown in Exhibit "A", and incorporating planned community regulations known as the East Tustin Auto Center. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said applicaton. C. That a zone change.should be granted for the following reasons: That the proposed change would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of bhe surrounding property owners. That the inclusion of a Planned Community zone and incorporation of development regulations will ensure that the proposed use will be compatible with future and existing developments. 3. The proposed zone designation is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. De Development of subject property shall be in accordance with the policies adopted by the City Council; Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official; Uniform Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal; and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. E. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2206 page two A draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 84-2) has been prepared for this subject project, and has been recommended for certification to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2204, and mitigation measures are specified as conditions.in this resolution. That a Master Sign Plan for the Tustin Auto Center shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission for adoption by resolution. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 85-1 from Planned Community to Planned Community/Commercial for an area bounded by the I-5 Freeway, proposed Jamboree Road, proposed Laguna Road, and a line 192 feet west of the E1 Modena Channel, as shown in Exhibit "A", and incorporates Planned Community Regulations known as the East Tustin Auto Center. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1985. RONALD H. WHITE Chairman DONNA ORR Recording Secretary L' EAST TUSTIN AUTO CENTER CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY REGULATIONS L L NOVEMBER~ 1984 THE IRVINE COMPANY TUSTIN AUTO CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY REGULATIONS CITY OF TUSTIN November 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III SECTION IV SECTION V SECTION VI SECTION VII SECTION VIII INTENT AND PURPOSE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS GENERAL NOTES DEFINITIONS USES PERMITTED ZONING MAP SITE PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Subsection A. Subsection B. Subsection C. Subsection D. Subsection E. Subsection F. Subsection G. Subsection H. Subsection I. Subsection J. Building Setbacks Building Heights Parking Landscaping Lighting Walls and Fences Sound Attenuation Signage Storage and Loading Refuse Collection Area Page '1 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 11 12 12 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 SECTION I. INTENT AND PURPOSE The'Planned Community Regulations are intended to guide the planning and design of an auto sales, leasing and re- lated service center. The Regulations promote the quality development of the project by establishing standards for the site planning, architectural design, and materials for all structures which will become a part of the Center. While the Auto Center serves a unique function within the Tustin area, the Planned Community Regulations seek to integrate this Center into the surrounding community in a manner that is compatible with existing and future develop- ment in the community. -1- SECTION II. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The Tustin Auto Center Planned Community has been estab- lished as one (1) basic group: Net Acres Auto Sales, Leasing & Service 40.00 This group shall be served by: Public streets Landscape buffer area TOTAL GROSS ACRES 13.95 1.51 55.46 -2- SECTION III. GENERAL NOTES e 7. 8. 9. Within the Planned Community area, the continued use of the land for agricultural purposes with uses, structures and appurtenances accessory thereto shall be permitted subject to the applicable zoning codes of the City of Tustin. Water service and sewage disposal facilities within the Planned Community area shall be furnished by the Irvine Ranch Water District. However, temporary services by other agencies may be necessary. Regardless of the provisions of this supplemental text, no construction shall be allowed within the boundaries of the Auto Center Planned Community except that which complies with all provisions of applicable building codes and the various mechanical codes related thereto. Any land use proposal or development standard not speci- fically covered by this plan and its supplemental text shall'be subject to the regulations of the City of Tustin zoning codes. Whenever the regulations contained herein conflict with the regulations of Tustin zoning codes, the regulations contained herein shall take precedence. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during the construction shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Tustin for their review prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The plan shall be in effect during initial operation of the tract to main- tain the integrity of silt control facilities during normal operation. Approval by the Air Quality Management District of any plans, devices, or facilities for the control of any air pollutants which may be generated, shall be required. Grading within the zone shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. Energy conservation provisions shall be considered when building orientation, materials and design are being developed. -3- 10. 11. After commencement of alterations or construction of any structure, or improvement thereon, the owner shall diligently prosecute the work thereon, to an end that the structure shall not remain in a partly finished condition any longer than reasonably necessary for completion thereof. Ail mechanical appurtenances on building roof tops' shall be screened from view from adjacent public streets and buildings in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Planning. -4- SECTION IV. DEFINITIONS Advertising Surface: The total area of the face of any signing structure. Common'Area: Areas designated by Parcel Map for land- scape ~r employee parking purposes and deeded to a legally formed Auto Center Merchants' Association. Dedicated Streets: Reference to all streets or rights- of-way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehi- cular rights-of-way, including any median paving or landscaping located within that right-of-way. Gross Acreage: The entire land area within the boundary of the project, measured to the right-of-way of any abutting