Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING AGENDA 08-15-1977AGENDA TUSTIN PLAN.NItlG AGENCY .... TUSTIH. CALIFnRHI,.q August 15, 1977 I. CALL TO ORDER Il. IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION ROLL CALL V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS · Use Permit 77-13 (continued from 8/1/77). Application for Schick Moving and Storage ~ to construct and operate a 102,000 square foot warehouse and truck terminal on Lot 1, Tract 8590, located on the northwesterly corner of Michelle Drive and future Myford. Recommended Actio Hearing until Sep resolution of con Use Permit 77-19. plication by Ch hurch services a heir current loc Red Hil-1 and I ulevard). n: Continue as open Public t,'mber 6, 1.977, for final ~ fllcts. ' . urch of Scientology to conduct nd administrative functions at ion on the northeast corner rvine Boulevard (1451 lrvine ilecommende~i Acti-on: Continue as an open Public earing until Sept-ember 6, 1977, to allow City taff to complete review of materials submitted. 3 .'Use Perm i t 77- 20. pl ication by Trinity Broadcasting Company ~//'~/- xpand their present faci 1 i at the ty corner cbel le and Chambers to include assembly- area and earth satellite communications ::: 49 and 50 of Tract 8590). · Rt inded Action: Continue as open Public '% H unti I September 6, 1977 to al Iow · ap t to submit revised plans .. - VI I'~;I OLD BUSl · .. Consti ion Saving Honument Sign. - ~:Request by · archi t to review City Council action of 7/1/77. VIII. NEW BLIS !NESS 1. Report on Elderly Housing Needs, 2. R=port on EIR for Walnut Extension. 3. Approval oF Parcel Map 77-97. · 4. Tentative Parcel Map 77~103, IX. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to Executive Session and hence reconvene at 7:30 p.m. as Planning'Agency. ×. RECONVENE at 7:30 p.m. XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS-CONTINUED · Environmental Impact Report 77-4(Packers S~uare). An EIR addressing the total impact of' a planned development of residential and commercial uses for the property on the southeasterly side of Newport Avenue, southerly of Irvine 9oulevard (Note: Because the applicant has withdrawn his lO-story high rise complex proposal, it wili be necessary to amend the EIR to reflect the proposed alternative uses). Recommended Action: Receive the developer's revised proposal, EIR analysis and al'l public comments. Certify the EIR (Resolution 1663) and direct staff to prepare final EIR document including all concerns raised and mitigating measures to be taken. :~.~mendment 77-2 (F) to the Land Use Element of the eneral Plan (Packers Square). proposal to change from the classification of Planned Community (Commercial) to Planned Community (Commercial - Multi-Family Residential) to authorize the construction of multiple family units. · Recommended Action' Review a~plicant's proposed .... use of site as amended in their oresentati'nn and ntinue as. an open Public Hearing until September 1977, to allow Planning Agency review. · onmental Im act Report 77-3(Packers Souare.- rcial Development). used EIR. pertain'lng to the commercial portion Packer Square project. Reco~';!bended Action: Certification of EIR 77-3 by ado n of Resolution No. 1655. mit 77-16(Packers Square Commercial Development). A Us, ermit application to authorize the development. of a ~)mmercial comP'lex as an integral part of the Pac s Square Project. Recom~,.'!er,.dPd Act;on' Approval of IJse by adoption of R¢so]utlon rio- 1656. Xl 1. PUBLIC CONCERNS Xl i i. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION XlV, CORRESPOI']DENCE XV, STAFF CONCERn'IS XVl AGENCY CONCERNS Petrol t 77-16 X¥11. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY TUSTIN CITY CENTER August 15, 1977. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. INVOCATION IV. ROLL CALL Meeting called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chairman Sharp. Led by Mr. Schuster. Given by Mr. Edgar. Present: Members: Sharp, Welsh, Edgar, Saltarelli, Schuster. Absent: Members: None. Others present: William Bopf, City A~ministrator James Rourke, City Attorney Brian Chase, Community Development Director le USE PERMIT 77-13 (Continued from 8/1/77) Application for Schick Moving and Storage to construct and operate a 102,000-square-foot warehouse and truck terminal on Lot 1, Tract 8590, .located on the north-' westerly corner of Michelle Drive and future Myford. Report presented by Mr. Chase~ requesting continuance. Hearing opened at 3:05 p.m. There were no comments or objections. Moved by Welsh: seconded by Edgar, that hearing be continued to September 6th meeting as recommended. Carried. 2. USE PERMIT 77-19 Application by Church of Scientology to conduct church services and administrative functions at their current location on the northeast corner of Red Hill and Irvine Boulevard (1451 Irvine Boulevard). Report and recommendation for continuance presented by Mr. Chase. Hearing opened at 3:07 p.m. There being no comments or objections, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by EdGar, that hearing be continued to September 6, 1977, meeting. Carried. 