HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 09-04-84CALL TO ORDER
TUSTIN PLANNING CO~I~ISSIO~,
AGENDA
August 27 1984 7:30 p.m.
REPORTS
NO. 1
9-4-84
7:30 P.M., CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
ROLL CALL
-Weil/Puckett PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
-Well and White APPROVAL OF MINb'rEs
-made changes;
-White/Puckett
to approve w/
~hanges. 5-0
-Sharp/Puckett
-to approve w/
~changes. 5-0
-Well/Sharp to
--cont. to 9/11
--at 7:30 p.m.
-to obtain
--more public
-input. 3-2
-(Puckett/
-- McCarthy-no)
-Sharp/Puckett
to cont. to
9/24 5-0
PUBLIC CONCERNS
CONSENT CALENDAR
McCARTHY, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE, SHARP
For Meeting Held August 13, 1984
(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 WHEN SPEAKING AT THE
PODIUM
ALL ~UkTTERS 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. Resolution No. 2176
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. USE PERMIT NO. 84-20
Applicant: Pacific Bell Telephone Co.
Location: Southwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Street
Request: Authorization to develop an office complex consisting of four
buildings each three stories in height on a 20 acre site.
Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
2. VARIANCE 84-1
Applicant: James R. Ltndsey
Location: 653 "B" Street
Request: Authorization to vary from Section 9495 of the Tustin City Code;
specifically to permit one (1) sign in excess of the maximum area
allowed, and to permit one (1) sign not otherwise allowed by
Section 9495.
Presentation: Alan Warren, Senior Planner
Planntng Commissfo. Agenda
August g7, 1984
page two
PUBLIC HEARINGS (CO#TZNUED)
3. USE PERMIT NO. 84-21
-Sharp/Puckett approve staff recommendation and
to cont. to Applicant: Jenkins Sign Co.
--9/24 to review Location: Northeast corner of Tustin Avenue and First Street.
--revisions to Request: Authorization to install a pole sign and a request to vary with
-comply w/ staff's Section 9494 of the Tustin City Code including a canopy sign and
-recomend action graphi cs.
- S-O
- Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
ZSharp/Weil
to recom, to
--CC approval w/
--condition of
annex prior to
4. THIRD REVISED TRACT NO. 11370 AND FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
Applicant: Robert P. Warmington Co.
Location: Southerly Terminus of Newport Avenue
Request: Authorization for the subdivision of 6.4 gross acres into three
lots with 156 condominium units.
--recordation.5-O
-- Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
_--l~l/Sharp to
c.. to 9/24 A.
--to review book
-Well requtd.3-21.
--(Mc/White)
~o action>>>>>>2.
--Cont. to 9/24 3.
ADMINISTRATIVE I~ATTERS
Old Business
Resolution for Zoning Ordinance Amendment #84-2; Dish Antenna Regulations
Report Concerning Use Permit Fees.
Summary Report from Workshop on Land Use Regulations Concerning Alcoholic
Beverages.
- B. New Business
-Sharp/Puckett 1. Site Plan Review: 2701 Down Avenue - Speculative Industrial Building.
~o receive and
-file. Cont. to Presentation: Ed Knight, Associate Planner
-9/24 5-0
~harp/Well to
approve the
-color apricot
--melon. 5-0
-'Agnes and Margaret agreed!
STAFF CONCERNS
1. Report on Amendment to Use Permit No. 83-8.
Oral Presentation: Alan Warren, Senior Planner
Planning Commisst~,, Agenda
August 27, [984
page three
--Recomd to CC
-that PC terms
-be 4 years. Oral Presentation:
--Same as CC terms.
-staff to prep CO~ISSIO# CONCERNS
-letter to CC.
-Well inquired
re APA conf.
2. Report on Council Actions - August 13, 1984
Oral Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
3. Terms of Planning Commission
Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
AOJOURMMEMT
Adjourn to next regularly schedule Planning Commission meeting at 7:30 p.m.
-- September 10, 1984
-Adjourn to joint meeting with CC at 7:00 p.m. on 9/10 re: Rec and Open Space elements.
-Also, adjourned PAC Bell to 9/11 7:30 p.m. for a public workshop.
2
3
4
5
The
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
10
17
18
10
~0
~7
28
RESOLUTION 2176
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A 9660 SQUARE FOOT, 21 SERVICE BAY AUTO
REPAIR FACILITY AT 1122-1192 LAGUNA ROAD
Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
That a proper application (Use Permit No. 84-12), has been filed
on behalf of Garrison Management, Inc. to request authorization
to develop a 9660 square foot, 21 bay motor vehicle repair
facility at 1122-1192 Laguna Road.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application.
That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use
applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be
detrimental to the -health, safety, morals, comfort, or general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings:
That the use is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the
Tustin Area General Plan and with zoning regulations of the City
Code.
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.
Ee
Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development
policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as
administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered
by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement
requirements as administered by the City Engineer.
F. That a request for a Declaration of Negative Environmental
Impacts is approved.
Final development plans shall require the review and approval of
the Community Development Department.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2176
II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit No. 84-12. to
authorize the development of a 9660 square foot, 21 service bay motor
vehicle repair facility at 1122-1192 Laguna Road, subject to the
following-conditions:
A. No outside storage of vehicles within the parking area is
allowed after working hours. No storage of vehicles under
repair shall be authorized on the public streets. Lease
agreements shall contain these restrictions and a copy
submitted to the Community Development Department for
review.
B. An eight-foot-high {8') decorative masonry wall shall be
provided along the freeway property line.
C. A magter sign plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Director of Community Development which
shall include:
1. One (1) lO0-square-foot (double face) pole sign,
not to exceed 27' in height. The sign shall be
equipped with a decorative pole cover and the
structure shall- conform to design as received by
the Planning Commission.
2. Tenant identification wall signs as reviewed by
the Planning Commtsion at 50 square feet per
building.
3. No signing, other than the authorized pole sign,
shall be permitted facing the freeway. One 32
square foot non illuminated monument sign of
material similar to the building walk is permitted
on Laguna Road.
D. No more than seven (7) businesses shall be authorized for
the center.
E. Final exterior building materials shall be submitted to the
Director of Community Development for review and approval.
Exterior materials shall be tan, split-face block (walls)
with red Spanish tile mansard roofs.
F. The parapet walls shall extend to the height of the mansard
roofs on all building elevations. The parapet walls are to
be of sufficient height to screen roof top equipment.
G. Security gates shall be of decorative material, subject to
the review and approval of the Director of Community
Development.
H. The five (5) existing trees along the Laguna Road frontage
which are not located within the street improvement area
shall be retained. Any of these five trees lost due to
on-site improvements shall be replaced with 48" box
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
Resolution No. 2176
specimens. Adjustments tn the northerly most drive may be
approved at staff level to accommodate the retention of the
trees. The center planters may be replaced by ratsed concrete
Islands.
Submission of a final grading plan is required for review
and approval by City staff.
Construction of street improvements, as required by the
City Engineer shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1. curb and gutter;
2. sidewalk;
3. driveway aprons;
4. street paving;
5. street trees;
6. street lighting;
7. sanitary sewer lateral; and
8. domestic water service.
Payment of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7
connection fees based on $$0/1000 s.f. of building area is
required at the time a building permit is issued.