arterial highway or the centerline of any interior street. Net Acreage: The total land area of the land described in the use or other permit. Net acreage shall consti- tute the total buildable area. 6. Property Lines: Front - Any parcel's frontage which faces onto an interior street shall be deemed a front property line, whether facing the interior loop road or facing toward an entrance street. Rear - The property line of any parcel which is adjacent to the perimeter streets of Jamboree Road, Laguna Road, Myford Road, or the I-5 Freeway. Side - Those property lines which separate one subdivided parcel which has been designated for retail use from another such subdivided parcel or from a designated common employees' parking lot. Service & Storage Buildings: Ail structures on any retail parcel whose primary purpose is other than the display, sale or lease of automobiles and related merchandise. -5- SECTION V. USES PERMITTED A. Uses Permitted Auto, truck, and recreational vehicle sales, leasing and service (dealerships and/or independents). Service industries may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Repair, maintenance and servicing of appliances or component parts for motor vehicles. b. Tooling. c. Testing shops (excluding noise producing or noxious performance testing). de Repair, maintenance and servicing of above- listed items provided that said industries are not the point of customer delivery or collec- tion. e. Diagnostic labs. f. Experimental automobile assembly and fabrica- tion.. g. Vehicular storage areas (exclusive of impound .yards). Uses Permitted Sub~ect to Grantinq of a CUP by the Planning Commission if Not Included in Auto Dealership 1. Tire, battery and accessory shops and accessory indoor installation facilities. 2. Auto and vehicle glass shops. 3. Auto and truck rentals. 4. Paint and restoration shops (independent of dealer- ships). -5. Body Shops (independent of dealerships). .--6-- Service industries which provide a service to uses listed in Section A., above. Uses Permitted Subject to Granting of a CUP by the Planning Commission 1. Car wash. 2. Service station. 3. Motorcycle sales. -7- I ? &~ SECTION VII. SITE PLAN REVIEW Design Review by the City of Tustin is required prior to submitting plans and specifications for plan check and building permit processing. This review shall be conducted by the Co,-.~.unity Development Department in accordance with policies of the City of Tustin. Approvals shall remain valid for a period of 18 months. Decisions by the Community Development Department shall be final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within seven days of the Community Development Department's decision. The Applicant shall submit six (6) sets of site plans and elevations to the Community Development Department that include the following information as applicable: 1. North Arrow. 2. Title Block: e 6. 7. 8. a. Scale of Map; b. Name and Address of Applicant; c. Date of preparation. Ail boundary lines on the subject property fully dimen- sioned and'tied in with the centerline of adjacent or nearby streets. The name, location and width of any adjacent public or private streets. Widths should include any required street widening. The name, location and width of any water courses, structures, irrigation ditches, and any other permanent physical features of the land. The width and location of all existing or proposed public or private easements. Ail proposed improvements properly dimensioned. Ail parking spaces and aisles drawn and dimensioned with the flow of traffic noted by arrows and calculations of the required number of parking spaces. -9- 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The location and width of all vehicular and pedestrian access openings into and out of the property. Ail proposed walls and fences, including height and material, and all proposed exterior lighting~ Ail proposed landscaping in as much detail as possible. The zoning and existing land use of the subject property and properties contiguous to its boundaries. Location of nearest walls and structures and adjacent properties, the use therein, and adjoining driveways. A brief description of the intended use of the property, hours of operation, number of employees, and other general characteristics that would apply to the proposal. Indicate all existing fire hydrants and water main sizes. 16. Indicate building size, typo of construction, and building elevation. 17. Indicate all existing street lights, utility poles, trees and signs within the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. The Director of Community Development shall respond to s6b- mittal of the above-listed information within thirty (30) days. Such response may constitute approval, approval with conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, or disapproval of Applicant's site plan. If no action is taken within the allotted time, the site plan shall be deemed approved, unless the time limit is waived by the Applicant. -10- SECTION VIII. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Buildin~ Setbacks 1. 'No structure of any kind, and no part thereof, shall .be placed on any site closer to a property line than 'herein provided. The following structures and improvements are.specifically excluded from these setback provisions: a. Roof overhang. b. Steps and walks. c. Paving and associated curbing in relation to the landscape area, except that customer parking areas shall not be within 10 feet of the street property lines. d. Fences, except that no fence shall be placed within the street setback area for service or storage buildings. e. Landscaping. f. %Signs and displays identifying the owner, lessee or occupant. g. Lighting. 2. No setback is required from interior property lines. 