3. USE PERMIT 77-20 Application by Trinity Broadcasting Company to expand their present facility at the corner of Michelle and Chambers to include assembly-studio area and earth satellite communications (Lots 49 and 50 of Tract 8590). ~port presented with recommendation for continuance presented ~i!~y Mr. Chase. Hearing opened at 3:09 p.m. There being no commentS or objections, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh, that hearing be continued to September 6, 1977,meeting. Carried. Moved by Edgar,. seconded by Schuster, that meeting of Planning Agency. be adjourned to meeting of City Council. Carried. Planning Agency 8/15/77 Page 2 VI. OLD · BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS le CONSTITUTION SAVINGS MONUMENT SIGN ~ ~.=~ (Request by architect to review City Council action of 7/1/77)~i, ~ Mr. Doug Danielson, Architect for this project, spoke in favor of request and took exception to staff report. Mr. Daniel- son presented architectural perspective and plot plan explain- ing landscaping, minipark, and reasons for mounding. Agency discussed overall height of signing, ordinance limitations and need for variance as stated by staff that variance had been applied for and agreed that permit could be applied for through staff for some form of temporary signing. Mr. Danielson stated that he was not interested in lettering but was interested in keeping the mounding and the structure--inter- ested in holding their opening. Mr. Chase reported that developer had not yet requested final inspection for.occupancy. The applicant has been told to ceed with final phases and inspections but not with signing. Mr. Roc Torkindson, sign company, spoke in favor of signil Agency concurred that no further action could be taken o] sign until variance is heard. 1. REPORT ON ELDERLY HOUSING NEEDS Report presented by Mr. Chase. Agency discussed need, if any, for subsidized housing for the elderly and locations as submitted and funding applied for under Section 8 of Housing Subsidy Program and agreed that more time was needed for analysis. Mayor declared a short recess. Meeting reconvened at 5:20 p.m. 2. REPORT ON E.I.R. F©R WALNUT EXTENSION Report presented by Mr. Chase containing the following princi- pal interests in completion of Walnut Extension: 1. Help complete the overall circulation'System for that area. 2. Alleviate existing and future traffic congestion which presently occurs with the existing road align- ment that interconnects with Myford Road. 3. Increase the level of fire protection by providing reduced response times for County fire trucks located on Walnut near Culver in the City of Irvine. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that Council. accept the staff report and a letter so stating be sent to the City of Irvine. Carried, Chairman Sharp voting no. 3. APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 77-97 Report presented by Mr. Chase recommending approval of Final Parcel Map 77-97 to the City Council by adoption of Planning .Agency Resolution No. 1664. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that map be. approved as recommended and Resolution No. 1664 be passed and~iiiadopted. Carried. Planning Agency 8/15/77 Page 3 VIII. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 77-103 Report presented by Mr. Chase. Moved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh, that Planninq Agency recom- mend approval of Tentative Parcel Ma~ 7.7-103 ~o the City Council by adoption of Resolution 1665 and Mayor execute the consent and dedication certificate for the 6th Street right-of-way on behalf of the City. Carried. Moved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh, that meeting be adjourned to an executive session and thence to 7:30 p.m. Planning Agency meeting. Carried. Meeting of Planning Agency Reconvened at 7:30 p.m., August 15, 1977. ENVIRONME~.'~TAL IMPACT REPORT 77-4 (PACKERS SQUARE) (Cont'd from August i,. 1977) An EIR addressing the total impact of a planned develop- ment of residential and commercial uses for the property on the southeasterly side of Newport Avenue, southerly of. Irvine Boulevard (Note: because the applicant has withdrawn his 10-story high rise complex proposal, it will be necessary to amend the EIR to reflect the pro- posed alternative uses.) Report presented by Mr. Chase~ ~;~-. Rourke, City Attorney, reported that he had received a call from Mr. ~Ray of Santa Fe Land Improvement Co. stating that appli- cant is authorized to speak for their company. ,wit. Harry Kassebaum and his representatives spoke including ~.