Le
Payment of East Orange County Water District fees is
required at the time a building permit is issued.
M. Annexation of parcel to Lighting District is required.
A parcel map shall be required for the combination of
Assessors Parcel Nos. 432-064-01 and 432-064-02 for the
development of the auto repair center. A separate parcel
will then need to be created to divide the animal hospital
use.
0
Auto body repair and vehicle painting shall not be
authorized uses within the center.
P. No vehicle repair is authorized outside the buildings.
Fire hydrants shall be provided as determined by the Orange
County Fire Marshal.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,
held on the day of ,lg84.
DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
RONALD H. WHITE,
Chairman
Report to the
Planning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING NO. I
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERI'f
OWNER:
ZONING:
LOCATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
August 27, 1984
USE PERJqIT 84-20
PHILIP R. SCHWARTZE
ON BEHALF OF PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
7337 TRADE STREET
SAN DIEGO, CA 92912
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
(M) INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RED HILL AVENUE AND EDINGER STREET
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 'WITH SUBSTANTIAL MITIGATION ~ASURES HAS
BEEN FILED FOR THIS PROJECT IN CONFORINANCE WITH CEQA.
AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE CO#PLEX CONSISTING OF FOUR
BUILDINGS EACH THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT ON A 20 ACRE INDUSTRIAL
SITE.
EXECUTIVE SUIIU~Y:
This project consists of a proposal to build four freestanding buildings
totalling 449,040 s.f. on 20.08 acres of land at' the southwest corner of Red
Hill Avenue and Edinger Street. The buildings will consist of 100~ office
useage to be occupied by the Pacific Bell Telephone Company. Mitigation
measures proposed in the mitigated Negative Declaration would require Pacific
Bell to construct additional traffic signals at the Industrial Drive/Red Hill
Avenue intersection and on Edinger Avenue at the westerly most driveway.
Pacific Bell would also be required to fully improve adjoining streets, upgrade
the Red Hill Avenue/Edtnger Street signalization and stripe an additional north
and south bound lane on Red Hill northerly to Walnut Avenue. Staff recommends
approval subject to mitigation measures but also recommends commercial land uses
be incorporated on the site to offset negative aspects of the report.
, Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Use Permit No. 84-20
Page two
BACKGROUND:
The subject application is a request by the Pacific Bell Telephone Company to
locate their Southern California administrative offices in the City of Tustin.
Specifically they have acquired an approximately 20 acre site at the southwest
corner of Red Hill and Edinger and proposed to build a 449,040 s.f. complex.
This proposal requires the issuance of a use permit since greater than 50~ of
the proposed building area would be used for office purposes.
The subject property was recently acquired feom the Santa Fe Land Improvement
Company, owners of adjacent property encompassed by 'the Santa Fe/Edinger
Specific Plan No. 7 boundary. Since Specific Plan No. 7 is in its final draft
form and has yet to be approved by the City, building permits for this project
may not be issued until the specific plan is adopted. While Pacific Bell
understands this requirement, they desire the City's decision concerning the
overall land use'proposal and acceptability by the community.
Environmental Analysis
Pursuant to CEQA,. staff originally determined a focused environmental impact
report would be necessary for this project. However, working with the
applicant's representatives, an adequate environmental initial study has been
prepared with mitigation measures which would reduce the project's anticipated
impacts to acceptable .levels. Therefore, again pursuant to CEQA, staff is
proposing Commission approval of a Negative Declaration wi~h substantial
mitigation measures which are equal to those of an environmental impact report..
The initial environmental study upon which staff bases its finding of Negative
Declaration, is transmitted herewith for Commission 'review. Specifically, the
initial study addresses project impacts relative to transportation and
circulation~ air quality, acoustic environment, and fiscal impact upon the
community. The transportation and circulation analysis was conducted by the
firm of Austin Foust Associates while the fiscal analysis was conducted by
Stanley'R. Hoffman & Associates. The firm of Philips, Brandt, Reddick compiled
the sub-consultant work products 'to produce the initial study with proposed
mitigation measures. The mitigation .measures commencing on page 27 of the
Initial Study are those measures which reduce the project's impact to acceptable
levels.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
Statistical Summary
Site area: 20.08 acres
Building square.
footage: 449,040 s.f.
Building Height: 50 feet
Offstreet parking: 1,574 spaces (60~ full size;40% compact)
L
Community D~velopment Department
Planning Commission Report
Pac Bell
page three
Site Design
The site plan submitted (Sheet DD2) proposes four buildings of identical
architecture encompassing a pedestrian mall with landscape and water elements.
The structures divide the site resulting in two separate parking areas. The
site plan includes modifications proposed by staff and project consultants.
Architecture
All building structures are constructed utilizing solar grey glazing with brick
veneer along all elevations. The building architecture is of a modern design
more than compatible with the surrounding community.
ISSUES:
The principle issues raised by submittal of the project are as follows:
1. Increasing density of development to 100~ office use rather than 50% office
and $0% manufacturing as originally planned for the area.
Total development of the site without the tnclusion'of commercial land uses
identified in the market study for Specific Plan No. 7.
Determination of this .project's ~air share obltgatloh towards improving
local and ~egi0nalltraffic circulation. .
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The City's (M) Industrial Zone was primarily ~ntended for development of
industrial, research and development and manufacturing land uses which do not
maintain greater than 50~ of their gross floor area for office purposes.
However, the' industrial district does permit building with greater than 50% for
office purposes subject to a conditional use permit. Disregarding this
application, other possible uses for the subject site might include rail served-
manufacturing with associated truck traffic. The site'is presently served by
the Atchison, Topeka and Sante Fe Rat)road and could easily accommodate from
four to six freestanding industrial buildings.
Considering the potential visual and physical impact upon the community by
industrial rail served industries, the Pacific Bell project is the cleanest most
physically attractive alternative. Furthermore, this office complex would
probably be the most attractive development in the area when considering its
extensive use of landscaping.
While staff supports the design of this project and will recommend approval as
such, we previously informed the applicant of our desire that this project be
held until adoption of Specific Plan No. 7. While that was both parties
original intent, Specific Plan No. 7 has been delayed beyond the control of
Pacific Bell or the City. Since the Specific Plan would identify regional
circulation concerns, the plan would propose a benefit assessment district in
Community Development Depariment
Planning Commission Report
Pac Bel 1
page four
which development within the Specific Plan area would pay for its fair share o~
improvements. Both parties conceding it is unfair to continually delay
development, Pacific Bell therefore desires a decision concerning its overall
concept and land use. Conditions relative to environmental issues and
mitigation measures wi.ll be accepted by Pacific Bell who has agreed to pay all
reasonable costs relative to mitigating its project impacts.
The remaining issue which concerns staff is the elimination of any commercial
potential on the southwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Street. The
Specific Plan market study produced by Dr. Gobar & Associates estimates a small
area of commercial primarily a restaurant, could be justified. Staff informed
Pacific Bell of its intention to seek commercial at the corner location and/or
acceptable alternative sites. Preliminary discussion reflected a possibility of
commercial retail on the ground floor of an office building. At this time
however Pacific Bell is rejecting any requirement relative to commercial land
uses whether located on their site or in their office buildings.