3. Setback from street property lines: Sales or display buildings shall be set back a minimum of 10' from the interior loop road and a minimum of 60' from the entrance streets. Roof overhangs may not project nearer than 5' to the property line. Service and storage buildings shall be set back a minimum of 60' from the front property lines and a minimum of 65' from the rear property lines. However, a service or storage building may be built at the rear property line provided -11- that it does not exceed the height and length described in Section VIII.F., paragraphs 2 and 3 of this document, subject to Planning Commission approval. B. Building Heights 1. Buildings shall be a maximum of 30' in height to top of ridge line. 2. Automobile display and signage shall not be allowed on top of any building. Automobile storage'in the second level of a building shall be allowed only if fully screened from view, including the line of sight from the second story of any structures which may be built across Jamboree and Laguna Roads. Parking Each auto dealer shall provide a minimum of eleven (11) offstreet parking spaces per net buildable acre which shall be reserved for employee parking only. In the event that employee parking is provided in a common parking lot, each dealer shall provide separate parking space on his/her premises for any demonstrator automobiles which are driven by a company employee. If employee parking is provided in a common facility shared by several merchants, a recorded document shall be filed with the Building and Planning Departments and shall be signed by the Owner of the common site, stipulating to the permanent reserva- tion of use of the site for employee parking purposes. e Each automobile dealer shall provide a minimum of six onsite parking spaces reserved exclusively for customers' use. Additional customer parking shall be allowed at curbside where appropriately striped. 5. Onsite handicapped parking shall be provided as required by the governing agencies. -12- D. Landscape Every site on which a building is placed shall be landscaped according to plans approved as specified herein and maintained thereafter in a sightly and well-kept condition pursuant to the standards agreed upon by the Auto Center Merchants' Association. Such maintenance shall include regular irrigation, fertilization, cultivation and tree pruning. The property owner, lessee or occupant shall land- scape a 5' strip immediately behind the property line adjacent to any interior street of the Auto Center for the entire length of street frontage, excepting walkways and driveway areas. The Auto Center Merchants' Association shall maintain this landscape in compliance with the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of this Auto Center. ® The property owner, lessee or occupant shall provide irrigation and maintenance facilities for the land- scaped areas, and shall keep said facilities in good working order at all times. 5. 6. 7. Landscaping shall be installed within thirty (30) days of occupancy or completion of the building, whichever comes first. Site landscaping shall be compatible with the land- scape master plan which has been developed as a guide to coordinate the species of plant materials, thus providing continuity of landscape within the Center. The project developer shall provide a continuous landscape buffer between the Auto Center and Jamboree and Laguna Roads. Additionally, land- scaping shall be provided in the median of Jamboree Road. Undeveloped areas reserved for future expansion, such as the freeway interchange or any parcel not promptly built out, shall be maintained in a weed- free condition but need not be landscaped. -13- Liqhting 1. Offsite and street lighting will be provided by the project's developer. 2. All exterior lighting shall comply with the pro- ject's Planned Lighting Criteria, as set forth in the Project Design Criteria on file with the City of Tustin. 3. Lighting plans shall be submitted showing the design layout and exact fixture mounting and wattage pro- posed by each auto dealer. 4. Areas of display shall be lighted by sharp cutoff fixtures equal to Elsco Manufacturing Co.'s Auto King VI to direct lighting downward only. 5. "Front row" lighting standards adjacent to the Auto Center interior roads shall not exceed 20' in height and shall have no more than three fixtures per standard at a minimum of 40' on center. The interior of the display area may be illuminated by fixtures no closer than 60' to the front line of display lights. These fixtures shall be on standards no higher than 20', shall be spaced no closer than 60' on center, and shall have no more than four fixtures per pole. 6. Average wattage for the entire display area shall not exceed 1.5 watts/square foot. Display areas within 125' of Jamboree Road or Laguna Road shall not exceed 1 watt per square foot. 7. Service and storage parking areas shall be lighted by standards no higher than 24' which shall contain no more than two fixtures of the above described specification per pole. Average wattage for the entire storage area shall not exceed 0.2 watts per square foot. 8. Creative lighting design and reinforcement of lighting intensity to provide varying degrees of light intensity for merchandising and highlighting purposes are encouraged as long as the overall average wattage is. not exceeded. -14- e 10. Spot fixtures shall be directed downward only, except at spot display locations along the project's perimeter walls. Strings of incandescent fixtures shall not be allowed in any exterior area. F. Walls and Fences All service, storage and trash areas shall be screened from view from any street by a wall. Land- scape screening alone shall not be deemed suffi- cient. Walls constructed on the perimeter of the Auto Center shall be in keeping with the project's Design Criteria. These walls shall be no less than 8' and no greater than 10' in height, with the exception that the wall height may be increased to 14' in order to accommodate a building backed against the property line. This increase in height shall be permitted for not more than 50 percent of the property. The property owner shall provide addi- tional landscaping to minimize the visual impact of this wall height on adjacent streets. If a building is constructed as permitted in the above paragraph, no sloping roofs shall be used on such a structure, and any drainage shall be away from the wall into the site. No facias, gutters, or other roof edge treatments shall be visible above the 14' height of the wall. Offsets in the perimeter walls are encouraged when adjacent to a 14' high structure. Such offsets shall be compatible with the project's design criteria. G. Sound Attenuation All body repair work and all compressor work shall be performed in an enclosed area only. Access doors to such enclosures shall face away from Jamboree Road. 2. Auto dealers adjacent to Jamboree Road may not open service bay doors toward Jamboree Road. 0 e Auto dealers adjacent to Laguna Road may not open service bay doors toward Laguna Road unless the doors are no higher than the perimeter wall which screens them from Laguna Road. Air compressor exhaust stacks shall contain a muffling device. Exterior loudspeakers shall be directed away from the perimeter streets which surround the Auto Center and shall be mounted no higher than 12' above the immediate finished grade. Air conditioning units may not be mounted on top of any building which is less than 65' from a rear property line. Signage Signs shall be allowed subject to the provisions of the Tustin Auto Center Sign Criteria, as approved by the City of Tustin Planning Commission. Project developer shall supply signage adjacent to tSe freeway and at both entrances to the project announcing the Auto Center location. Additionally, the developer shall supply freeway directional travel signs at the nearest freeway offramps. 