Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 07-15-85ACTION AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNZNG CO)~qISSION R£GUL~ MEETING JULY 8, 1985 REPORTS NO. 1 7-15-85 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission June 10, 1985 and June 24, 1985. 2. Resolution No. 2254, Denying off-site liquor sales at 13891 Red Hill. 3.' Resolution No. 2253, Denying sign variance at 13891 Red Hill. Well moved, Puckett second to approve t~ 2 and 3. Motion carried 4-0. Well moved, Puckett second to approve item I with two changes. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicant: Location: Request: USE PERMIT 85-16 Lincoln Properties 14851 to 14921 Newport Avenue. Authorization to develop 160 multi-family residential rental units built to condominium specifications. Also to reduce the number of guest spaces from .25 per unit to .1 per unit. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. John Withers, project manager, described the project and history of property; focused on the Newport Avenue extension and impact on project. Weil moved, McCarthy second to approved staff recommendation to deny without prejudice and asked that the Redevelopment Agency prepare a specific Newport Avenue alignment to resolve the potential right-of-way. Motion carried 3-1, White opposed. Puckett moved, Well second to suggest the Redevelopment Agency come up with the realignment within 60 days. The Commission preferred alignment alternatives 2 and 3. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda July 8, [985 page two ADMINISTRATIVE MAI'rERS Old Business 5. Master Development Plan for Tustln Auto Center Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner After extensive Commission, citizen and developer discussion Wetl moved, White second to approve staff's recommendation to approve the Master Development Plan as contained on page two and four of Report to Planning Commission dated July 8, 1985 with the exception of not to allow loudspeakers until such time as further 'refinement' tnthe placement is brought before the Commission. Motion carried 3-1, Puckett opposed. McCarthy moved, White second that palm trees not be the theme tree of the auto center. Motion failed 2-2, McCarthy/White in favor, Puckett/Wetl opposed. New Business 6. Resolution Designating a Specific Date for Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission, Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Chairman White moved, Wetl second to approve Resolution No. 2255. 4-0. Motion carried STAFF CONCERNS 7. Review of City Council action July 1, 1985 Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COI~ISSIDM CONCERNS Commissioner Well expressed requested staff investigate naming Jamboree Road something different to eliminate confusion with the road in Irvine. Chairman White requested staff schedule a presentation on the alignment of the Eastern Transportation Corridor. ADJOURNMENT Chairman White adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR ~ETI NG JULY 8, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes-from Planning Commission June 10, 1985 and June 24, 1985. 2. Resolution No. 2254, Denying off-site liquor sales at 13891 Red Hill. 3. Resolution No. 2253, Denying sign variance at 13891 Red Hill. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. USE PERMIT 85-16 Applicant: Location: Request: Lincoln Properties 14851 to 14921 Newport Avenue. Authorization to develop 160 multi-family residential rental units built to condominium specifications. Also to reduce the number of guest spaces from .25 per unit to .1 per unit. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Planning Commission Agenda July 8, 1985 page two ADMINISTRATIVE MAl~ERS Old Business 5. Master Development Plan for Tustin Auto Center Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner New Business 6. Resolution Designating a Specific Date for Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner STAFF CONCERNS 7. Review of City Council action July 1, 1985 Presentation: COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission. 6 7 8 9 lOi 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2254 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA DENYING AN OFF-SITE BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR 13891 RED HILL AVENUE.' ~ the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a proper application (Use Permit 85-10) was filed by Mr. Dick Myers on behalf of Shell Oil to authorize, as part of Use Permit 85-10, an off-site beer and wine license. B, That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held concerning Use Permit 85-10. C. That the Planning Commission denied authorization for an off-site beer and wine license based upon the following findings: The location of the subject property is in a 1/2 mile radius of eleven (11) other establishments which sell alcoholic beverages. 0 The location of the subject property is along a major route to Tustin High School and located within 200 feet from a church. II. The Planning Commission does hereby deny authorization for an off-site beer and wine license for the subject property by adoption of Resolution No. 2254. 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 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2253 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA DENYING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 85-4 ON 13891 RED HILL AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a proper application (Variance No. 85-4) has been filed by Mr. Dick Meyers on behalf of Shell Oil Corporation to authorize a variance on the number and aggregate area of signs allowed by Sign Ordinance No. 684. Be That a public hearing was duly called and noticed concerning Variance No. 85-4. Ce That Variance No. 85-4 was denied based upon the following findings: 1. That no exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property exist. e That the strict application of Sign Ordinance No, 684 would not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity. That, if authorized, Variance No. 85-4 would grant special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. II, The Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 85-4 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2253. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on the day of 1985. RONALD H. WHITE Chairman )ONNA ORR ~ecording Secretary MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR I~EETI NG JUNE 10, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 7:36 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett PRESENTATIONS Resolution commending Commissioner James Sharp. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting May 13, 1985 Chairman White pulled this item from the Consent Calendar for corrections. 2. Resolution No. 2229, Carver Development 3. Resolution No. 2230, Green Valley Puckett moved, Well second to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. USE PERMIT 85-11 Applicant: E.W. Rosenberg on behalf of Red Hill Lutheran Church Location: 13200 Redhill Avenue Request: Authorization to install a monument reader sign of 40 square feet Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 7:43 p.m. Well moved, Puckett second to approve Use Permit 85-11 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2237 with the addition of Condition of Approval No. 3 that the existing sign must be removed. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: USE PERMIT 85-12 John Haretakes on behalf of Spires Restaurants, Inc. 13451 Newport Avenue in Larwin Square Shopping Center Authorization to obtain a beer and wine {on-site) license. Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 7:46 p.m. Well moved, McCarthy second to approve Use Permit 85-12 by the adoption of Resolution 2243. Motion carried 4-0. 6. USE PERMIT 85-13 Applicant: Location: Request: Mobil Oil Corporation 13872 Redhill Avenue at Laguna Road Authorization to install a mini market area. in an existing sales Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. George Hillyard, project applicant, expressed his opposition to the 10 foot dedication required by the engineering department. Frank Greinke, 1011Laguna Road, supported this project and the applicant's request to waive the 10' dedication. Harry Ericson, enginneer for Mobil Oil, stated their current lease has ten years left and they normally renew their leases for 10 or 20 years. Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve Use Permit 85-13 by adoption of Resolution No'. 2228 and forward to the City Council. Motion carried 3-1, Well opposed. 7. A. ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-6 Applicant: Location: Request: City of Tustin 12821 Newport Avenue To change the zoning designation from (R-3) Multiple Family Residential to the {P&I) Public and Institutional District. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Chairman Whited opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 8:03 p.m. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone Change No. 85-6 by adoption of Resolution 2231. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985 page three PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED B. ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-7 Applicant: Location: Request: City of Tustin Northeasterly corner of Preble Street and Main Street To change the zoning designation from (R-3) Multiple Family Residential to the {CG) Commercial General District. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 8:04 p.m. Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve Zone Change 85-7 by adoption of Resolution 2232. Motion carried 4-0. C. ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-8 Applicant: Location: Request: City of Tustin 15352 William Street known as Tustin Village Mobile Home Park To change the zoning designation from (R-4) Suburban Residential to (MHP) Mobile Home Park Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone change No. 85-8 by approving Resolution No. 2233. Motion carried 4-0. D. ZONE CHANGE 85-9 Applicant: Location: Request: City of Tustin Properties located at the southerly terminus of Carfax Avenue, westerly of School Lane. To change the zoning designation from Industrial and Planned Industrial to the (P&I) Public and Institutional District Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Chairman White opened the hearing at 8:05 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone Change 85-9 by approving Resolution 2234. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985 page four E. ZONE CHANGE 85-10 Applicant: Location: Request: City of Tustin 12931 and 1201 Irvine Boulevard To change the zoning designation from {R-l) Residential to Public and Institutional District Single Family Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 8:06 p.m. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone Change 85-10 by approving Resolution 2235. Motion carried 4-0. F. ZONE CHANGE 85-11 Applicant: Location: Request: City of Tustin Properties located on the south side of Nisson Road between Redhill Avenue and Browning Avenue for the Trail Way Park To change the zoning designation from {R-2) Duplex Residential to (MHP) Mobile Home Park District. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 8:07 p.m. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone Change 85-11 by approving Resolution 2236. Motion carried 4-0. 8. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY/PHASE I RESIDENTIAL Draft EIR 84-3 General Plan Amendment 84-4 Zone Change 85-4 Applicant: Location: Request: Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company An area bounded by the I-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road. To amend the General Plan Land Use designation and property zoning to permit development of a Planned Residential Community consisting of single-family detached, attached and apartment dwelling units adjoining a public park. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Commissioner McCarthy questioned the zero lot line versus the 5' side set back on each house. With the easement given to the adjoining property owner, can the adjoining property owner build a brick patio or anything else on it. Staff responded that the easement is for surface use only which include landscape purposes and non-permanent structures which would not require a permit. They could surface it with some material that would not violate their CC&Rs. McCarthy further questioned if flood insurance would be required because this is a flood plain area. Staff responded they believe when the project is in place and adequate flood control · protection is provided homeowners would not be required by their lenders to have flood control insurance. However, The Irvine Company could better address this. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985 page five Brad Olson, The Irvine Company, explained that after the public testimony at the last meeting they reviewed what had been proposed and what adjustment in the plan could be done to address the public concerns. Referring to the statistical summary, page three of the May 13, 1985 staff report, he proposed some adjustments to the maximum density per gross acre category for each of the three density classifications shown: Medium/Low density {33 gross acres, orginal request 10 units per gross acre) they propose to reduce that maximum density to 8 units per gross acre which would delete 66 detached dwellings; 21% reduction in density for the single-family detached area or the medium low density area. Medium density area (14 units per gross acre) they proposed a reduction of 1 unit per gross acre from 14 to 13. This reduces the total dwelling units from 294 to 2?3; 21 units a 7% reduction. Apartment area across the street from the auto center {22 units per gross acre) they propose a reduction to 19 units per gross acre bringing total unit count from 594 to 513 or a 14% reduction. The combined total change from the original proposal is a decrease of 168 units approximately 13.8% overall reduction and a decrease in the overall density. He continued to address the development standards with respect to future use permits. He further addressed parking. He referred to the parking study they performed. Their commitment is to park their projects within the boundaries; it is their belief that the parking ratios offered will work based on past experience. They have included a variation in the parking standards for assigned units. With some flexibility with one permanent and one flexible it solves the problem and spreads the parking. Finally, the zero lot line type of development is a good idea. It provides for flexibility and variation in street scene. They would happy to incorporate it. The environmental concerns have been dealt adequately. Flood control and circulation long term improvements are incorporated in the assessment district petition on file with the city. The interim improvements will be provided whether as part of the auto center or residential. They have no interest in creating a project with houses that flood. Also, the circulation improvements planned will provide relief from the congestion. With respect to schools, The Company has initiated a facility financing study. It is their hope that this study will identify how existing closed facilities can be brought back on line and identify future funding sources. They intend to work cooperatively with the district and to find a way to accommodate the students generated from this project. They agree that the request from the District is not within the city's power to compel or the Company's power to deliver but it does not get in their way to work with the District and to accommodate the students added to the area. Clayton Parker, of Parker and Covert representing the Tustin Unified School District, referred to letters previously filed with the city on this project. Addressed his comments solely to the impact on the schools in TUSD and how to assure there will be schools to serve children generated by this project. McCarthy expressed his pleasure with the new densities proposed but still had concerns with parking and thought park acreage should be greater in higher density areas; namely the apartment area. Further Commission discussion ensued concerning park allocation for private parks and recreatin areas in townhome and condominium areas. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985 page six In response to Commission questions, staff explained the Planning Commission would have the authority to determine if the park location and configuration is appropriate; the equipment within the park has to meet a certain minimum level to qualify for parkland dedication creditation outlined in the parkland dedication ordinance. Ultimately acceptance of a park credit, private or public, is up to the City Council upon Commission recommendation. The Council makes the final decision as to the dollar creditation. White questioned how many total units are being proposed. Olson: 1050. Puckett asked for clarification on the planned community zoning regulations, Section 4 Item C " whenver the regulations contained herein conflict with the regulations ~f the city of Tustin zoning code the regulations of the East Tustin Phase I residential planned community district shall take precedence". Staff explained East Tustin is being processed via a planned community process. The statement referred to is somewhat of a generic one so that if by chance during the authorship of this document, which was somewhat of a joint effort between the Company and city, a particular development standard was missed then we are to use the city's zoning code. But, if the standards are listed in both the city code and the East Tustin Phase I document, the regulations take precedence. Well proposed that anything more than a two bedroom house require an 18' driveway, sufficient for an extra car. A three bedroom house has a very good chance of having a third family car. Her goal is to provide facilities so that family cars can be kept off the street. Staff explained that the present city zoning code which applies to multiple family requires %wo covered assigned spaces per unit regardless of the number of bedrooms and one guest space which is unassigned and open for every four units. This equates to 2.25 spaces per unit. That applies in all multiple family zones. The Irvine Company proposal is more related to the size of the unit versus a flat standard. The number of spaces is related to the bachelor, one and two bedroom. The bachelor and one bedroom are less than our current standards. They originally sought one space covered and assigned for the bachelor and 1.50 of which one would be covered for the one bedroom. This is less than our original code. We have submitted a compromise proposal; its in the original staff report on page 7. In essence, the parking standards are less than what we presently have in effect for bachelors and one bedroom condominiums and townhomes; less for apartments up to two bedrooms; three bedrooms are the same as our code. Staff further clarified that our present code requires a double car garage per single family home regardless of the size. It also requires a 20' set-back which equates to a 20' driveway. In apartments we presently require the two spaces per unit covered assigned and 1/4 space for every unit. The same ratio for multiple family. Brad Olson interjected that there are several ways to address parking. First, the width of the street to accommodate cars parked on the street. It is not effective to not park on the street with what it costs to build the street. Another alternative is through CC&Rs you can impose a requirement that folks who have two cars must keep those cars in the garage. Often the garage gets used for storage and the driveway for parking. He further commented that with densities of 8 per acre with 18' to 20' set backs what you basically do is trade a driveway for a backyard. Everything is forced back into living area. It becomes a trade off. They are trying to maximize the living area left on the lot. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985 page seven Staff explained that in the event there is no conditional use permit process the Commission would have the design review process for final site plans for placement of the homes, the driveway lengths, the street widths, typical elevations of each of the homes, exterior wall designs along perimeter arterial roads and the landscape set back treatment along interior and exterior streets, and the park plan. It would be "non-discretionary". The Commission would only have the authority to change it within tolerable limits to meet the intent of the code. Commission discussion ensued concerning flooding and the E1Modena channel capacity. The city's position is that since The Irvine Company will pay $36,000,000 to improve the channel from Browning and Bryan to I-5 it is the Orange County Flood Control District's responsibility to improve the channel upstream. Further discussion ensued concerning the school district concerns. The city is in the business of land use control not education, but are cognizant of the district's needs and trying to work with them. There has not been total cooperation between the city and district at this point. Don Lamm asked publicly that the district, city and Irvine Company get together on this issue to try to resolve it. There is no statutory law for the city to impose fees on the Irvine Company. Weil moved to adopt Resolution 2223 recommending approval of the Draft EIR 83-3 subject to the mitigation measures, Puckett second. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved approval of General Plan Amendment 84-4 by adopting Resolution 2224, Weil second. Motion carried 4-0. McCarthy moved approval of Zone Change 85-4 to allow the counter proposal on the density by The Irvine Company of 8 units for medium low, 13 for medium density and 19 for medium high density. Well seconded for discussion. Commission discussion ensued concerning parking standards and the possibility of considering them separate from the zone change. Well continued with one minor change to the PC regs, under B.3.(f) (animals prohibited from the properties) would like to include poultry be prohibited. Olson stated that The Irvine Company is agreeable to two covered parking spaces for the multi family for sale two bedroom units. Further Commission discussion ensued concerning parking for four bedroom units. White restated the motion again. Moved and seconded that the zone change be approved with the new unit limit; with the parking ratio as amended for 2.0 covered and addition of a 4 bedroom unit; and, prohibiting poultry. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985 page eight 9. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12345 Applicant: Location: Request: Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company An area bounded by the I-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road. To subdivide approximately 107 acres of land providing for development of specific land uses pursuant to the Phase I Planned Community zoning regulations. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Chairman White opened the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Brad Olson, The 1trine Company, referred to the June loth staff report. He questioned item 6, existing condition 20, proposed language" reservation or dedication as determined by the city engineer of adequate right-of-way for future Interstate 5 .... " The Company proposed ".. · reservation for future acquisition of adequate right-of-way " Dedication implies a gift. He thought how the acquisition of the right-of-way takes place is between The Company and Caltrans. Clayton Parker, TUSD, expressed the same concerns as with the Phase I. They do not think the map should be recorded until the district certifies that adequate school facilities are available or the developer has provided mitigation as requested by the school district in its letter addressed to the city dated March 21, 1985. Carol Taylor, 13532 Farmington, asked Mr. Parker when Utt school would be reopened. Mr. Parker responded that one of the requests of mitigation is to open Utt school. The District does not have the funds to reopen. Staff addressed Mr. Olson's concern with item 6. Reservation means Caltrans pays for the land; dedication means they do not have to. We worded the condition so the City Engineer had the option in working with Caltrans. Seeing no one further wish to speak, Chairman White closed the hearing at 10:10 p.m. White moved approval of Tentative Map 12345, Puckett second. McCarthy amended that no grading or berming in the Phase I area be allowed until the E1 Modena Channel is complete. Well seconded the amendment. Well moved to amend item 6 to read "reservation". McCarthy second. Discussion ensued concerning increased flooding potential during construction of the auto center and the Company request that the berm improvement be at the discretion of the City Engineer. Well withdrew her second to the motion. White moved, Puckett second to approve Tentative Map 12345 with the density reflecting that in the Planned Community Zone Regulations, Puckett second. Motion carried 4-0. First amendment: Well moved, Puckett second to require a storm drain phasing plan shall be processed through the City Engineer and approved by him to show that the construction of this project shall not in any way make the flooding situation worse before it gets better on Browning Avenue. Motion carried 3-1. Second amendment: amend condition 19 to delete the word "dedication" and replace it with "reservation". Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985 page nine 10. VARIANCE 85-3 Applicant: Location: Request: James Needham on behalf of Basic Shelter, Inc. 510 S. "C" Street Authorization to vary from the requirements for the width of the lot and the size of garages in the multi-family residential (R-3) zone Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 10:35 p.m. James Needham, applicant, made himself available for questions. White closed the hearing at 10:38 p.m. Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve Variance 85-3 by approving Resolution 2242. Motion carried 4-0. 11. YORBA STREET STUDY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 ZONE CHANGE 85-5 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 9 Applicant: Location: Request: City of Tustin Certain properties located on Yorba Street between First Street and Irvine Boulevard. To amend the General Plan designations, zoning designations and to create a specific plan establishing development guidelines Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 10:46 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 10:46 p.m. Weil moved, Puckett second to approve General Plan Amendment No. 85-1. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone Change 85-5. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Specific Plan No. 9. Motion carried 4-0. 12. SOUTH/CENTRAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DEIR AND PROJECT PLAN Review and consideration of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-1) for the proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project. The subject properties are located in the territory bounded by Edinger, Redhill Avenue, Valencia, and the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway. Copies of the Draft EIR are available for inspection at the Community Development Department in Tustin City Hall and the Tustin Branch of the Orange County Library. Presentation: Dr. R. Kenneth Fleagle, Consultant Chairman White opened the public hearing at 11:00 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 11:00 p.m. Well moved, McCarthy second to approve by adopting Resolution 2241. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Well second to authorize by Minute Order a response to the City of Santa Ana. Planning Commission Minutes June lO, 1985 page ten ADMINIS~FP. ATIVE MAI-~ERS Old Business 13. Final Parcel Map No. 84-1032 Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Well moved, Puckett second to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried 4-0. New Business 14. La Mancha Master Sign Plan Revision Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Well moved, McCarthy second to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried 4-0. 15. Vacation of Moulton Parkway Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner and Dale Wick, Assistant City Engineer Well moved, McCarthy second to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried 4-0. 16. Extension of Use Permit 84-11, Union Oil Co., 17280 E. 17th Street Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Well moved, McCarthy second to approve staff recommendation. STAFF CONCERNS 17. 4-0. Review of City Council action May 20, 1985 and June 3, 1985 Presentation: COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Adjourned at 11:35 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission. RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGU~R MEETING JUNE 24, 1985 CALL l~) ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. 2. 3. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting May 13, 1985 and June 10, 1985 Resolution No. 2225, Phase I Residential Zoning Resolution No. 2226, Tentative Tract 12345 Chair Pro Tem Well pulled the minutes of June lOth from Item 1 for revision. Well moved, Puckett second approval of the May 13, 1985 minutes and Items 2 and 3. carried 3-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO USE PERMIT 84-24 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Motion Chase Sanderson, Jr. Area bounded by Franklin Avenue on the east, Walnut Avenue on the north and future Jamboree on the west. Authorization to amend the approved site plan for building four (4} and review the elevations for buildings 4 and 5. Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, she closed the hearing at 7:40 p.m. Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve Amendment No. 1 to Use Permit 84-24 by the adoption of Resolution 2253. Motion carried 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1985 page two Applicant: Location: Request: USE PERMIT 85-14 Mark Cernich 730 E1Camino Real Authorization to construct a three story 15,300 square foot office building Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chair Pro Tem Weil opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak she closed the hearing at 7:45 p.m. McCarthy moved, Puckett second to approve Use Permit 85-14 by adoption of Resolution 2252. Motion carried 3-0. 6. USE PERMIT 85-15 Applicant: Location: Request: The Paragon Group 15991 Red Hill Avenue Authorization for Waite Hall Services to occupy 2,262 square feet of office use in the building. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak she closed the hearing at 7:50 p.m. Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve staff's recommendation on Use Permit 85-15 by the adoption of Resolution 2248. Motion carried 3-0. 7. USE PERMIT 85-10 AND VARIANCE 85-4 Applicant: Location: Request: Shell Oil Company 13891 Red Hill Avenue USE PERMIT 85-10 a. Conversion and extension of one lube bay to a car wash b. Conversion of an existing 361 square foot sales area to a mini market. c. Off-site sales of beer and wine. d. Addition of a 6' x 12' storage area VARIANCE 85-4 Authorization for a variance from Sign Ordinance Ho. 684 to allow: a. Placement of signs which advertise specific products. b. An increase in square footage beyond that of the maximum allowable sign area as stated in Section 9493 of Sign Ordinance No. 684. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Lucy Strait, Parents Who Care, voiced their opposition to off-site sales of beer and wine. Dale Lewis, Shell Oil Company, spoke in favor of project and expressed their need for a sign displaying the new services offered. He further expressed their concern with the 10' dedication and the negative impact upon their business. He did not feel the off-site sale of beer and wine would impact the community. Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 1985 page three Seeing no one further wishing to speak Chair Weil closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. McCarthy moved, Puckett second to approve Use Permit 85-10 by the adoption of Resolution 2246; deny off-site sales of beer and wine; deny Variance 85-4. Motion carried 3-0. 8. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-196 Applicant: Location: Request: Santa Fe Land Improvement Company Northeasterly corner of Valencia and Del Amo Avenues. Authorization to split one lot into two lots Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak she closed the hearing at 8:10 p.m. Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve staff's recommendation on Tentative Parcel Map 85-196 by the adoption of Resolution 2249. Motion carried 3-0. 9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-197 Applicant: Location: Request: Santa Fe Land Improvement Company 1361 Valencia Avenue at Mosher Avenue Authorization to split one lot into two lots Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak she closed the hearing at 8:13 p.m. McCarthy moved, Puckett. second to approve staff's recommendation on Tentative Parcel Map 85-197 by the adoption of Resolution 2250. Motion carried 3-0. 10. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-212 Applicant: Location: Request: Birtcher Campbell Properties Northwesterly corner of Red Hill Avenue and Bell Avenue Authorization to parcel two lots into three lots Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Robert Sundstrom, representing applicant, expressed concern with the condition of approval regarding the Eastern Transportation Corridor fee. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Well closed the hearing at 8:18 p.m. Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve Tentative Parcel Map 85-212 by the adoption of Resolution 2247 and to amend condition No. 6 to read: Eastern/Foothill Transportation Corridor fee may be assessed against both parcels. If the building permit is issued prior to the Joint Powers Agreement being executed by the city, then that particular parcel will be exempt. Motion carried 3-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda June 24, 1985 page four ADMINISTP, ATIYE MAI-rERS Old Business None. New Business 11. Master Development Plan/Tustin Auto Center Presentation: Edward M. Knight, Senior Planner Puckett moved, McCarthy second to continue this item to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 3-0. STAFF CONCERNS 12. Review of City Council action June 17, 1985. Presentation: Edward M. Knight, Senior Planner Mr. Knight introduced Alden Baker, the newly appointed Planning Commissioner. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commission discussion ensued concerning staff's follow up with illegal signs. Commissioner Puckett asked for clarification on obscene/adult video rental regulations. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn at 8:35 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission. RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Report to the Planning Commission DATE: 4ULY 8, 1985 SUB4ECT: USE PERMIT 85-16 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: ITEM NO. 4 LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY 16152 BEACH BLVD., HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 14851 TO 14921 NEWPORT/VACANT PARCEL AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF NEWPORT AVENUE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PO) DISTRICT. AUTHORIZATION TO DEVELOP A 160 UNIT APARTHENT COMPLEX AND VARY FROM PARKING STANDARDS OF THE PD ZONE. BACKGROUND: Resulting from several actions by the Planning Agency and subsequently the Planning Commission, three separate projects on the subject site have been approved. In February 1981 a 208 unit condominium project was approved; in September 1~83 a scaled down, 161 unit condominium project was authorized; and finally in March 1984 a 156 unit condominium complex was approved. To date, none of the three projects have been constructed. During review of each previously approved project, the issue concerning extension of Newport Avenue through to Edinger was considered. The goal of the city had been to extend Newport utilizing an at grade approach. Since alternative road plans were not available, nor were financing mechanisms, projects were approved with the understanding that at some date the Newport extension may impact the development. Circumstances surrounding the extension issue have however changed. Based in part on a January 1985 study compiled by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. and on the fact that the Public Utilities Commission will not permit an at grade crossing, three possible alternatives for the Newport extension have been formalized. Additionally, a proposed amendment to the South/Central Plan is scheduled before the Council on July 15, 1985. Therefore, the likelihood of the Newport extension project being constructed in the near future has been increased. Accordingly, it is essential that any new development on the subject property be reviewed considering the impacts of the extension. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Lincoln Property page two DISCUSSION: Use Permit 85-16 The applicant, Lincoln Property Company, has submitted a development, proposing a 160 unit apartment complex. In an attempt to construct the highest quality project, and to provide maximum flexibility as market conditions dictate, the proposal includes developing the project to condominium standards. With the exception of a few minor alterations necessary on the site plan, staff under other circumstances would recommend approval of the project. Unfortunately however, remaining unresolved issue is the precise alignment of the Newport Avenue extension. Extension of Newport Avenue The attached exhibits display the three alternatives formulated by Austin-Foust Associates for extending Newport Avenue. Each alternative would have a definite impact on the proposed project. Alternative No. 1, calling for an overcrossing to Edtnger~ would completely preclude the subject project from being developed. While less of an impact, Alternatives 2 and 3 would also significantly impact the project. In staff's estimation, the project as designed would lose approximately 60 units and 100 parking spaces.. Additionally, on-site circulation would be impacted. ANALYSIS: With the constraints presented by the extension of Newport Avenue and the uncertainties surrounding precise alignment of that extension, staff cannot at this time recommend approval of Use Permit 85-16. To approve the project as submitted would be inconsistent with the South/Central Redevelopment Plan, as well as other adopted traffic circulation documents as they relate to the City's overall transportation system. It should be clearly stated that the staff's recommendation is based upon the Newport Avenue issues and not a reflection of the proposed project. In fact, without the impacts of the extension, the project as proposed Would be a positive addition to the area and would be supported by staff. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Lincoln Property page three R£COF~ENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Commission deny, without prejudice, Use Permit Application 85-16. Denial in this manner permits the applicant to re-apply once a specific alignment is designed by city engineering and approved by Council. Staff further recommends the Commission request the Redevelopment Agency cause the preparation of a specific Newport Avenue alignment to resolve the potential right-of-way question. Associate Planner JD:do attach: Newport Avenue Extension Plans (Alternatives'l, 2, & 3) Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: ,]ULY 8, 1985 SUBJECT: PASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN / TUSTIN AUTO CENTER APPLICANT: THE IRYINE COHPANY REQUEST: THE DEVELOPHENT OF A PASTER DEVELOPHENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE gITH SECTION II! B OF THE PLANNED COI~4UN]TY REGULATIONS FOR THE TUST[N AUTO CENTER. BACKGROUND: As a part of the Auto Center public heartn9 process, a condition was added to the Planned Community Regulations that required The [rvlne Company to submit a Master Development Plan. The plan would incorporate certain elements of the Auto Center design and regulation, and would be adopted by resolution by the Planning Commission. The Irvine Company has been working on these development standards for several months, with the following submitted for review and approval from the Commission. DISCUSSION: The Master Development Plan is divided into five separate sections, covering: project design criteria; landscape master plan and design criteria; planned sign program; loudspeaker criteria; and Planned Community Regulations. The project design criteria is the most encompassing of the five sections, covering architectural guidelines, materials, walls and fences, exterior lighting, setbacks, and other miscellaneous topics. The main thrust behind the architectural guidelines is to provide the dealers with design concepts and details that will help them in developing a high quality architectural design. The guidelines develop a common architectural style that is meant to provide enough flexible to encourage creativity, but maintain a consistent style in which buildings compliment each other. As stated in a staff report to the Commission for the June 24th meeting, there is a dealership in for design review that apparently does not meet the intent of the design criteria. The Irvine Company has submitted a letter to staff that the dealership has been reviewed and approved by the Company, but does not comply with the proposed design criteria. The Company feels that due to the exceptional quality and proportion of the design, the dealership will create a strong point of interest and primary entrance to the Auto Center. Community Developmen~ Department Planning Commission Report Auto Center page ~o The Company proposes to add an exception clause to the design criteria that will permit designs that deviate from the standards if they, "express unique or exceptional qualities of design or demonstrates quality of detailing and upgrading of construction beyond that normally found in automobile dealerships." Essentially, the design criteria would serve as a minimum standard of design, with exceptions considered for buildings that significantly exceed that standard. At no time has either the City or the Company felt that the proposed dealership was a substandard design. Staff feels that the design is of excellent quality and would be a definite asset to the community. The contention has been between the design and the Company's criteria. Since the Company has already approved the design