The fiscal impact report submitted indicates an absolute maximum of $40,000
annual revenue to the City. In relation to the community impact resulting from
this project and the benefits Pacific Bell is receiving by increasing the
property's intensity of development, staff feels this recurring revenue is
minimal at best. Staff therefore recommends either a freestanding building pad
be designated at the corner location of a size acceptable to the Planning
Commission or floor-ar~a be provided within one of the four building structures
for commercial uses.
RECOI~E#DATIO#:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a Negative Declaration with
mitigation measures for the project and approve this use permit subject to the
conditions outlined in Exhibit "A". Should the Commission wish to approve this
project, the final resolution incorporating necessary findings and conditions
will be returned at the next Commission meeting for adoption.
DONALD D. LAMM,
Director of Community Development
DDL:do
attachments:
Location map
Negative Declaration
Initial Study
Plans DD1-DDIO
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
community Development Department
PAl
R3
R3
~6O
P&I
lO0
M
20000
lo0
MOOOO
lO0
2OOOO
IND
M
20O00
R4 R4 PD
$000
PC R3
236O
PERMIT #84-20
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
P&l
(U-S. MARINE CORPS AIR STATION),
CITY OF
TUSTIN!
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 CENTENNIAL WAY,. TUSTIN, CA. 92680
· 0
PreJect Title: '
Project Location: Southwest corner of Redhill Ave. and [dinger Ave.
Project Description: An application to construct _+ 450,000 s.f. office
compl ex
project Proponent: Pacific Bell 'Telephone Company
P.O. Box 26360, San Diego, CA 92121
Contact Person: ~lary Ann Chamberlain Telephone: 544-8890 Ext. 250
The Community Development Deparl=aent has conducted an initial study for the
above project in accordance with the City of Tusttn's pro.cedures rega.rdtn~.
Implementation of the California £nvtronmentel Quality Act, an? on the basis or
that study hereby find:
That there, is no substenttal evidence that the project may have a
D significant effect on the environment.
That potential significant affecte were identified, but revisions have
been tncluded in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that
would avoid or mtttgate t~e affects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would oCcur. Said revisions.are attached to and
hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Imgac~ Report is not required.
The initial study which provides the b~sis for this determination is on
file ~t ~e Country Oevelopmnt Oep~r~nt, Ct~ of Tustin. The public
fs invited ~ ~nt ~ ~e ~ro;rta~ness of ~is Negative Oecl~retion
during ~e revt~ period, which begins wt~ the public nott~ of ~
Heg~tive Oeclmmtiofl and ex. rids for seven ~lendar ~ys. Upon mvi~ by
the Country OeYelo~mflt Director, ~is ~Yt~ pert~ ~Y ~ ex~nd~ if
d~md ~cessa~.
~~ ~ off ~st 24/, ?84_ / /_.~_
DATED August 15, 1984
: ¢o~nlty Develo~ ~irec~r
EXHIBIT A
CONOITIONS OF APPROYAL
-CONDITIONAL USE P£~IT NO. 84-20
The following conditions of approval shall be complied with as specified or as
determined by City staff. Overall, all conditions shall be complied with prior
to occupancy of any building.
1.0 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MITIGATION MEASURES
1.1 To mitigate the project traffic impact on the intersection of Red
Hill and Edinger, intersection widening beyond the ultimate
configuration in the City's arterial street plan will be necessary.
This includes (dual westbound left-turn lanes) three eastbound
through lanes and a supplemental eastbound right-turn lane. This
same lane configuration shall be implemented on each approach to the
intersection if deemed necessary by the City Engineer following
geometric design studies necessary for the dual left-turn lane
construction.
1.2 Full signalization shall be installed at the intersection of Red Hill
Avenue and Industrial Way to. facilitate entry and exit of project
traffic. Signalization shall be completed as determined by the City
Engineer prior to occupancy of any building.
1.3 Mitigation of project traffi~ impact on the intersection of Red Hill
Avenue and Sycamore Avenue will require immediate revision in the
existing striping to provide three through lanes north and southbound
on Red Hill Avenue. Since three traffic lanes will conflict wi'th the
on-street bicycle trail between Sycamore Avenue and Service Road
along the west side of'Red Hill, an off-street bicycle trail shall be
constructed within existing public right-of-way along the west side
of Red Hill Avenue between Sycamore Avenue and Service Road.
1.4 Mitigation of the project's traffic impact on the intersection of Red
Hill Avenue and Walnut Street requires restriping of the existing
cross section. One additional travel lane shall be provided within
existing right-of-way on Red Hill for southbound travel. The
additional southbound lane will eliminate on-street parking.
1.5 Project trip generation will require full signalization to be
installed at the westerly Edinger Avenue ingress/egress in order to
facilitate discharge of the parking lot during the PM peak period.
This new signal must be coordinated with existing signals at Red Hill
and the SR-55 Freeway ramps. Investigation of the time/space
relationship between these two signals indicates the project's
Edinger entrance is well suited for progression.
1.6 Dedication of additional street right-of-way along both Red Hill
Avenue and Edinger St./Moulton Parkway will be required as follows:
a. Red Hill Avenue, an additional 10 foot wide strip for a total
half street width of 60 ft.
Community Development Department
Exhibtt "A"
page ~o
b. Edinger Street/Moulton Parkway, an additional 20 foot wide strip
for a total half street width of 60 ft.
c. A corner cutoff area at Edtnger Street/Red Hill Avenue. The
amount of this corner cutoff will depend upon the design of a
free right turn movement.
d. Additional right-of-way beyond the sixty foot half streets to
accommodate double left turn movements on Edinger Street and Red
Hill Avenue.
e. Additional right-of-way along both Edinger Street and/or Red
Hill Avenue to accommodate either additional right turn lanes at
driveways or street intersections or O.C.T.D. bus facility turn
outs.
1.7 Due to the type of use proposed and the traffic to be generated at
the AM and PM peak hours, the street widening along Edtnger Street
and Red Hill Avenue shall be accomplished at the time of
development. These improvements consist of:
a. Street paving and striping;
b. Curb and gutter;
c. Sidewalks;
d. Driveway aprons:
e. Street lights (marbelite standards) on all street frontages of
parcel s;
f. Street trees;
g. Storm drain If requlred.
Street improvement plans delineating these improvements will be
requi red.
1.8 The most westerly driveway on Edlnger Street shall be a minimum width
of 40 feet to provide one wide inbound lane and two conventional
outbound lanes. Additionally, this driveway as well as the other
driveway on Edinger Street shall be constructed as radius-type
drives.
1.9 Right turn lanes will be required at the westerly driveway on Edinger
Street and at F~ed Hill Avenue as determined by the City Engineer.
1.10 An O.C.T.D. bus bay shall be provided on the Red Hill Avenue frontage
adjacent to this property.
1.11 All driveway openings on Industrial Way shall be enlarged to 30 feet
wi de.
1.12 Long-range mitigation measures being examined in the citywide traffic
study include upgrading of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Street,
increasing the capacity of the Red Hill/£dinger intersection, and
Community Development Department
Exhibit "A"
page three
extending Newport Avenue to Edinger. While the proposed project Use
Permit 84-20 contributes to the need for capacity increases in thts
area, deficiencies are projected to occur wtth or without the
project.