3. Roof-mounted signs shall not be allowed. 4. Billboard signage shall not be allowed. Storage and Loading Areas 1. No materials, supplies or equipment, including firm- owned or operated trucks, shall be stored in any area on a site except inside a closed building or behind a visual barrier or service area which screens the equipment from view of all public streets. The singular exception shall be any vehicles which are a part of the merchant's customer display. Neither the loading dock nor the offloading opera- tions for automotive parts and other supplies shall be visible from any public streets. -16- Refuse Collection Areas Ail outdoor refuse ¢ollec~ionareas shall be visually screened from access s=ree~s, freeway, and adjacen~ proper~y by an opaque screen. Planning Commission DATE: SUB,]ECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ,JANUARY 14, 1985 TEIEAT[YE PARCEL P. RP 84-1032 THE IR¥IIIE COI~ANY AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREE#AY, PROPOSED dAHBOREE ROAD, PROPOSED LAGUNA ROAD AND A LINE 192 FEET t~ST OF ~IE El. RODENA PLANNED COld,UNITY COld~ERCTAL ERYXRONPlENTAL STATUS: AN EN¥IRONHENTAL ~PACT REPORT HAS BEEN SUBHITTED TO COPIPLY IJITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIROI~NTAL qUALITY ACT (EIR 84-2) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSS[ON: Public hearings have been advertised for a General Plan Amendment 84-la, Zone Change 85-1, and a draft environmental impact report for this area under consideration. If those changes are recommended for approval to City Council it would be appropriate to consider this parcel map. The Irvine ~ompany has submitted this subdivision as a parcel map rather than a tentative tract map because under the Subdivision Map Act, industrial and commercial acreage, regardless of the number of parcels, may be subdivided by a parcel map. In residential subdivisions, more than parcels must be subdivided by a tentative and final tract map. The proposed map of 55.94 acres consists of 12 numbered parcels for the auto dealerships and 4 lettered parcels for public utilities and landscape maintenance districts. All conditions of approval with other concerns are listed in attached Exhibit RECOII~ENDED ACTION: Recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 84-2032 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution Ilo. 2207. Associate Planner MAC:do . enc.: Exhibit "A" Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1032 Resolution No. 2207 dom munity Development Department '1 1 2 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 25 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2207 A RESOLUTION OF NE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~rlE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-1032 LOCATED IN AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, PROPOSED JAMBOREE ROAD, PROPOSED LAGUNA ROAD AND A LINE [92 FEET WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL The Planntng Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and deter~tnes as follows: A. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1032 was submitted to the Planning Commission pursuant to Ordinance No. 847 by The Irvine Company for the purpose of creating 16 lots from a portion of Lots 22, 23, 26 and 27 of Block 44 of Irvtne's Subdivision per a map filed in Book 1, ~age 88 of Miscellaneous record maps, Orange County, California. B. That said map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. C. An Environmental Impact Report (84-2) has been submitted to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1032 subject to the conditions attached hereto in Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198__. RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary EXHIBIT "A" TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-1032 The following items shall be added to and/or amended on the parcel map: l'. Even though the dedication for Laguna Road between Browning Avenue and Jamboree Road will be made by separate instrument, the blue border of this. parcel map should be revised to include the curb return right-of-way requirement. This will demonstrate the intent of the street* extension to those not aware of the dedication by separate instrument. The Tentative Parcel Map shows a turn-out along the interior street adjacent to Parcel 4. If there is no specifi~ need, the area should be returned to Parcel 4. All flood protection berms, either, within' the parcel map boundary or outside of -the boundary, should be shown within an easement for same to provide for protection of the proposed development until such time improvements to the E1Modena-Irvine Channel and its related facilities are improved to accommodate a 100 year design storm as defined by F.E.M.A. and the Orange County E.M.A. Flood Control Agency. These berms include the proposed berm extending westerly to Browning Avenue both adjacent to and southerly of Bryan Avenue. These easements should be in the title of the Property Owners Association of the proposed development, and a condition in the CC & R's for maintenance responsibilities. The water main in Jamboree Road has been extended both easterly and westerly to the blue border of the parcel map. Further extension may be required depending upon the limits of street improvements at that intersection related to tapers/transitions/realignments. Additionally, the water main should be extended/stubbed northerly to provide for the future extension'of Jamboree Road north. The water system should have at least two sources of feed for fire protection reasons. The second source could be tied to the City of Tustin system via a closed valve and-connected through the street system of the proposed residential development until such time a loop feed can be provided by I.R.W.D. An easement across the future interchange area in favor of I.R.W.D. should be shown for the domestic water main feed southerly of Lot 8. 6. I.R.W.D. requires a minimum 10 inch size main in commercial tract areas. Those mains in Laguna Road and portions of Auto Center Drive'should be delineated as a minimum size of 10-inches or larger as required. 