~. l~owlton Fernauld, Project Manager; ~. Fay Round; Mr. Robert Cu~m%ings. Applicant and representatives explained that application to IIUD for the 10-story senior citizen housing had been withdrawn and if new proposal for reduced height were approved they would ii::~ave to re-apply. They also spoke covering some of the follow- ~::i:~i~ i: need for senior citizen housing and for congregate care lity. DesCribed plans for complete development as shown on slides. Traffic flow, through development and to public streets, inclu- ding that drive-through area at bank could be revised if desired, plans for access next to Builders Emporium, safety factors put in.plans for pedestrians and emergency vehicle ingress and egress. Density of apartment complex, stating this would be basically adult:its as it i,s one and two bedroom apartments. in high rise building to 62 feet. for apartments to be slightly over two spaces per unit. Sanitation and drainage needs and solutions stating there phy- sically is no capacity.probl~. Commitments for development under Section 8 and requirements to be met by elderly for subsidy and percentage of income paid by elderly. Planning Agency 8/15/77 Page 4 Mr. Robert Perry presented petitions filed in opposition of high rise and petition containing approximately 222 signatures. A number of citizens protested this development and spoke relative to number of stories proposed for senior citizen complex, firefighting, number of apartment units, traffic at Builders Emporium, need for federal subsidized housing, sani- tation, police problems, rise in general taxes, number of banks in community, architectural impact, loss of local con- trol through federal subsidy, location of residential for elderly, size of area for this development, traffic congestion, economics of another shopping center. Those speaking in opposition included Mr. Robert Petry, Mr. Andrew Watson, Mr. Dave Almquist, Mrs. Morris, Mr. Roger Rahloff, Mr, William Smart, Jr., Captain Thomas Hall, and Mr. Jim McKahan. Those speaking in favor of this development and need for senior citizen housing included Mrs. Ida Sternberg, Mr. Robert Johnso] Mrs. Colleen Palmer and Mrs. Beatrice Farrington. Council all comments pro and con. In answer to questioning by Council, Chief Holms stated of a ladder company, effects of more than one large aid of other agencies in the County. Safety and would be governed by code restrictions in development sprinklers, fire walls, etc. Agency further discussed the moral commitment to eld ~,~ subsidizing, economics, need for financial need for comparison study as to other proposed hous~ jects and fact that the~Agency and the Council must! all adverse factors as to environmental impact. Mr. Rourke explained that consideration of EIR must consider all adverse factors and should present and consider alterna- tives. If Agency not satisfied the proponent should be dir- ected to address those factors. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that hearing be con- tinued to September 6, 1977, for analysis. Moved by Schuster, seconded by Welsh, that mot~:~ be amended to continue to October 3, 1977. Council, staff and applicant discussed time el.~ent necessary to address all elements of EIR. Motion to continue to October 3 failed by 1,4 vote. Motion to continue to September 6 carried. 5. AMENDMENT 77-2(F) TO TI{E LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (PACKERS SQUARE) A proposal to change from the class Planned Community (Commercial) to P~ (Commercial-Multifamily Residential) to au construction of multiple family units. ~n of the There being no comments or objections, it was seconded by Saltarelli, that hearing be continued 6, 1977. Carried. Welsh, 6~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-3 (PACKERS MERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) A focused EIR pertaining to the commercial the Packers Square project. Planning Agency 8/15/77 Page 5 Xe There being no con~ents or objections it was .moved by Welsh, seconded by Schuster, that this hearing be continued to September 6, 1977. Carried. 7. USE PERMIT 77-16 (PACKERS SQUARE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) A Use Permit Application to authorize the development of a commercial complex as an ~ntegral part of the Packers Square project. There being no comments or objections, it was moved by Welsh, seconded by.Saltarelli, that hearing be continued to September 6, 1977. Carried. Recess declared by Chairman. Meeting reconvened at 11:10 p.m. LARWIN SQUARE PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION In answer to questioning by Mrs. Margaret Byrd, Mr. Chase stated that corrective measures have been taken and staff is staying on top of situation. Mr. Chase reported on Fourth Year Block Grant Funds. Moved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh, that staff investigate, realizing concerns for low-cost housing. Carried. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded ~y Edgar, that P.l~nning Agency meeting be adjourned to continued Council meeting. Carried. MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY TUSTIN CITY CENTER CENTENNIAL AT ~IN AUGUST 1, 1977 I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALI.F. GIANCE III. I NVOCAT I ON IV. ROLL CALL Meeting cal'led to order by Chairman Sharp at 3:00 p.m. Led by Chairman Sharp. Given by Councilman Edgar Present: Members: Sharp, Welsh, Edgar Absent: Members: Saltarelli, Schuster Others present: William L.'Bopf, City Administrator R. K. Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator for Community Development James Rourke, City Attorney Ruth Poe, City Clerk Moved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh that the minutes of July 18, 1977, be approved. Carried. 1. Use Permit 77-13 (Con~'d from 7/18/77) Application for Schick Moving and Storage to construct and operate a 102,000-square- foot warehouse and truck terminal on Lot 1, Tract 8590, located on the n0rthweste'rly corner of Michelle Drive and future Myford. Hearing opened 3:03 p.m. Request presented for continuance. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar that hearing be continued to 3:00 p.m. August 15, 1977. Carried. Variance 77-8 (1042 Bonita) An application for a variance to develop a multi-family apartment complex with 50' lot frontage in lieu of required 70', and ~0' rear sideyard setback in lieu of required ! · presented by Dr. Fleagle. Hearing opened at :09 p.m. Mr. L.L. Hendrix - applicant - spoke on behalf of application and showed rendering. There being ho other commeJts or objections the hearing .was declared closed at 3:12 p.m. M6ved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh, Variance 77-8 be approved as recommended by staff by the adoption of Resolution No. 1660. Carried unanimously. 3. Use' Permit 76-29 (1091 Old Irvine Boulevard) An application to authorize amusement machines within a bowling facility. Report presented by Dr. Fleagle. Hearing opened at 3:16 p.m. There being no comments or objections the hearing was declared closed. VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. . PUBLIC CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT Planrling Agency Minutes 8/1/77 Page two Moved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh that amendments to UsO ?erm~[t 7~-29 be approved by adoption of Resolution No. 1659. Carried unanimously. · 4. Use Permit 77-17 (1091 Old Irvine Boulevard) An application for a pole sign to identify the bowling facility. Report presented by Dr. Fleag]e. Hearing opened at 3:20 p.m. There being no comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar that Use Permit 77-17 be approved with modifications, by adoption of Resolution No. 1662. Carried. 5. Use Permit 77-18 (].4244 Newport Avenue) An application to add food and beverage sa].es to an existing ARCO service station. Report presented by Dr. Fleagle. Hearing opened at 3:29 p.m. Petition presented by resident of San SouTi containing 23 names, and read by Dr. Fleagle. The following spoke in opposition of this use generation of trash and traffic problems: · Mr. Don Sieneke, of One-Stop Market Mercedes Harris, San Sou~i Mr. Pat Nixon, of One-Stop Market Mr. Bob Spear of Atlantic Richfield spoke on of application and stated this would be a mini-Shop selling only candy, snacks, cold drinks and cigarettes. There being no further protests or comments the hearing was declared closed at 3:48 p.m. Council discussed traffic including f vehicular and possible need for set of what can be conveyed at this location. as well as as to Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar that denying Use Permit 77-18 be adopted. C~ :ion 1661-A, 1 Tentative Parcel Map 77-100 (Packers Square) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval by adopt'ion of Resolution No. 1658. ~' presented by Dr. Fleagle. '~i~ ' Report Moved by Edqar, s'econded by Sharp that ~~lanning ~gency 'recommend approval of~ative Pa~I~ Map 77-100 by the adoption of .Resolution No. 165'8~ Carried. "~! ' NONE Moved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh that meeting be a Council Executive Session and hence to meeting of Council and hence to Planning Agency Matters. 7:30 p.m. meetinq of p].anning Ag'envy' reconvened. lrned to VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONT ' D Planning Agency Minutes 8/1/77 Page three 6. Environmental I,~paCt Report 77-4 (Packers Square) An Environmental Impact Ecpor~t addressing the total impact of a L1 ..... ~ed development of residential, com~nercial, and high rise senior citizens complex, for the proper.ty on the southeasterly side of Newport Avenue, southerly of Irvine Boulevard. Report presented by Dr. Fleagle. Hearing opened at 7:44 p.m. Representatives of the applicant, Harry Kassebaum, included; Mr. Knowlton Fernauld, Project Manager, Mr. 