Apart from the arterial improvements, the primary emphasis for
mitigation measures in the project area relates to freeway access,
particularly northbound SR-55. PM peak hour exiting volumes
generated by this project and other development planned to occur in
the Specific Plan No. 7 area will be the equivalent of one freeway
ramp, assuming continuous flow. The existing configuration which
requires a left turn off Edinger will be totally inadequate. Various
alternatives for providing an additional on-ramp south of the
existing loop ramp are possible, each of which differs in its impact
on the circulation system east of Del Amo in the Specific Plan area.
The two aforementioned long-range improvements will be included in a
City capital impPovement program to help mitigate both locally
generated and regional traffic impacting the community. The City is
presently formulating a local assessment district in which new
development within the Specific Plan Area No. 7 will pay its fair
share obligation for necessary circulation improvements.
The subject property owner shall agree to participate in the benefit
assessment district to be established and pay fees determined by the
City to cover Pacific Bell's fair share obligation. If said benefit
assessment district is not established prior to issuance of building
permits for Building No. 1, a bond in an amount determined by the
City Engineer shall be provided the City to guarantee payment of
fees. Building permits for buildings 2, 3 and 4 shall not be issued
by the City until said benefit assessment district is established and
fees are paid by the property owner.
2.0 SANTA FE/EDINOER SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 7
2.1 The subject project where applicable, shall comply with all
provisions of Specific Plan No. 7 excluding off-street parking
requirements. Building Permits shall not be issued for any building
on the subject property until th~ Santa Fe/Edinger Specific Plan No.
7 has been adopted by Planning Commission and City Council, unless
this provision is waived by City Council due to unforeseen delays in
adopting the Specific Plan.
3.0
AIR QUALITY
3.1 Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions) will assist
in mitigating the impact of construction-generated dust particulates.
3.2 Energy conservation measures should be incorporated into the design
of proposed buildings to have the secondary effect of limiting
stationary source pollutants both on and offsite.
, Community Development Department
Exhibit "A"
page four
4.0 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.1
All conditions .of the Orange County Fire Department shall be
satisfied. Specifically, building structures shall be fire
sprinklered, fire hydrants installed and adequate access provided to
each structure for fire fighting apparatus.
5.0 PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPART)qENT
5.1 All work within the public right-of-way will require a construction
permit issued by the City Engineering Division.
5.2 A final grading plan will be required for review and approval by the
City.
5.3
The.twenty acre site appears to be parceled into six separate parcels
according to the Assessor's records. A parcel map shall be recorded
to consolidate these parcels into one parcel prior to occupancy of
any building. Two of the parcels will also requfre action to remove
either the railroad easement and/or lead track designation.
5.4
A water system for both domestic use and fire flows will be
required. The extent of the system is unknown until the fire flow
requirement~ have been designated by the Fire Marshall.
$.5
The parcels* will be required to be annexed to Orange County Street
righting Maintenance District No. 6. Contact should be made with the
Tustin Engineering Division regarding annexation procedures.
5.6
Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 connection fees will be
required on a portion of the parcel. These can be determined once a
plan with dimensions has been submitted. Fee amounts are based upon
$50/1,000 sq.ft, of building area.
5.7 Payment of East Orange County Water District fees will *be required.
Contact the Tustin Water Service for calculation of fee amounts.
6.0 COIqlqU#ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
6.1 Buildings shall be constructed to comply with all applicable City
Codes. In particular, each building shall be constructed within the
allowable area and height limitation permitted by the Uniform
Building Code based on the use, type of construction, and location on
the property.
6.2 The percentage of compact parking spaces shall be reduced from forty
percent to a maximum of thirty percent. The total number of parking
spaces shall be maintained at 1,514 if the building floor area is not
reduced. Consideration should be given to constructing a two level
parking structure along Industrial Drive.
Community Development Department
Exhibit "A"
page five
6.3 Adequate refuse containers and/or service shall be provided to serve
the property.
6.4 The final precise site plan and building elevations incorporating
applicable conditions shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of any building permits.
6.5 The final landscape and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department prior to planting
any landscaping.
6.6 Continuous 6" concrete curbs shall be provided along landscape
planters adjacent to parking spaces and drive aisles.
6.7 A comprehensive signing plan. shall be approved by the Community
Development Department prior to installation of any signing.
6.8 Wheelchair and handicap access shall be installed on-site and
off-site in accordance with the State of California and City of
Tustin Building Department standards.
6.9 On-site security lighting shall be arranged so that direct rays will
not produce glare for street traffic. All roof-mounted equipment,
such as heating and air ~onditioning units, shall be completely
screened from public view by architecturally compatible screening
material, subject to City staff approval.
6.10 Fees required for improvement:
Parcel map filing fees
Sanitary sewer connection fee (per Orange County Sanitation
District No. 7)
New development tax
All applicable Building Department fees
All applicable Engineering Department fees
Community Development Department
Planning Commission
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
August 27, 1984
VARIANCE 84-1
JANES R. LINGSEY
653 South "B" Street
Tusttn, CA 92680
653 SOUTH 'B' STREET
CENTRAL COI~IERCIAL (C-2) DISTR]~CT
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
AUTHORIZATION TO VARY FROM SECTION 9495 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE
TO ALLOW TWO TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED
BY CODE.
DISCUSSION:
Section 9495 of the Tustin City Code sets forth the number and size of signs
that are permitted for professional offices.
The signs authorized by code for a professional office building are as follows:
1. One (1) butldtn~ or center identification sign (wall or monument type) not
to exceed 12 square feet in area. "Center Identification Sign" is defined
as a sign identifying a center or complex. Said sign shall not contain
Trade marks, Trade Names, Logos, Symbols, or any Form of art that can be
construed as the name of any single business in that center.
Staff interprets this definition to also include "Building Identification".
2. One (1) tenant identification sign (wall or under marquee type) not to
exceed six square feet in area.
The applicant is requesting to vary from these criteria in that he wishes to
install two tenant identification signs one of which is 54 square feet in area
{south elevation) and one 20.25 square Feet sign (west elevation). The request
is to allow 68 square feet of sign not otherwise authorized.
, Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Variance 84-1
page two
Although the Sign Ordinance does provide for a variance procedure,
specific as to what conditions or circumstances must be present
Commission can approve such a variance.
These conditions are as follows:
it is quite
before the
That because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject
property, the strict application of this Chapter is found to deprive subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
similar circumstances.
That the variance shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that
the adjustments thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and district in which the subject property is located.
ANALYSIS:
After reviewing the subject application and inspecting the site, staff concludes
that there are no exceptional circumstances peculiar to the subject property
that warrant the granting of a variance.
The property is clearly visible from -the freeway and the building is not
obscured by any structures. The mere fact directions to the building are
difficult to follow does not constitute a hardship imposed by the sign code.
Additionally, staff is concerned that approval of the subject variance could be
viewed as a grant of special privilege, and may be a precedent setting action.
Based on these conclusions, staff has no alternative but to recommend denial of
Variance 84-1. It should be noted that upon review of the sign plan the
applicant was informed that staff would not support the variance request.
RECO~E#DED ACTION:
Staff recommends the Commission find that "no unusual circumstances exist on the
subject property that warrant the granting of a variance" and that Variance 84-1
be denied by the adoption of Resolution No. 2174.
SSlstant Planner
JD:do
attachments:
Exhibit "A"/Applicants Justification
Resolution No. 2174
Sign Plans
Community Development Department
California
Dental
Health
Plan
Application for Variance
Justification for hardship
The building is placed in such-a,:wa¥ that directions
are difficult to follow. The main visibility of the
building is from Interstate 5.