7. Both the lift stations (sewer and storm drain) should be located outside of future street right-of-way so as to preclude potential relocation cost and service inconvenience. Cornmuni~y Development Department Exhibit "A" page two .L e All interior streets of the development are delineated as Auto Center Drive. This street layout will require a minimum of four (4) separate names to eliminate confusion under the city's current policy of addressing. New street names do not require assignment 'until the final map stage. In the interim, to eliminate confusion, the streets should be labeled A, B, C, etc. A letter from I.R.W.D. dated 12-11-84 indicates the potential for directing the 6" sewer force main southerly to I.R.W.D. facilities in lieu of westerly to County Sanitation District Facilities. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1032 is subject to: CO#DITIOMS OF ~PROVAL 1. Preparation and submittal of a final grading plan delineating the following information: Final street elevations at key locations. Final pad elevations, one foot above the base. flood elevation of 81.0 as defined by F.E.M.A., and interim grading swales. Location'and elevations of all flood protection berms related to Parcel Map 84-1032. All flood hazard areas of record. Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion co.ntr61 plan for all on-sito and off-site construction work related to Parcel Map No. 84-1032. 3. Provision for maintenance and ownership of the flood protection berms, and associated landscaping to be the' responsibility of the "Property Owners AssOciation', and enforced by CC&R's. 4. Provision for irrevocable easements for the required term of all flood protection berms in favor of the "Property Owners Association". CC&R provision for landscape maintenance of Lots A, B, C and D, and areas within public right-of-way between the backedge of sidewalk and the property line to be the responsibility of the "Property Owners Association". Annexation of land within this development and related off-sita access areas into an appropriate street lighting district to provide for ongoing maintenance and energy costs of said system. Preparation of plans for and construction of full public improvements for all streets within the boundaries of said parcel map. Additionally, Laguna Road between Jamboree Road and Browning Avenue and the intersection of Jamboree Road at B~an Avenue inclusive of widening along Bryan Avenue to accommodate protected left turn movements to Jamboree Road shall be fully "Improved. These improvements shall include all improvements as designated by the City Engineer which may include but are not limited to the following: Commun~¥ Developmem Depa~ment Exhibit "A" page three g; 10. ge Curb and gutter/cross gutters Sidewalk Drive aprons Street paving Street signing and striping Landscaping/facilities with proper irrigation (including median islands) Sanitary sewer service facilities Domestic water service facilities Gas, electric, telephone and cable television facilities Traffic signal facilities Street light standards all Placement of all above ground facilities such as signing, street lights and fire hydrants behind the sidewalk, on all streets on-site and off-site, when said sidewalks are constructed adjacent to the curb and less than minimum city standard widths. Dedication of all required right-of-way for Laguna Road between Browning Avenue and JamboreA Roa¢ and Bryan Avenue at the intersection of Ja~oree Road, and Laguna Road between the east auto center boundary and Myford Road. Execution of an irrevocable offer of dedication of all required right-of-way a~jacent to said map for the construction of the future Jamboree Road interchange, Preparation of plans and construction of all sewer facilities as required by the City Engineer~ These facilities shall include a gravity flow system per standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District, primary lift station and standby facilities with alternate emergency power .source- constructed 1.0 feet above the flood hazard elevation of 81.0, and a force main connected to Orange County Sanitation. District No. 7 facilities located in the vicinity of Browning Avenue and Laguna Road or to I.R.W.D. facilities at Walnut Avenue and Jamboree Road. Dedication of easements for all off-site sewer facilities located outside of public rights-of-way. Preparation of a hydrology and hydraulic study of the tributary area i~acting the proposed development. Preparation of plans and construction of all storm drain facilities as required by the City Engineer. These facilities shall include a gravity flow system per city standards, primary lift station and standby facilities with alternate emergency power source constructed 1.0 feet above the flood hazard 'elevation of 81.0 and a source main to the existing E1Modena-Irvine Drainage Channei. .~Oedtcatton of easements for all off-site drainage facilities located outside of public rights-of-way. Communily Developmeni Depanmeni Exhibit "A" page four 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Preparation of plans and construction of domestic water system to the standards as set forth by the Irvtne Ranch Water District subject to approval of the City Engineer. Provision for a secondary feed source to the developments system for' fire protection reasons and uninterrupted supply. Dedication of easements for all off-site water facilities outside of public rights-of-way. Cash/surety deposit for the reconstruction of Jamboree Road and Laguna Road at locations adjacent to temporary flood protection berming to return roadway interim profiles to long term grades when berms are no longer required for flood protection purposes. Cash/surety deposit in an amount determined by the City Engineer for future traffic signal installations at the following intersections: Laguna/Jamboree Rd. -°755 of cost Bryan Arr./Jamboree Rd. - 33% of cost Dedication of .vehicular access rights to Jamboree Road and Laguna 'Road adjacent to Parcels 1~ 2, 3, 4, and g. Reservation of adequate right-of-way for future Santa Ana Freeway widening, Jamboree Road interchange, and Eastern Corridor connector/transition roads. Payment o.f all required Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees that may be required as a result of the interim connection to the District 7 facilities at the time the initial building permit is issued. Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: CEQA STATUS: REQUEST: JANUARY 14, 1985 USE PERHIT 85-1 RICHAEL LEPORE FOR LEONARD CONSTRUCTION 15461 REDHILL AVENUE, SUITE tE THSTIN, CA 92680 14460 NEWPORT AVENUE CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT (CLASS 11) TO INSTALL A POLE-TYPE, TENANT IDENTIFICATION DIRECTORY SIGN ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NEWPORT AND WALNOT AVENUES BACKGROUND On November 28, 1984 the Planntng Commission revtewed and approved the site plan and elevations of the shopping center recently completed at 14460 Newport Avenue. The original submittal only Indicated typical wall signs, and free standing Identification was not included. Section 9494 of the Ct ty Code pertaining to slgnage provides that, subject to a conditional Use Permtt, a tenant identification directory sign may be authorized when the following crtterta are present: 1. Only one (1) such sign per center is permitted. 2. Maximum sign area must not exceed 50 square feet and is restricted to six (6) square feet per tenant, and center identification must be incorporated within the sign area. 3. The sign shall not exceed the height of the building on site. 4. Such signing shall be authorized in lieu of all other freestanding signs on the site. With construction of the new structure, the existing "Little Kings" restaurant was incorporated into the shopping center. This restaurant currently has a pole sign identifying the business. DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing to install, on the northeast corner of Newport and Walnut Avenues, a tenant directory pole sign that meets the ~iteTta requ~rqd by Section 9494 of the Sign Code. However, there are severa) o~ner issues tna~ should be addressed: Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT USE PERMIT 85-1 PAGE ll~O SecOnd pole sign on the site: The installation of the proposed sign would be the second pole sign on the site. To comply with the sign ordinance, the existing "Little Kings" pole sign must be removed. Uniformity of color: To provide compatibility with the wall signs installed on the face of the building, the backgrounds on any freestanding sign panels should be white. The appropriateness of a pole sign at this location: When the proximity of the buildings to major arterial highways and the high visibility of the center are considered, staff questioned the appropriateness of a pole sign. It would appear that a properly placed monument sign would be adequate to alert on-coming traffic of the center's location. With the use of a monument the area of tenant identification panels would not need to be reduced. However, the height of a monument sign is restricted to six (6) feet above grade. It should also be noted that a monument sign of this type would require removal of the existing Little ~ings pole sign. In lieu of the proposed pole sign, staff would encourage the use of a monument. However, if the Commission determines that the proposed pole sign is appropriate, then staff would recommend the following conditions be imposed: a. The backgrounds of the sign panels shall be white, matching the background of signs currently installed on the structure located at 14460 Newport Avenue. b. The pole cover shall be treated with a rex-coat material to match the type and color used on the structure at 14460 Newport Avenue. c. That the existing "Little Kings" pole sign must be removed prior to issuance of sign permits authorizing the proposed sign. RECO~E#DED ACTXO#: It is recommended that Use Permit 85-1 be denied on the grounds that a pole sign is not appropriate for the subject location when considering the proximity of the structure to major arterial highways. It is further recommended that a monument sign (tenant directory type) be approved by the Commission subject to review of the elevations at the next meeting. Assistant Planner JD:lg Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: JANUARY 14, 1985 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-1033 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On December lO, 1984 the Planning Commission considered Tentative Parcel Map 84-1033. At that time, the Commission voted to continue this item to the next meeting in order for staff to research the request by the applicant of retaining the single sewer lateral for both parcels. A memo from the City Engineer is attached to this report which explains City policy regarding sewers to individual lots. If the owner wishes to deviate from this City standard {Res. 2202 II.B) then a request should be mede in writing to the City Council. REC01IqENDEDACTION: Recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 84-1033 to the City Council by the adoption of R~solution No. 2202, substantially as drafted. MAC:do enc.: Resolution 2202 Report of 12/10/84 Memo from City Engineer Exhibit A of Reso. 81-4, Pages 1,8 Corn rnunity Development Department TO: FROM: SUBJECT: .COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A1-FN: MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CII~ ENGINEER TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1033 Attached, are copies of selected sheets from City of Tustin Minimum Design Standards for public works improvements. These standards were adopted by City Council Resolution No. 81-4. As indicated in Section 7.9 on page 8, two or more lots Or parcels connected to one lateral will not be permitted. It was previously indicated that any deviation from this standard will require City Council approval. Any such request for deviation of this city standard should originate in writing from the requesting party. - j ob~ob~LeLedendecker C~ Director of Public Works/City Engineer I)L:jr Attachment ,,-' Resolutfon ~o. ~'1-4- .. ..... tbt~' "A" CITY OFTUsT!N,"CALIFORNIA MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS. ..... · IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED ~- WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY -'- ...... OR IMPROVEMENTS TO BE' --' I.tAINTAINEI)'WITH PUBLIC FUNDS L ~GN STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS. AND STREET iMprOVEMENTS_ -- . erein is to be performed and All improve, men~ work requlr.ed h ex ense unless noted__~., e at his P . by the developer_ - -:-~ ~- the strict accu_ __~ materials furn~she =~ .~,~rmed and £urn~=..~_?''_ _= ~ State o: o'therw£sa an.a.sh.a.ll ~ ~ ........ ~ ~ ~atest e==~o~ ~ soor~ation Agency, .Dept. of.Transportation -STANDARD with the app£LcaDle portions o= ~,- - . . Tran us~in STREET iM~ ROVEMENT Bus=ness a_nd , . the City of T . . _:-~--,,~ a~ ~n standards: SPECIF~CA.',~Iu~. -:~ ~he following suppxem=~&~ - STANDARDS an= w~ ~, --- · INDEX S~JECT - SECTION NO. ' :~~ters,'=ro~s gutters & ' _: ........ 1. CurDs ~ .9~ _,~ ..... l~s & drive aprons - spandrels, ~ .... .. · street sections, design widths, ........... 