'R.B. Lanett, Mr. Art Danielian, Mr. R. Cummings, Mr. Fay Round, Mr. C. Leedy and Mr. Bill Kuntsman. Representatives explained phases of development, traffic flow, density per acre, details of development plans, construction, location, reasons for high rise development, need for senior citizen housing, economic impact on the community and presented model to be left on display at City Hall. After the below listed citizens spoke, these representatives responded to their questioning. A number of citizens present spoke relative to the impact on schools by apartment development, traffic flow and problems, circulation, parking density, lack of green area, traffic flow through Tustin Heighqs Shopping Center. All spoke in opposition of'the high rise building. Speakers included the following: Mr. Rober Petry, Mr. Andy Watson, Mrs.. Nina Ondrecek, Mr. Roger Roloff, Mrs. Debbie Petry, Mrs. Diane Stoutenberg, Mrs. Betty Truit, Mr. Carlton Brov~, Mrs. Morris, Mr. Bob Mishado, Mr. Maury Iverson, Mr. Vic Zuniga, Mrs. Agnes Goldmeister, Mr. Tom Kelly, Mrs. Veralie Nicoll, Mrs. NancY Diehl, Capt. T. Hall and Mr. G. Truebe. Council heard all protests and comments and explained laws relative to requirements for continuation of this hearing and stated that any written concerns received ~within the next two weeks would by law be addressed at next hearing. There being no further comments or objections it was moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar that this matter be continued as an open Public Hearing to the August 15, 1977, meeting of the Planning Agency at 7:30 p.m. Carried. · 7. Amendment 77-2 (F) to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Packers Square, Newport, southerly of Irvine) A proposal to change from the classification of Planned Community (Commercial) to Planned~Community Residential (Commercial - Multi-family Residential) Dr. Fleagle presented repOrt and requested fo~ continuance. Hearing opened at '10:55 p.m. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar that this matter be continued as an open Public Hearing to the August 15th evening meeting of the Planning Agency, following certification of EIR 77-4. Carried. Planning Agency Minutes 8/1/77 Page four 8. Environmental Impact Report 77-3 (Packers Squa .r,:~ Commc.~ :c c i a ]. Dc v,~ 1 oi,me~ ~t ) . A focuzed EIR pertaining to the commercial portion of the Packers gqUare project. Report presented by Dr. Fleagle. Hearing opened at 11:00 p.m. · Mr. M. Iverson questioned traffic flow onto Newport considering.the short distance to left turn lane at Irvine. Mr. Roger Olaf requested 30 days traffic count of vehicular movement on both Newport and Irvine. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Sharp that this matter be continued as an open Public Hearing to August 15, 1977, meeting. Carried. 9. Use Permit 77-16 (Packers Square Commercial Develo A Use Permit application to authorize the development of a commercial complex as an integral part of the Packers Square project. RECOb~ENDED ACTION: Approval of Use Permit 77-16 by adoption of Resolution No. 1656. Hearing opened at 11:10 p.m. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgaz that this ma be continued as an open Public Hearing to August 1977 evening meeting. Carried. VII. MATTERS OF CONCERN Dr. Fleagle reported on list of hearings scheduled for August 15, 1977, meeting. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar that meeting be adjourned to meeting of the Council. Carried. RECORDING SECP~TARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISS ION · DATE: August 15, 1977 SUBJECT: Use Permit 77-13 Staff recommends that Public 77-13 be continued until September 3:00 p.m. to allow involved parties differences. Respectfully submitted, Brian J. Chase Acting Community Development Director BJC/db PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 Hearing on Use Permit 6, 1977, at to recouncil LAN N lNG' DEP ART M £ NT ' - ::":':':":: .... > TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 DATE: August 1, 1977 SUBJECT: USE PERMIT 77-13 LOCATION: Lot 1, Tract 8590, Irvine-Tustin Industrial Complex (Myford Road at Santa Ana Freeway) APPLICANT: Jack Dempsey, Sage.Properties, Inc., 500 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, for the benefit Of Schick Moving and Storage Co. Use Permit 77-13, for the purpose of authorizing a Moving and Storage Company to develop Lot 1 of Tract 8590, was advertised for Public Hearing on July 18, 1977, at the request of the applicant and other interested parties, the hearing was continued until August 1, 1977. ~ff met with the applicant, Mr. Jack Dempsey of Sage ies, representatives of the Irvine Industrial Complex, rotestors representing the Dynachem Corp. and Basic Four, 21, 1977, to attempt to reconcile the differences. s agreed upon by the conference participants that the plans be redrawn and submitted to all interested parties for Upon determination of agreements and differences, the · · plans would be resubmitted to the City Council for :ion. It is be ACTION: .ded that the Public