The failure to'identify the company causes loss of
business and inconvenience to customers and
company.
Dat~ -/
653 South "B" Street, Tustin, California 92680 (714) 731-6133
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
~,7
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2174
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING VARIANCE APPLICATION
NO. 84-1 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO VARY WITH
SECTION 9495 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin -does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission determines as follows:
That a proper application for a variance (Variance No. 84-1) was
filed by Mr. James Lindsey requesting authorization to vary with
Tusttn City Code Section 9495 by installing one tenant
identification sign of 20.25 s.f. and one (1) tenant
identificatio~ sign of 54 s.f.
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, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental
to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed
use, evidenced by the following findings:
That there are no exceptional circumstances peculiar to the
subject site that justify the granting of a variance
pursuant to Section 9471 of the City Code.
That the granting of a variance as herein applied for will
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 and the
land use for which the request was submitted.
II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Variance 84-1 as submitted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on
the day of , 1984.
RONALD H. WHITE,
Chairman
DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
Report to
'Planning Commission
DATE: August 27, 1984
SUBJECT: Use Permit 84-21
APPLICANT: Doris Bennett
Jenkins Sign Co., ;nc.
7054 Laurel Canyon
North Hollywood, CA 91605
LOCATION: ARCO SERVICE STATION
101 North Tusttn Avenue
ZONING: Central Commercial (C-2)
ENVTRONHENTAL STATUS: Categorically Exempt
REQUEST: Authorization for the following signs:
a) One (1) pole stgn wtth an aggregate stgn area of 67.8 square feet
(double face) tn lieu of the extsttng 32 square foot monument
(double face) sign and 18 feet 84 inches in hetght.
b)
C)
Two (2) 15 square foot under canopy signs.
One (1) 3' x 7' canopy sign to be located on an enlarged canopy
facta wtth logo stripes.
d) One (1) 25 square foot '24 Hours" sign on the front elevation.
BACKGROUND
Tn May of 1983, Thrifty Oil Company requested and Nas approved to add a mini-market to
their existing self-service gasoline station. The use permit was never acted upon and
the station has since been converted to an Arco self-service station. The request is
to bring the signing concept in line with Arco standards.
DISCUSSION
The request for the pole sign is in conformance with the freeway sign provisions for
auto service businesses. This station, while satisfying those requirements, does not
have convenient access from the freeway.
The under canopy signs are not authorized by the Sign Code, and a request to vary from
its provisions is included in the application.
The 3' x 7' Arco sign on the canopy could be considered as a wall sign in place of any
business identification on the building.
Community Development DeparTment
Planntng Commission Report
Use Permit 84-21
Page 2
The "24 Hours" sign is not allowed by the Code except possibly under supplement sign
provisions which can be authorized by use permit approval. The size, however, is lim-
ited to 10 square feet.
Of concern to staff is the overall signage for the site.
non-conforming signs are being displayed:
a)
b)
Presently, the following
One {1) electric "Cashier" and "Cigarettes" advertising sign (no permit on record).
One (1) "Candy" or "Cigarettes" advertising sign on each gasoline pump.
Two {2) advertising banners attached to an existing light standard.
c)
Staff concurs with the applicant's desire to upgrade signing at the site, but not in
addition to existing signing. Further, staff believes that the existing freestanding
sign is sufficient for this business given the location of site.
FIMOIBBS Alii) COMCLUSIONS
1. The site presently displays more signing (in various forms) than what is authorized
by the Sign Code. Consideration for any of the signs requested should be dependent
upon the applicant's 'willingness to remove all non-conforming signs. All adver-
tising of products other than gasoline should be removed.
2. The expanded canopy detail could provide an added architectural feature. But the
color banding, in addition to the "Arco" copy, is a bit too much when viewed in
conjunction with the existing orange-colored portion of the building. Only the
"Arco" sign should be considered.
3. It is recommended that the monument sign remain as the only freestanding sign. If
consideration is given to a pole sign, the Arco name, and pricing portions should
be combined in one unified cabinet design.
4. The total supplemental signing for the building should be limited to 10 square feet
as authorized by the Sign Code. Information such as "Cashier" and "24 Hours"
should be considered only within one sign cabinet.
5. The under canopy sign should not be authorized, for no hardship exists justifying
additional signing.
,. Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
UP 84-21
page three
RECOPlPlENDED ACT[ON
If the applicant states a willingness to remove all non-conforming signs as a pre-
condition to any consideration for new signs, it is then recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the canopy facla and a supplemental wall sign in concept as detailed
in the "Findings and Conclusions". The applicant would bring a revised sign plan back
to the Commission for final review and approval.
Senior Planner
es
Attachments: Plan Reductions
Full-Size Plans
L
,, Community Development Department
/
/
Report to the-
Planning Commission'
DATE:
SUB3ECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
PROPERTY
O~iER:
ZONING:
REQUEST:
ENV I RONHENTAL
STATUS:
August 27, 1984
THIRD REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11370 AND FINAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW
ROBERT P. ~INGTOM CO.
SOUTHERLY TERHINUS OF NEWPORT AVENUE
SAN HANINO SAVINGS & LOAN
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPHENT DISTRICT (PD)
SUBDIVIDE 6.4 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED FOR THE
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
A revised tentative tract map has been submitted in conjunction with Use Permit
84-5 to allow .the subdivision of 6.4 gross acres into three lots. Use Permit
84-5 was approved on February 27, 1984 which authorized the construction of 156
condominium units. This revised map is in conformance with the Tusttn Area
General Plan, the zoning ordinance and the approved site plan.
Part of the approval of Use Permit 84-5 states that the final site plan shall be
submitted for Planning Commission approval. Enclosed are copies of the tract
map and final site plan which are acceptable to staff and conform with the use
permit approved in February.
Other items which remain to be approved by the Planning Commission at a later
date are: architectural treatment of all building exteriors, final color scheme
and final landscape plan.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Tentative Tract 11370
page two
R£COF~END£D ACTION:
1. Recommend to the City Council approval of Revised Tentative Tract No.
11370 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2175.
2. Approve final site plan by minute order.
MAR~ ANNyCHAMBERLAIN,
Associate Planner
MAC:do
attachments:
Tentative Tract Map
Site Plan
Resolution 2175
,, Community Development Department
1
4
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
15
15
16
17
15
19
20
25
~7
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2175
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THIRD REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 11370
The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
Am
That a proper application was filed by the Robert P. Warmington
Co. pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance
(No. 847) for the purpose of creating a three {3) lot
residential condominium project for the property located at the
southwesterly terminus of Newport Avenue.
That said Tentative Tract Map is in conformance with the Tustin
Area General Plan.
II.
C. That a Negative Declaration had previously been approved for
this project.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council
approval of Revised Tentative Tract 11370 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Dedication of all street right-of-way along Newport Avenue as
required by the City Engineer.
B. Dedication of all access rights to Newport Avenue to the City
except at driveway openings per the approved site plan.
C. Annexation of entire parcel to the Orange County Street Lighting
and Maintenance District No. 6. Subject annexation papers must
be provided to the Ct~ prior to final approval of final tract
map.