2. cul_de_sacs_--a ..... ~-- · . · in=, traffic control street ~ame s~.gn _; ................ --- ~, 3. signs, signal~za=~ ~ . -~F .... Stree~ lighting--~-.-. ~ ---- Par~ay tree. planting-- -~ ' ' ' ~ ~ · $~=a~ sewer ..... Domestic. water system .......... .- ' ............ ' ' 2- .~ - .... Survey monuments ...................... .Street Improvement Standards ........... 7.6 7.7 (c) For flows over 6 CFS, pipe dia~='~ers shall be basa~ upon 125 per cent of the calculated runoff with a minimum design for 9 CFS. For large deve. lopments or when required, .design calculations shall be submitted for approval of the Clty Engineer. The following head losses 'shall be used: {a) Match soffits @ pipe junctions. (b) Angle' points in sewer main 0.10'. (c) Straight 'through manholes 0.00 ' .. Manhole~ shall be spaced and located as follows: (a) Maximum of 350' on centar for 8" & 10" diameter mains. (b) Maximum of 500' on center for 12" to 18" diameter mains. (c) Maximum of 650' on center for .21" diameter & over mains. At all changes of grade. Ak ~11 changes of direction. (f) At alii'changes:Of pipe size. .(g) A~'junctton~ of ~eWers.- (h) At.'termination 0£~ sewer mains The use of 'curved alignment sewers will not be permitted axcep~ in unusual.circumstances where approved by the City '9~-~p- ~,rcei in - development. ¢onnec?l°n oz, ~arcels to one lateral will no= De pe~ -' ~dards No. 118, 119, 120, 1~1, I~rovement St SECTION 8. DOMESTIC WATER SYSTE~. 8.1 I~ate.~__mat~{s..Shall-be' i~{~t~ll~.d-%o.-gi;o~tde domestic wate~ serviCe'and f~e p~O~i~tton"'to all lots tn a'~ag_~._all - new daveloomen . -8- Planning Commission DATE: SUBdECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZON ! #G: EN¥ TRONHENTAL STATUS: DECEHBER 10, 1984 TENTATIVE PARCEL Iq~P 84-1033 R. B. ENGINEERZNG ON BEHALF OF KTNG COOPER 2911 AND 2961 DO¥ AVENUE PLANNED COI~UliITY INDUSTRIAL THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT FROg THE REQUIREHENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CLASS 1S BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSTON: The subject map of 4.933 acres has been submitted to subdivide one parcel tnto mo (2) parcels. Proposed parcels one (1) and ~o (2) are fully developed with industrial buildings. Parcel I - 84 spaces required, 139 provided _ -Parcel II - 85 spaces required, 101 provided Both parcels comply with the zoning regulations and are in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: Recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel ~lap No. 84-1033 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2202. M/~RY /~R CHAMBERLAIN Associate Planner MAC:lg attachment: Resolution No. 2202 Corn munity Development Department TENTATIVE PAR .CF.L MAP NO. 84-1033 CITY (=ir 7US~#, C.~tJNTY (~' C~qA~,~. MIO4M..L W MOTt,leaI~AO, L.I. 4228 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2202 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-1033 LOCATED AT 2911 AND 2961 DOW AVENUE The Planning Commission. of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A® That Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1033 was submitted to the Planning Commission pursuant to Ordinance No. 847 by R. B. Engineering on behalf of King Cooper for the purpose of creating two lots from one lot known as 2911 and 2961 Dow Avenue. B. That said map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. C. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1033 subject to the following conditions: Construction and/or replacement of all missing or damaged public improvements will be required and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Driveways 2. Domestic water services 3. Fire services 4. Sidewalks 5. Sanitary sewer laterals B. Separate sanitary sewer services, domestic water service and any required fire service shall be provided to each parcel. C. Reciprocal access agreement which should be shown on the map. D. The proposed property line at the northerly end of the parcels shall be made into a planter area rather than a parking space. '1 2 3 4 5 6~ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution 2202 Page two PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on .the~ day of RONALD H. WHITE, Chairmen DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: JANUARY 14, 1985 APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR YORBA STREET FROM FIRST STREET TO IRYINE BOULEYARD. DZSCUSSTON: The City Council at its meeting on December 18, 1984 directed the Planning Commission to review the appropriateness of property zoning along Yorba Street between First Street and Irvtne Boulevard. :-Specifically, Yorba Street is dominated by residential dwellings but several have been converted to office useage. Councilman Edgar, in particular, was of the opinion that Yorba Street is becoming more commercially driented due to its higher traffic volumes which no longer make it an appropriate street for single family residential. Attached to this transmittal is the official zoning map of Yorba Street indicating a variety of zones including R-l, R-3, £-4, CG PUD and the PR zone. While this subject will not i~act the current request submitted by Mr. Brown to build a single family dwelling, Council does seek Planning Commission opinion concerning the long term land use designation and appropriate zoning for this area. Staff suggests the Planning Commission upon providing its preliminary opinions direct staff to thoroughly research the subject and report back with the necessary information and demographics to formulate a recommendation to Council. DOI~LD O. ~ Oirector of Community Development OOL:do attachment: zoning map · Community DeVelopment Department PC COMM. 'PC I 1:1-3 I R'I ( I :E, STOCK C2 R1 17300 pr Pr R1 CG PUD R1 SECONC) ST STREET ZONING S'DJDY FIRST STREET TO IRVINE BLVD, Planning Commission January 14, 1985 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTZONS - danuary 7, 1985 Oral presentation 'co be given by Donald D. L~mm, Dtrector of Community Development do A~'cachments: City Council Action Agenda - Oanuar'y 7, 1985 ~. Corn munity Development Department ~'~ 7:02 ALL PRESENT A~IOll AGE~)A OF A REGtJLAR ~IN6 ~ ~ ~IN CITY COUNCIL January 7', lg85 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION II. ROLL CALL III. AOOF'IT]) R~SOLtrrzog 86-2 PUBLIC HEARINGS l. RESOLUTION NO. 85-2 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City Of Tustin, California, MAKING APPLICATION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY KNOWN AS MEDFORD-GROVESIT[ ANNEXATION NO. 105 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN Pleasure of the City Counctl. NONE IV. PUBLIC INPUT SLIDE V. PRESENTATION PRESENTATIO# GIVEN BY 1. NARRATED SLIDE SHOW PRESENTATION ON JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT BY PHILIP EVELYN HART, ~R MAYOR OF R. MAURER, MAYOR OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWlq)RT BEACtl VI. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVEO 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 18, 1984 APPRO¥1~) APPROVED STAFF RECOI~IEROATIOR APPROVED STAFF RECGRREROATIOR ADOPTED ~UTIOR NO. 85-3 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $2,295,059.81 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $112,519.72 3. PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR REHABILITATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES (NCO) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute subject contract as recon~ended by the Con~nunity Development Department. 4. PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES iMPROVEMENTS, HOUSING & COFI4UNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 (HCO} Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute subject contract as recommended b~ the Community Development Department. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 85-3 - A Resolution of the Ctty Council of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT ANO AUTHORIZING RECOROATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (F.Y.'83-'84 SIDEWALK ANO CURB REPAIR PROGRAM) Adoption of Resolution No. 85-3 and authorize payment of the flnal 10% retention of $5,943.92 thirty days after the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion if no liens or stop payment notices have been filed as recommended by the Engineering Department. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 1 1-7-85 Al)OPTED I~.~)LUTIO# ~. 6. 85-4 APPEOVED STAFF 7. RECOWI~i)ATION APPROVED STAFF 8. RECOW~)IDATZOM ADOPTED RESOLUTION ~. 9. 85-1 RESOLUTION N~. 85-4 - A Resolution' of the City Council of' the City of Tustin STATING IN~NTIONS TO RETAIN AND ENFORCE EXISTING ACCESS RESTRICTIONS ON SYCAMORE AVENUE BETWEEN PASADENA AVENUE AND NEWPORT AVENUE Adoption of Resolution NO. 85-4 as recommended by the Engi- neering Department. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT - NEWPORT AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCON- NECT/MODIFICATION PROOECT Authorize the Mayor to execute Agreement NO. $271-841 for subject project as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - SAN DIEGO CREEK/UPPER NEWPORT BAY WATER- SHED Authorize the Mayor to execute the first amendment to subject agreement subject to the final approval of the City Attor- ney's office as recommended by the Director of Public Works/ City Engineer. RESOLUTION NO. 85-1 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION AND AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 13,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 1372 IRVINE BLVD. Adoption of Resolution No. 85-1 as approved by the City Coun- cil. VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 925 1. IX. X. APPROVED STAFF RECO)~ENI)ATION APPROVED STAFF RECI)I~tEI~AT1011 ORDINANCE NO. 925 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, REZONING FROM P.C. INDUSTRIAL TO P.C. INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS FOR THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS ].5901, 15941, 15991 REDHILL AVENUE M. O. - That Ordinance No. 925 have second reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 925 be passed and adopted. {Roll Call Vote) OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 1. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LORETTA DRIVE AND ROSALIND DRIVE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT IMPROVEMENTS Award the contract for the subject project to Forster Con- struction of Fullerton, CA in the amount of $46,07¢.15 as recommended by the Engineering Department. REPLACEMENT OF ROLLER Authorize the purchase of a Case W121 roller with trailer from d. I. Case of City of Industry for $11,270.96 as recom- mended by the Engineering Department. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 2 1-7-85 APPROVED STAFF RECOI~DATIOII XI. APPROVED STAFF RECOI~IEROATION REPORTS SALE OF SALVAGE Accept the sale of unusable Water Division salvage in the amount of $2,$92.50 as recommended by the Engtneerfng Depart- ment. REQUEST FOR BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Authorize the Pacific Bell Telephone project to proceed since Specific Plan ~7 has yet to be completed, and, further direct staff to accept a surety bond in an amount necessary to cover estimated assessment district fees for regional circulation improvements as recommended by the Con~nunity Development Department. RECEIVED MID FItrn 2. APPOINTMENT OF NEW SENIOR PLANNER Receive and file. RECEIVED AND F%I.EI) 3. STATUS REPORT CONCERNING 545 "B" ST., WALT FREDRIKSEN, OWNER Receive and file. AUTHORIZED 011 6 MONTHS 4. ORAL REPORT ON WATER WORKS BONDS BASIS, TRANSFER OF FUROS FROM THE IIATER OPERJ~TION FURO TO THE DEBT SURCHARGE FUll} CITY MANAGER XII. OTHER BUSINESS ~ESTEI) A ~OSED ~ION Fa ~NNEL ~ ~ ~l~ ~ISITION OF ~PER~ FOLLOWING THE REETING. KENNEDY ASI~Fn THAT TUSTIN BUSINESSES BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BID WHEN TIlE CITY IS PURCHASI NIl ITERS. G~EINKE ASKED THAT A REPORT BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL 0N HOld MUCH IT WOULD COST TO REFURBISH THE OLD CITY ~ SIGNS SO THAT THEY COULD BE ~ AT OTHER ERTHANCE$ TO THE CITY. 8:17 XIII. AOJOURNMENT- Recess to the Redevelopment Agency, thence to a Closed Session for personnel matters and perhaps acquisition of property, and thence adjourn to the next regular meeting on January 21, 1985, at 7:00 pm. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 3 1-7-85 ACTION' AGENI)A ~ A ~GULAR ~"rI~ ~ ~ TI/STIN REDEVELOP~ICNT AG~NCY ~anua~ 7, l~ 7:~ P.~. 8:17 1. CALL TO ORDER ,M.L ~. PRESENT APPROVED 3. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES of December 18, 1984 AOOPT~ 4. DRAFT POLICY REPORT CONCERNING TAX INCREMENT REVENUE RESTRICTED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Receive and fi 1 e. AGENCY 5. OTHER BUSINESS IIAS IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING PI~. FERGUSON'S PROPOSAL FOR 17432 AND 17442 HITCH"II ON THE CONDITION THAT APPROVAL BE OBTAINEO FOR SECTION 8 HOUSIN& (~RTIFICATE HOLDERS ANO THAT IT IS ~ ASIDE FOR ll4E LIFE OF THE A&ENCY. STAFF TO HAVE PROPOSEO AI~MENT FOR RATIFICATION AT THE JANUARY 8:33 6. ADJOURNMENT - Recessed to the City Council meeting and thence adjourned to the next regular meeting on January 21, lgSB, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page 1 1-7-85