Hearing on Use Permit 77-13 as an open Public }[earing until 3:00 p.m., Monday, LAN NIN'G :- DEPARTMENT :'" :;~ " Report to the Planning Agency on Use Permit 77-13 August 1, 1977 ·" Page two August 15, 1977. Respectfully submitted, ~enneth F eagle, D.P.A. R. 1 Assistant City Administrator Community Development Director RKF/db TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 15, 1977 SUBJECT: Use Permit 77-19 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 Because an incomplete package of materials was submitted initially, the staff has had inadequate time to review the applicant's request. It is requested that an open P~lic Hearing be continued until 3:00 p.m. on September 6, 1977, when a complete report and recommendation can be made. Respectfully submitted, J. Chase Com~ity Development Director TO THE · PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NO, 3 DATE: August 15, 1977 SUBJECT: Use Permit 77-20 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION - The Trinity Broadcasting Company has submitted an application for an expansion of their current facility which includes additional studio space, offices, an earth satellite and expansion of parking facilities. Staff has met with the applicant and given a preliminary review of the project and has suggested several modifications to the overall design. To allow sufficient staff review and time for applicant's modifications we recommend as follows: ae Public Hearing on Use Permit 77-20 be continued until 3:00 p.m., September 6, 1977. Use Permit is to cover all portions if the project with the exception of the earth satellite. Be Earth Satellite will require focused EIR on its potential impact on radio - T.V. - Emergency communications. Staff will recommend that once the EIR process has been completed and all impacts of the project mitigated to the Agency's satisfaction that the Use Permit 77-20 be amended to include the earth satellite. ly submitted, J. Chase Community Development Director T ~E P LA N NING COMMISSI<~''~ PUBLIC HEARING NO, 4 DATE: August 1.5, 1977 SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report 77-4 (Packers Square) BACKGROUND On August 9th the staff met with representatives of the Packers Square project. Based on the reaction from the community af the August Isf public hearin9 they-indicated that they are withdrawin9 the fen story high rise portion of the project and have a number of alternative uses they wish the Council to consider including expanded residential uses or expansion of the commercial uses. If was indicated fo the Staff fhaf the applicant may desire to delay development of Parcel !1 until the market conditions can be determined. The staff feels that this cou!d be a workable solution since the General Plan Amendment would create a Planned Community (Commercial-Multi familv Residential) which would allow sufficient control to insure a compatabie development within the parameters set forth by the Plannin9 Agency. cause of sfron9 communif? reaction it would be desira~ie to have the fernative uses clearly delineated before any phased development plan approved. The applicant has indicated his intent is fo present I alternatives for parcel I! fo the Plannin9 Agency for discussion. ional items which the staff feels are in need of further discussion of the EIR process are: · )plicanf still is presenting a multi family complex with 20 units acre. This 8xceeds the current community standard of 17 units ~er acre. II traffic safety problems and mifigafin9 measures fo be taken ave been requested of the applicant and will be presented af the in9. ~G NEEDS sp y Engineer has suggested, and the Community Development ~enf concurs, that a minimum of 2¼ to 2½ parking spaces per Id be required. This would insure adequate guest parking L CONCERNS The ot: EMA has again raised concern over the apparent elimination rial bike route. Applicant has stated his willingness to LAN N lNG ..... DEPARTM E NT Report to the Planning Agency Page two August 15, 1977 consider a bike route if requested. However staff feels fhaf a requirement should not be imposed until overall community reaction along the potential route can be evaluate:d. pUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS Fire and Police services have both raised questions on the seL~vice loads this project will require. The elimination of the hi9h rise structure represents a signifiEant drop in the potential service load. Sfat:f would recommend a safety and security feature be required desi9n element of the project. SANITATION SERVICE 70 PROJECT SITE_ The County Sanitation District has stated a limitation in their ability to serve the site. Applicant has responded fo staff fha.f alternative measures are available and these would be discussed. Because of anticipated public concern the staff feels that the above items, presentation of the applicant and additional public testimony should be received and no action taken until the September 6th meeting to allow the Planning Agency time to evaluate the testimony given, CO/WV!ENDED ACTI ON: is recommended that the public hearing and final cer'ti{icafion of 77-4 be continued until a full evaluation by the Planning Agency and can be made and presented at the September 6th meeting af 7:30 p,m, 6 ? 