D. Installation of marbelite street lights with underground conduit
along Newport Avenue as required by the City Engineer along with
the payment of the installation charges to the City of Tustin.
E. Preparation of street improvement plans and construction of said
improvement which include but are not limited to the following:
1. Street paving;
2. Curb and gutter;
3. Sidewalks;
4. Driveway aprons;
$. Street lights;
6. Street trees;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~7
28
Resolution No. 2175
Page two
7. Construction of looped domestic water system for the entire
site with necessary easements to be constructed with Phase
1. This system is to be connected to Kenyon Drive as well
as Newport Avenue.
8. Sanitary sewer facilities.
F. Payment of County Sanitation District No. 7 fees in the amount
of $250 per dwelling unit.
G. Payment of East Orange County Water District fees in the amount
of $500 per unit.
H. Preparation of a final grading plan for review and approval by
the City.
Notification to all buyers of the subject condominium units of
the possibility of the extension of Newport Avenue to Edinger
Street with an at grade crossing of the railroad tracks or with
a grade separation above the tracks (approximately 22 feet above
existing ground level).
Payment of parkland dedication fees.
Submission of CC&R's to the Community Development Department and
City Attorney's office for review and approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of
Tustin, California held on the day of , 1984.
RONALD H. WHITE,
Chairman
DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
il
ll!l I! ~slllllil I
~1~. ,,.,.,1~i ~I-.
Planning Commission
DATE: August 27, 1984
SUBJECT: STANDARDS AND CR[TER[A FOR THE TNSTALLATTON OF DISH ANTENNAE
DI$CU$$IO#:
Resolution No. 2169 was adopted by the Planning Commission on July g, 1984 for
the purpose of recommending criteria for the installation of dish antennae.
The criteria was further discussed at a public hearing on July 23, 1984.
At the meeting on August 13, 1984 the Commission directed staff to prepare an
amended Resolution No. 2169 to exempt from the requirements for a use permit
those dish antennae installations that are located at ground level in rear yard
areas obscured from view from the publc wight of way and dish antennae three (3)
feet or less in diameter.
Resolution No. 2169, as amended, requires a use permit only for a dish antenna
that exceeds three (3) feet in diameter and is proposed for construction other
than at ground level in the rear yard area which is obscrued from view from the
public right of way.
RECOFg4ENDATION:
If Resolution No. 2169, as amended, incorporates the desires and intent of the
Commission, it should be adopted and forwarded to the City Council for further
public hearing and adoption of code amendments.
Director of Community Development
DDL: do
attachment:
Resolution No. 2169 (amended)
Community Development Department ~
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2169 (AMENDED)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT
OF SECTIONS 9270 AND 9271 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE
BY REQUIRING A USE PERMIT AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS
AND CRITERIA FOR THE INSTALLATION OF DISH ANTENNAE
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
II.
The Planning Commission finds and determnes as follows:
Receiving Dish Antennae are becoming a popular mechanism for the
receiving of distant broadcast signals for commercial,
industrial use and home entertainment.
The subject antennae have the potential of adding visual
pollution, obscuring vistas, reducing' open space and adversely
impacting community amenities.
The review of proposed antenna installations by the Planning
Commission, and the opportunity for adjoining property owners to
express their comments and concerns, warrants the application
for a use permit for the preservation of community amenities.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that
Sections g270 and 9271 of the Tusttn City Code be amended to read as
follows:
Section 9270b
(1)
(f)
Damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor, vibration, or visual
po 11 u ti on.
Dish antennae exceeding three (3) feet in diameter and located
other than in rear yard areas which are obscured from view from
the public right of way.
Section 9271
Y.
Criteria for dish antenna installati'on.
{1) Definitions. For the purpose of this section, a dish
antenna is a disc-shaped antenna exceeding three (3) feet
in diameter.
(2) Location:
(a)
Dish antennae that are greater than three (3) feet in
diameter but installed at ground level in the rear
yard of the property and obscured from view from any
public right of way are exempt from the requirement of
a use permit.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2169 (a~ended)
(b)
Dish antennae greater than three (3) feet in diameter
that are located on structures or located in other
than rear yard areas shall be subject to a use permit
to assure compatibility of design and community
amenities.
(3)
Screening: Dish antennae which are installed at ground
level must be obscured from view from any public right-of-
way. Roof-mounted antennae shall be architecturally
screened whenever feasible and screening shall match the
existing exterior building materials and shall maintain
harmony and proportion with the elements of the structure.
The antennae shall be obscured from view from any public
right-of-way. Antennae installed on sloped roofs shall not
protrude above the highest ridgeline of the roof.
(4)
Permits. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the
installation of a dish antennae exceeding three (3) feet in
diameter.
(s)
Height Limitations. A dish antenna shall not exceed the
maximum height limit permitted in the zone in which it is
located.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission held on the day of . , 1984.
RONALD H. WHITE,
Chairman
DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
Report to the
Planning Commission
AD#IN. t*,ATTERS NO. 2
DATE.:
TO:
FROFI:
SUBdECT:
August 27, 1984
PLANNING COI~ISSION
COI~UNITY DEVELOPIqENT DEPARTlqENT
USE PEPJqIT FEES
Commissioner Well at the last Planning Commission meeting requested staff
to investigate a differential fee schedule for various types of use permit
applications; particularly, a reduced fee for such items as dish antennas.
While at this time staff is not prepared to make final recommendations, fees are
required by law not to exceed our actual cost for processing. Processing
includes the personnel costs, hard costs such as printing, postage, stationery,
and overhead costs which include building maintenance and operation.
Over the years, most cities have estimated that use permits average somewhere
between $250 and $350 to actually process. The only difference in actual cost
is relative to staff time concerning the degree of difficulty and hours of
research necessary. If staff were to accurately calculate our costs, $250 would
probably only cover our minimum expenses for a simple use permit. A difficult
project such as Pacific Bell or a specific plan would easily exceed $1,000.
Staff wishes to address this subject at a later date since we have been studying
our comprehensive fee schedule for both planning and building divisions. A
possible alternative would be a fee based upon hourly rates and hard costs
billable to the project applicant. This process is used in the City of Irvine
to ensure that the taxpayers are not subsidizing the cost of development. While
in Tustin this has not been necessary in past years, new development processing
will continue to consume an increasing percentage of staff time as the Irvine
Ranch develops.
Staff will continue to advise the Commission concerning our progress on this
subject.
DONALD O. LA~, k/
Director of Community Development
DDL:do
Community Development Department
Planning Commission
DATE: August 27, 1984
SUBdECT: SUMMARY REPORT ON WORKSHOPS REGARDI~NG LAND USE REGULATTO#S
CONCERNZNG ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
The Planning Commission at its workshop on July 23, 1984 directed staff to
produce a summary report of the Commission's workshops and findings for Planning
Commission review prior to being forwarded to the City Council. This
comprehensive report would detail alternatives available to Council for amending
the City Code.
Due to previously scheduled new development projects and staff vacation
schedules the comprehensive report could not be completed for review at the
Commission's August 27, [984 meeting. Addttionaly, the Police Department
desires to participate in the report preparation which also could not be
completed by the agenda date.
Therefore, this matter can either be pre~ented at your joint study session
workshop on September 10, 1984 or your next regular Planning Commission meeting
on September 24, 1984.