in spite of its own criteria, this leaves the City in the position of enforcing the design criteria through a redesign of the dealership. This would not be productive since it causes more of a hardship to the dealer, who is attempting to accomplish the many layers of approval before construction can begin. Additionally,. under any other circumstances the city would not consider turning down a design of this quality. Instead of causing needless delay to the dealer, staff' recommends that the exception clause be accepted and added to the design criteria. The primary reason for this recommendation is that exceptions will only be considered if they exceed the design criteria standards. Since the design standards propose a level of architecture acceptable to staff, then the 'exception clause provides dealers with a vehicle to propose designs that go significantly beyond this initial standard'. The primary intent of staff is not to cause needless delay, but encourage a high quality development where dealerships compliment each other. The proposed sign program details the selection and size of all signs located within the Auto Center complex. Auto Center identification signs on the major arterials and the I-5 freeway will be handled at a later date. The sign program is fairly straightforward, but staff does recommend the following changes. Under Section B, Street Identification Signs: that the number of streetfront signs be limited to two per dealership, regardless of the size of the lot, and that the size of these street front signs be limited to ninety (90) square feet per face. Staff further recommends that the following comments be placed with the planned sign program: Except for the sign regulations contained within this sign program, all remaining regulations contained within the Tusttn Sign Ordinance are applicable and valid. Each business is 'required to obtain a sign permit for ny sign proposed for the dealership. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Auto Center page three One of the main concerns of the adjacent propertyowners was the use of loudspeakers by the dealers. The city of Tustln does have a ~oise Ordinance adopted in [980 which dealers must conform with, but the Commission felt that specific performance standards were needed for the auto center complex. The noise crtterta section of the Master Development Plan contatns a proposed set of noise standards based on a noise analysis done for the McLean Cadtllac paging system. McLean Cadillac encompasses lots one (1) and two (2) and is the closest lot ~o proposed residential unfts across Jamboree Road. Due to its size and proximity to proposed residential units, it is considered to have the greatest impact. The data from the noise study shows that the impact at the nearest existing dwelling units along Browning Avenue will be 35 db(A), without any development in the Phase I area. (The term db{A) incorporates the pressure magnitude of a sound-db, with an attenuation of the frequency - response characteristics that approximate the frequency sensitivity of the human hearing system - A. The A-weighting network "slows" the response to the sound leval .meter, representing what would happen when sound strikes the human eardrum.) The chart included in the noise criteria shows A-weighted levels for sources with which most people are familiar. An impact of 35 db(A) is equal to library or quiet 'rural nighttime. According to the noise consultant, this noise impact of 35 db(A) would not be perceivable at Browning Avenue. Further, this level did not consider any development in the Phase I area, that will additionally lower the impact caused by the auto center to the Browning AvenUe area. The impact to the proposed residential units along Jamboree Road will be in the vicinity of 60 db(A), or the equivalent of conversation at three {3) feet. This figure did not take into account any sound attenuation walls along Jamboree Road which is a requirement to mitigate noise levels caused by the traffic on Jamboree Road. The 60 db(A) level meets the standard of the Noise Ordinance, and the inclusion of sound attenuation walls will exceed the standard. Without the sound attenuation walls and the background noise levels caused by Jamboree Road and the 1-5 freeway, the 60 db{A) level would be perceivable to the dwelling units along Jamboree Road. Taking these data into consideration, sound system standards were.developed. The use of loudspeakers will be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The use of a multiple zone system is required rather than a single area system. All loudspeakers must be directed to the interior of the lot. Maximum sound levels for the auto center loudspeaker system will be: 35 db(A) at Browning Avenue 55 db(A) to the outside of the soundwall along Jamboree Road,and 65 db{A) to any adjacent commercial' use outside of the auto center. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Auto Center page four Additionally, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, sound readings will be taken by an experienced acoustical engineer to ensure compliance. Further, the volume adjustment must be locked off to preclude any arbitrary increase in volume. These regulations represent only the key standards, others are included under the sound system standards located in the Master Development Plan. Staff feels that these provisions are sufficient, but recommends the following additions or changes: 1. Standard number three (3): Change the word "may" to "shall" The word "may" is normally considered permissive, while "shall" is mandatory. Dealers should periodically check the system for compliance with this established criteria. Dealers that violate the standards established for the auto center may be subject to enforcement in accordance with the city's municipal code. RECOI~ENDEO ACTION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Master Development Plan' with amendments, and direct staff, to prepare a resolution of approval. · KNIGHT, '- )/ - Senior Planner EK:do Community Development Department July 2, 1985 Mr. Ed Knight Senior Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA RE: McLean Cadillac Tustin Auto Center Dear Ed: As you have observed, the building which the McLean brothers are proposing to construct in the Tustin Auto Center does not comply with some elements of the project's Master Development Plan. The Irvine Company has approved the proposed design, however, for the following reasons and with the following stipulations: 1. The showroom building shows potential for an architectural statements of exceptional quality and preportion. The Irvine Company Believes it will create a strong point of interest at a primary entrance to the Auto Center. 2, The dealers recognize that the quality suggested by the sketch will depend heavily on precise execution of details, and have agreed to bring the drawings back to our architectural review board several times during design development to assure us that th~s detailing is being pursued and fully achieved. 3. We have advised the McLeans that the building which they have proposed will be more costly to build than they might experience if they chose a building more representative of our criteria. We have further advised them that our approval of the proposal is contingent their agreement not to pursue cost-saving construction methods which would compromise the architectural quality of this building. They have concurred with this stipulation. 4. The McLeans understand that we are concerned that their building function as an integral part of the Auto Center, rather than appearing 550 Newport Center Drive, BO. Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 · (714) 720-2000 Mr. Ed Knight City of Tustin July 2, 1985 Page Two independent from the rest of the project. This integration will be achieved through the use of building materials which are common throughout the project and which are suggested by the project's material sample board. We anticipate that in the near future we will be receiving more fully deatiled drawings from the McLeans, which we will review closely for compliance with the concerns expressed above. Thank you for your time and help in considering this issue. Sincerely, Bonnie Holmes Development Manager Retail Division cc: Mike McLean Bruce McLean Rick Coleman Steve Ross Bill Ficker Dan Mispagel ITEM NO. 6 Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: JULY 8, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A SPECIFIC DATE FOR ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: When the ordinance (No. 874) creating the Planning Commission was approved by the City Council, no provision was given dictating when the annual appointment of the Chairman and Vice Chairman would take place. Traditionally, the Commission has tied the July 1st appointment time with the reorganization of the Commission. In order to clarify the reorganization date for the Commission, they directed staff to prepare a resolution setting the second meeting in July as the official reorganization time for the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Adopted as a resolution, this would represent official Planning Commission policy and could only be altered by a vote of the majority of the Commissioners. RECOI~qENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 2255, setting the second meeting in July as the official time for the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman for the Commission. Senior Planner EK:do Community Development Department 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2255 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DESIGNATING SECOND MEETING IN JULY FOR ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: That The Chairman of the Planning Commission shall be elected by a simple majority vote of those members of the Commission who are present at the second meeting during the month of July of each year, such election to first take place at the second meeting in July, 1985. II. That the Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission shall be elected by a simple majority vote of those members of the Commission who are present at the second meeting during the month of July of each year, such election to first take place at the second meeting in July, 1985. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1985. RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning Commission July 8, 1985 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS -Ju]y 1, 1985 Oral presentation to be gtven by Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development do Attachments: City Counct1 Action Agenda - July 1, 1985 Community Development Department ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR t~EETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL July 1, 1985 7:00 P.M. 7:00 ALL PRESENT I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS $4,177.98 PRESENTED TO COPES PROCLAMATION PRESENTED PROCLAMATION PRESENTED 1. EL CAMINO REAL CHAMPIONSHIP CHILI COOK-OFF PRESENTATION 2. NATIONAL "SAFEGUARD AND IMPROVE YOUR ENVIRONMENT" DAY 3. HONORING JEFFREY KOLIN, RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS ADPOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-48 AND APPROVED STAFF RECOI~4ENDATION RESOLUTION NO. 85-48 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 155 MAIN STREET (AP # 401-585-01) CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND HEREBY ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF SAID NUISANCE Adoption of Resolution No. 85-48, ordering in~ediate termination of the illegal business and removal of all material storage from the property, and authorization to file a misdemeanor complaint against the business and property owner as deemed appropriate by the City Attorney, should compliance not be obtained by August 1, 1985 as recommended by the Director of Community Development. ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 936 2. ORDINANCE NO. 936 - An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES ON FIRST STREET WESTERLY OF NEWPORT AVENUE M. O. - That Ordinance No. 936 have first reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 936 be introduced. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 936 have second reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 936 be passed and adopted. (Roll Call Vote) ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 937 3. ORDINANCE NO. 937 - An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH PROPOSALS OF A SPECIFIC PLAN M. O. - That Ordinance No. 937 have first reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 937 be introduced. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 937 have second reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 937 be passed and adopted. (Roll Call Vote) CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE I 7-1-85 CONTINUED TO JULY 15TH 4. APPEAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 85-13 - MOBIL OIL STATION AT 13872 RED HILL AVENUE AT LAGUNA ROAD Pleasure of the City Council. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 5. A. 85-65 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1 RESOLUTION NO. 85-65 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON YORBA STREET BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND IRVINE BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO Adoption of Resolution No. 85-65 as recommended by the Community Development Department. INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 934 B. ZONE CHANGE 85-5 ORDINANCE NO. 934 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 85-5 REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED ON YORBA STREET BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND IRVINE BLVD. AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO M. O. - That Ordinance No. 934 have first reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 934 be introduced. Ce INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 935 AND STAFF TO COME BACK WITH REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF II~EDIATE WIDENING OF YORBA AND THE CONCEPT OF UNDERGROUNOING OF UTILITIES AND STAFF TO HAVE DIALOG WITH PROPERTY OWNERS REGARDING DEDICATION OF RIGHT- OF-WAY AND MINIMIZING DEVELOPMENT COST SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 9 ORDINANCE NO. 935 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 9 REGULATING DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON YORBA STREET BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND IRVINE BLVD. AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO M. O. - That Ordinance No. 935 have first reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 935 be introduced. 6. CONSIDERATION OF EAST TUSTIN PHASE NO. I RESIDENTIAL ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-66 A. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 84-3 RESOLUTION NO. 85-66 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, CERTIFYING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 84-3 AND AMENDMENTS, AS FINAL EIR 84-3 Adoption of Resolution No. 85-66 as recommended by the Community Development Department. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-67 Be GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-4 RESOLUTION NO. 85-67 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, BRYAN AVENUE, BROWNING AVENUE, AND PROPOSED JAMBOREE ROAD, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" Adoption of Resolution No. 85-67 as recommended by the Community Development Department. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 2 7-1-85 INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 938 CONTINUED TO JULY 15 7. APPROVED STAFF 8. RECOMMENDATION ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-4 ORDINANCE NO. 938 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, REZONING AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, BRYAN AVENUE, BROWNING AVENUE, AND THE PROPOSED JAMBOREE ROAD, FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/RESIDENTIAL AND PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" AND INCLUDING THE INCORPORATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY REGULATIONS KNOWN AS THE EAST TUSTIN PHASE I RESIDENTIAL M. O. - That Ordinance No. 938 have first reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 938 be introduced. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12345 Recommended that Council open and continue the Public Hearing to Council's next regularly scheduled meeting on July 15, 1985 as recommended by the Community Development Department. LAFAYETTE PLAZA - DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Approve the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency and LaFayette Partners as recommended by the City Manager/Executive Director. NONE V. PUBLIC INPUT ,~PPROVED APPROVED APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-69 APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 17, 1985 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $1,734,049.89 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $127,339.18 3. REJECTION OF CLAIM OF CRAIG & DEBORAH PHILLIPS; DATE OF LOSS: 2-27-85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 5/28/85; CLAIM NO.: 85-31 Rejection of subject claim as recommended by the City Attor- ney. EAST TUSTIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 85-1 - APPROVAL OF WILLDAN ASSOCIATES AS THE ASSESSMENT ENGINEER Approve Willdan Associates as the Assessment Engineer for the East Tustin Assessment District No. 85-1, and authorize the Mayor to execute the subject Professional Services Agreement as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. RESOLUTION NO. 85-69 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, DESIGNATING PERSONS TO PERFORM VARIOUS DUTIES FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS Adoption of Resolution No. 85-69 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 6. ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND RELEASE OF BONDS - TRACT NO. 12018 (SW corner of Holt Ave. and Warren Ave.) Accept the public improvements within Tract No. 12018 and authorize the release of all pertinent bonds as indicated in the staff report dated June 19, 1985, as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 3 7-1-85 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 85-70 - A Resolution of the City Council of the 85-70 AJ~D STAFF RECO~ENOATION City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (NEWPORT AVE. RESERVOIR ROOF REPAIRS) Adoption of Resolution No. 85-70 and authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount of $3,124.55 providing no liens or stop payment notices have been filed within 30 days as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8. 85-71 RESOLUTION NO. 85-71 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, INFORMING THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE STATUS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS Adoption of Resolution No. 85-71 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. APPROVED STAFF 9. RECOI~4ENDATION ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND RELEASE OF BONDS - TRACT NO. 11582 (SW corner of San Juan St. and Orange St.) Accept the public improvements within Tract No. 11582 and authorize the release of all pertinent bonds as indicated in subject staff report dated June 20, 1985, as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. APPROVED STAFF 10. RECO~ENDATION PUBLIC HEARING - 1985-86 BUDGET Announce there will be a Public Hearing for the July 15, 1985, meeting to include the 1985-86 Budget and the proposed use of 1985-86 Revenue Sharing proceeds and authorize the City Manager to expend funds subsequesnt to July 1, 1985, within the appropriation limits established by the adopted 1984-85 Budget until such time as the Council takes action on the proposed 1985-86 Budget as recommended by the Finance Director. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 11. NO. 85-61 RESOLUTION NO. 85-61 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-196 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF VALENCIA AND DEL AMO AVENUES Adoption of Resolution No. 85-61 as recommended by the Community Development Department. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 12. 85-62 RESOLUTION NO. 85-62 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-197 LOCATED AT 1361 VALENCIA AVENUE Adoption of Resolution No. 85-62 as recommended by the Community Development Department. APPROVED STAFF 13. RECOf~4ENDATION REAPPOINTMENT OF A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Appoint Mary Ann Chamberlain as representative and Jeff Davis as alternate to the Orange County Housing Authority Advisory Committee. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 14. NO. 85-63 RESOLUTION NO. 85-63 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-212 LOCATED AT NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF RED HILL AVENUE AT BELL AVENUE Adoption of Resolution No. 85-63 as recommended by the Com- munity Development Department. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 4 7-1-85 ~DOPTED RESOLUTION ,~0. 85-64 15. RESOLUTION NO. 85-64 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE PLAN- NING COMMISSION CONCERNING USE PERMIT NO. 85-9 (NEWPORT AVE. BETWEEN MAIN ST. AND EL CAMINO REAL) Adoption of Resolution No. 85-64 as approved by the City Council. VI. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - See Public Hearings 5 and 6 VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - See Public Hearings 2 and 3 VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None IX. NEW BUSINESS APPROVED STAFF 1. RECOi~qENDATION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2. 85-72 XI. REPORTS RATIFIED 1. RECEIVED AND FILED CONTINUED TO 7-15-85 AWARD OF BID - IRRIGATION, LANDSCAPE AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS AT COLUMBUS-TUSTIN PARK PHASE I Award the contract for the subject park improvements to Hondo Company, Inc. of Santa Ana in the amount of $134,919.15 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. RESOLUTION NO. 85-72 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE FORMATION OF TUSTIN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT AND TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 Approve the Engineer's Report as a preliminary document; adopt Resolution No. 85-72; and set July 15, 1985, as the date for the public hearing to discuss the District as recom- mended by the Engineering Department. e PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - JUNE 24, 1985 All actions of the Planning Commission are appealed by the City Council or other party. final unless INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF MAY 31, 1985 Receive and file. STEERING COMMITTEE FOR A SENIOR CENTER PROGRESS REPORT Receive and file. HUSTON XlI. OTHER BUSINESS ASKE]) THAT THE COUNCIL ADJOURN TO MONDAY, JULY 8, 1985, AT 6:30 P.M. REGARDING THE MARINE CORPS AGREEMENT. HE ALSO ASKED FOR A CLOSED SESSION FOLLOWING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ETING FOR PERSONNEL MAI~TERS. KENNEDY HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WASTE DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE. HUSTON SAID THAT STAFF WOULD REPORT BACK ON THIS ITEM. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 5 7-1-85 qENNEDY ASKED THAT STAFF LOOK INTO THE INTERSECTION OF IRVINE BLVD. AND RED HILL AVENUE. THE CITY MANAGER RESPONDED THAT STAFF WILL HAVE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR JULY 15TH REGARDING LEFT TURN SIGNALS CITY WIDE. GREINKE CO)~4ENTED ON OUR PRIVILEGE OF HAVING A IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE IN OUR AREA. 10:38 XIII. ADJOURNMENT - Recessed to the Redevelopment Agency meeting, thence to a Closed Session for Personnel Matters, thence adjourned to an adjourned regular meeting on July 8, 1985, at 6:30 p.m., and thence to the next regular meeting on July 15, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 6 7-1-85 10:~8 1. CALL TO ORDER ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY July 1. 1985 ALL 2. PRESENT APPROVED 3. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 17, 1985 ADOPTED 4. RESOLUTION NO. RDA 85-8 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 85-8 - A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin ADOPTING A REPORT AND TRANSMITTING REPORT, PROPOSED AMENDMENT, AND EIR 85-1 FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT Approve the South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan Amendment and Report and transmit it to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. RDA 85-8 as recommended by the Community Development Department. ADOPTED 5. RESOLUTION NO. RDA 85-6 - A Resolution of the Community Redevelopment Agency of RESOLUTION NO. the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING THE DESIGN OF A COMBINATION RDA 85-6 WIllt COMMERCIAL/RETAIL OFFICE PROJECT LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY FRONTING ON THE CORRECTION ll) EASTERLY SIDE AT NEWPORT AVENUE, BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND EL CAMINO REAL AS WESTERLY SIDE APPROVED BY USE PERMIT 85-9 AT NEWPORT AVENUE Adoption of Resolution No. RDA 85-6 as approved by the City Council. APPROVED 6. DESIGN REVIEW - PLAZA LA FAYETTE STAFF RECO~ENDATION Accept the proposal with the conditions as contained in subject report as recommended by the Community Development Department. APPROVED 7. LAFAYETTE PLAZA - DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THE AGREEMENT (Joint Public Hearing No. 8 with City Council) 10:47 8. ADJOURNMENT - To the next regular meeting on July 15, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA PAGE I 7-1-85