DONALD D. LAMM,
Director of Community Development
DDL:do
Community Development Department
MINUTES OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting was called to order by Chairman White at 7:08 p.m.
Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California.
Co~tsstoners
Present: ~hite
~eil
Puckett
McCarthy
Commissioners
Absent: Sharp
in the City Council
Also
Present:
Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development
Charles Thayer, Police Chief
Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner
Suzanne Atkins, Deputy City Attorney
Ken Kelly, ABC representative
Approximately 10 members of the public
Parents Who Care representat)ves
Don Lamm presented a sample ordinance for the purposes of discussion
which included a recommendation that the City Code be amended to require a CUP
for all convenience and "mini" markets since these land uses seemed to be of
most concern to the public.
Chief Thayer noted that he supported the Community Development Department's
recommendations since from a law enforcement standpoint convenience and "mini"
markets are potential problems for reasons other than alcohol related. The
Chief also responded to questions of the audience.
After informal group discussions, the Commission by consensus directed staff to
prepare a report summarizing the information and options discussed at both
workshops incorporating all of the concerns of Parents Who Care. This report is
to be reviewed by the Commission and then forwarded to the City Council with a
request that Council give the Commission direction as to the desired course of
action.
Planning Commission
DATE:
LOCATION:
OWNER:
DESIGNER:
PROJECT:
August 27, 1984
2701 OOW AVENUE
THE 'CALD~ELL COMPANY
HOWARD F. THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDING - SITE PLAN REVIEW
DISCUSSION:
The project is a proposed speculative industrial building located in the Irvine
Industrial Complex (Tustin) on Dow Avenue. The square footage breakdown
includes 30,556 square feet for office and/or R & D area, and 28,932 for
Manufacturing/Warehousing.
Since the project is a speculative venture, the owner cannot provide staff with
the required number of parking spaces utilizing an employee count. The owner is
proposing to provide a total of 224 parking spaces, which is a ratio of one
space for every 265 square feet. Using the parking requirement section of the
Planned Community regulations, staff determines that 146 parking spaces would be
required under a worse case scenario. Therefore, the owner will be providing a
total of seventy-eight (78) surplus parking spaces.
Of these 224 parking spaces, the owner is proposing that a total of 91 spaces,
or 40%, be developed as compact parking spaces. The City's Development
Standards state that a developer can either provide 20S of the required parking
spaces as compact spaces or provide compact spaces in addition to and not in
lieu of the parking requirements. Since the required parking spaces total 146,
and 20~ of this is 29 compact spaces, the developer is providing 62 surplus
compact spaces which cannot be utilized as required parking for this proposal or
a subsequent tenant improvement that may increase the number of required parking
spaces.
Therefore, staff recommends that a note be placed in the file indicating that
these 62 compact spaces are exclusively surplus, and not be utilized for future
tenant improvements; in keeping with the Development Standards of the City of
Tustin. The developer can increase the potential for future tenant improvements
by reducing the percentage of compact spaces, and provide a greater percentage
of regular size spaces.
Further, since the developer is providing a great number of additional parking
spaces than required, staff encourages the developer to delete some parking in
the front area and utilize it as landscaping. The additional landscaping will
give this project a contiguous thirty foot landscaped streetscape, while not
impacting the required members of parking spaces.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
2701 Dow Avenue
page two
In all other aspects, the project meets the requirements of the Planning
Community Oistrtct regulations for the Irvine Industrial Complex (Tustin). The
architecture ts basically indicative of the area, although staff does recommend
to maintain a consistent architectural motif, that the developer etther utilize
green reflective glass or black glass, but not both. The developer will be
bringing colored elevations to the Commission meeting that will depict the
overall color scheme for the structure.
RECOI~E#DATION:
Receive and file, with note regarding surplus compact parking spaces.
Associate Planner
EK:do
Community Development Department
Report to the
Planning commission
DATE:
SUB3ECT:
LOCATION:
August 27, 1984
REVISED ARCHITECTURAL PLAN FOR
USE PER~IT NO. 83-8
HARIE CALLENDER'S RESTAURANT
721 W. FIRST STREET
STAFF CONCERNS NO. I
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
On June 13, 1983, the Tusttn Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 83-8
which authorized expansion of the Marie Callendini's restaurant at the subject
location. Construction work has progressed and is near completion.
The applicant has approached staff with I request for color change from what is
existing on the building. The applicant's exhibits in 1983 indicated that the
existing beige stucco would be maintained and continued on the addition. Since
the Planning Commission review included all aspects of the development, the
request is being brought to your attention for consideration.
The request specifically is to change the building exterior color from mission
beige to a colorful "cantalope" shade. Trim detail finishes and awning colors
are in keeping with original colors as proposed.
RECOmmENDATION:
Staff does not normally provide recommendations concerning building color
schemes but merely analyzes a project's overall compatibility with the
surrounding community. In this particular case, the original restaurant
building architecture and color scheme, were deemed compatible with the
surrounding community and approved by the Planning Commission following full
disclosure to the community. Therefore, staff has not authorized nor do we
recommend a change in building color scheme.
~D01tALD D. ~AMM,
Director of Community Development
AW:DL:do
attachment:
color sample
Community Development Department
Report to the
Planning Commission
STAFF ~NCER#S NO. ~
AUGUST 27, 1984
SUBJECT: Report off Council Actions - August 20, 1984
Oral presentatibh to be given by Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community
Development
do
Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - August 20, 1984
Community Development Department
ACTION AGENDA OF A RE,AR EETING
OF ltlE TUS'~IN C~Y COUNCIL
August 20, 1984
7:00 P.M.
7:01
I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL
EXCEFI' KENNEDY AND ROESTEREY
PROCLAMRTION III. PROCLAMATION
TO ~ MAILED 1. SEPTEMBER AS LEUKEMIA MONTH
JAF~S I V.
PLESETZ EXPRESSED
HIS OPPOSITION TO
INCREASED FLIGiITS dures. )
FROM JOHN gAYNE AIRPORT
V. PUBLIC HEARING
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 6, 1984
APPROVED
PUBLIC INPUT
(For City of Tustin Residents and Businesspersons on any matter, and for
Water Service Customers having a concern unresolved by Administrative proc,-
APPROVED STAFF
RECOI~NDATION
~?PRO~D ~AFF
RECOI~NDAT ION
2. RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $108,626.64
APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $490,291.04
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
NO. 84-64
3. REJECTION OF CLAIM OF LUCKY STORES (JANET TURBES); DATE OF
LOSS: 2-3-83; DATE FILED: 6-26-84; CLAIM NO.: 84-16
Rejection of subject claim as recommended by the City
Attorney.
4. TUSTIN PUBLIC INFORI~ATION, INC.
APPROVED STAFF
RECOI~NDAT ION
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
NO. 84-63
Authorize the Finance Director to transfer $7,300 from the
Community Services Department budget to Tustin Public
Information, Inc., for mailing of Tustin Today as recommended
by the Recreation Superintendent.
RESOLUTION NO. 84-64 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, DECLARING IRVINE BOULEVARD BETWEEN
RANCHWOOD ROAD AND 4320.33 FEET EASTERLY TO BE A COUNTY HIGHWAY
DURING THE PERIOD OF IMPROVEMENT BY THE COUNTY OF ORANG~
Adoption of Resolution No. 84-64 as recommended by the
Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
REQUEST FOR RESTRICTED PARKING DURING STREET SWEEPING OPERATIONS
(Redhill Ave. between San Juan St. and N of Lance Dr., and Lance
Dr. between Redhill Ave. and Charloma Dr.)
Authorize the installation of signing to restrict on-street
parking during street sweeping hours, 6:00 a.m. to noon on
Friday, on both sides of subject streets and that warnings be
issued in lieu of citations for the first 30 days after sign
installation as recommended by the Director of Public Works/
City Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. 84-63 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, ADOPTING A REVISED CLASSIFICATION
PLAN OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN
Adoption of Resolution No. 84-63 as recommended by the
Director of Co,,,,unity and Administrative Services.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page i 8-20-84
.ADOPTED RESOLUTION
NO. 84-62
VII.
VIII.
ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 916
IX.
X.
Be
RESOLUTION NO. 84-62 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, ACTING ON AN APPEAL OF THE CITY
COUNCIL AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CON-
.CERNING USE PERMIT NO. 84-8 (13181-13195 Gwyneth Drive)
Adoption of Resolution No. 84-62 as requested by the City
Council ·
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None
ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
ORDINANCE NO. 916 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, REZONING THE PROPERTIES ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SEVENTEENTH STREET AND CARROLL WAY (ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBERS 395-142-05 THROUGH 395-142-09) FROM RE'FAIL COMMERCIAL
(C-i) DISTRICT TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(CG-PUD) DISTRICT
M. O. - That Ordinance No. 916 have second reading by title
only.
M. O. - That Ordinance No. 916 be passed and adopted.
(Roll Call Vote)
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVED STAFF 1.
RECOI~NOAT ION
ADOPTED RESOLUTIOn 2.
NO. 84-65
SAN DIEGO CREEK SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PROGRAM
Authorize th~ Mayor to execute the I~lementation Agreement
for in-channel facilities along San Diego Creek subject to
the City Attorney's approval as recommended by the Director
of Public Works/City Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. 84-65 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, SUPPORTING THE JAMBOREE BOULEVARD/SANTA ANA
FREEWAY INTERCHANGE AS A LOCALLY FUNDED PROJECT
Adoption of Resolution No. 84-65 and four other recommenda-
tions as contained in the staff report from the Director of
Public Works/City Engineer dated August 13, 1984.
APPROVED STAFF 3.
REGOI~ENDAT ION
TRASH FEE
Authorize written notice to SCA Services providing that
effective January 1, 1985, SCA shall charge all single-family
residences and multi-family residences of three {3) or less
units a fee for trash collection as recommended by the City
Manager.
APPROVED 4. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT EXPANSION, EIR 508
ST/~rF RECOI~NDATION WITH Send a letter to the County of Orange detailing the issues
AJ)DI-rION ~ COUNCIL'S CONC£RNS contained in the Community Development Department staff
REGARDING INCR£ASED VE}IICUI. AR report dated August 20, 1984.
TRAFFIC, MOVING OF cmNEI~AL AVIATIOn TO ANITrHER LOCATION, MOVING THE FLIGIJT ANGLE TO THE NEST
AND CO~IDEUTION OF LOCATING THE AIR~ IN THE OCEAN.
MOVED PROPO~t~ ~ 5. TUSTIN TILLER DAYS PARADE
CONTAINED IN THE JAYCEES REPORT Pleasure of the City Council.
qATED AUGUST 15, 1984
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 8-20-84
XI.
REPORTS
R~TIFIED
RECEIVED AND FILED
1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - August 13, 1984
All actions of the Planning Commission are final unless
appealed by the City Council.
2. QUARTERLY REPORT SPRING 1984 COMMUNITY SERVICES
Receive and file.
LEDENDECKER REPORTED THAT 3. COMMUNICOM UPDATE PROGRESS REPORT
CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED ON A verbal report will be given at the meeting.
7-27-84 AND ACQUISITION WILL BE CONPLErEI) BY 9-18-84
AT ROIJRKE'S XII. OTHER BUSINESS
REQUEST, IT WAS I~)VED TO /UJTItORIZE AND DIRECT THE ISSUANCE OF TEN SUBPOENAS FOR THE ADNINISTNA-
TIVE APPEAL HEARING OF MARK ZII~RMAN AND DIRECTED THE ~YOR AND C/TY CLERK TO CAUSE SAID
SUBPOENAS TO BE /SSDED.~
GREINKE ASKED FOR A COPY OF THE BILL /~NDING THE BROWN
LEDENUECKER RESPONDED TO EDGAR THAT THE TARI~-r DATE FOR PHASE II OF THE WATER UELL PROJECT WILL
BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE SECOND I~ETING IN SEPTEI~)ER.
LEDENDECKER ~SPONDED TO EDGAR'S QUESTION ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE STORN DgJ~IN FOR "B" STREET
AND NISSON THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE EXPANSION OF THE 5 AND 55 FREEWAY AND THE ALTERNATIVES
CHOSEN.
AUTHORIZED SENDING LETTER TO SUPERVISORS TO I~KE SURE THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDIES INCLUDE THE
EASTERN CORRIDOR GOING SOUTHERLY OF I-5 RATHER .THAN STOPPING AT I-5 AND THAT COPIES BE SENT TO
NESTANDE AND STANTON.
,,dSTON RESPONDED TO Gi~EINKE THAT STAFF HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT /~UT THE
EAST TUN'TIN DEVELOPfWENT AND USE OF SCHOOLS AND STAFF WILL REPORT TO COUNCIL ABOUT THE DETAILS.
8:O0
XIII. ADJOURNMENT - To the next regular meeting on Tuesday, September 4,
1984, at 7:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 8-20-84
ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR. MEETING OF
THE llISTIN REOEVELOI~I"NT AGENCY
August 20, 1984
7:00 P.M.
8:00 1. CALL TO ORDER
ALL 2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT EXCEPT KENNEDY AND HOESTEREY
APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of August 6, 1984
APPROVED 4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $17,937.63
ADOPTED 5.
RESOLUTION
NO. 84-9
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 84-9 - A Resolution of the Cmmunfty Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING THE DESIGN OF A 9660 SQUARE FOOT
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITY AT 1122-1192 LAGUNA ROAD
Pleasure of the Redevelopment Agency.
ROURKE 6. OTHER BUSINESS
RESPONDED TO EDGAR THAT THE ACQUISITION OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND COULD BE FROM ONE TO THREE
~ONTHS.
'REINKE REPORTED THAT HE HAD A COMPLAINT ABOUT CltANGING OF PATTERNS OF HELICOPTERS AND HE
~(EQI~STED A REPORT.
8:06 7. ADJOURNMENT - To the next regular meeting on September 4, 1984.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page 1 8-20-84
Report. to. the
Planning Commission
DATE: August 27, [984
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS OF OFFICE
The Planning Commission at its last meeting directed staff to agendize Council's
request concerning staggered Planning Commission terms. Specifically, Council
requests the Commission and staff to present a plan to alternate Commission
terms of office every two years.
Staff suggests that the Commission include, in its discussion alternating terms
of office to coincide with Council elections. For example, in the Spring 1986
two Council members will be elected and in the Spring of 1988 three Council
members will be elected. ~-
D~n~la O. Lamm- L/~''
Director of Community Development
DDL
Community Development Deparxment