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 1666 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE'CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING ENVIRON~IENTAL. IHPACT REPORT NO. 77~4, AN EIR FOR THE TOTAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF CO~gIERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Planning Agency finds and determines as follows: a. That a draft EIR was prepared on the basis of information submitted by WESTEC Services, Inc., 180 East Main ·Street, Tustin, California, for the purpose of evaluating the impact related to the proposed mixed use of the site for commercial and residential (Multi-family) purpose. b · Ce de e · That an independent analysis was included in the staff distribution to all agencies affected. That a public hearing was held by the Planning Agency on July 18, 1977, to receive public testimony, and was continued to August 1, 1977, when additional public co~ents and protests were heard and hence continued to August 15, 1977, for additional review and comments. That EIR 77-4 adequately identifies and addresses those items of environmental significance as related to the proposed land uses and their impact on the community. That adverse factors and mitigating measures have been identified in the staff report of August 13, 1977. These adverse factors identified include: 1. Circulation and traffic impacts affecting traffic flow on Newport and Irvine Boulevard. 2. Limitation on access and egress to the site. 3. Density lends exceeding normal community standards. 4. Potential pedestrian-vehicle conflicts within the site and on adjoining properties. 5. Potential impact on-surrounding residential uses. 6. Impact on City Services such as police, fire, and paramedics. · Impact on Water and Sanitary Services· Plans have been modified or restrictions impo..sed whic] will limit th~ potential or real adverse impact identi~ fied by staff, in the report, or in public testimony. The City Council, as Planning Agency, hereby certifies Environmental Impact Report· No. 77-4 to consist of the initial draft, staff analysis, public testimony, minutes of the meeting of July 18, August 1 and August 15 and related correspondence and documentation, and directs staff to file notice of determination with the Recorder of 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 Orange County. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of Tustin Planning Agency held on the 15t~'day 1977. ~ the City of of August, ATTEST: CHAIRMAN RECORDING SECRETARY 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 26 27 · 28 TO T HE PLAN N~NG LJ COM M~$3 ION PUBLIC HEARING NO. 6 DATE' August 1, 1977 SUBJECT' APPLICANT' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 77-4 (An EIR for the deVelopment of an Il-acre mixed use project known as Packer Square) Harry Kassebaum, 3~48 Campus Drive, Newport Beach PROPOSAL' An EIR related to a proposed development of a 10-75-acre site located, easterly of Newport and southerly of Irvine Boulevard. BACKGROUND' An EIR for the proposed Packer Square development was submitted for a mixed use development of commercial, professiohal office, resi- dential, and high rise senior citizens housing. A more detailed. cused EIR was submitted covering just the commercial-professional tion of the site facing Newport. Because of staff concerns specific areas of the shopping center's development, a meet- as held with the developer, ~he consultant preparipg the E!E, traffic engineering consultant. The greatest concern of ;ained to access to the site, congestion witt~in the devet- ~blems associated with service road restrictions, sign- vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Concern was also expressed inal design of the bank facil'ity, overall design concept, impact on adjacent properties and other phases of )men~. Corrections were agreed to in most of the areas the out 1 e , DISCUS An three ~n of EIR 77-4 for Packer Square shows that there are elements to the overall proposal. They are' A. Sho 7 Center (discussed and addressed in detail in EIR staff reports). B. Hi e Elderly Housing (discussed below). C. Mult Housing and Site Amenities (discussed below). The conc polential staff relative to the high rise elderly tower's s are as follows. 1. ,Impact The proposed physical .~h Rise Tower tory tower will represent a definite change in of the neighborhood. The existence of the AN N'ING DF_.PA RT M ENT '' ...... EIR 77-4 August 1, 1977 Page two tower will mean a real and/or psychological loss o~ privacy for a large portion o£ the surrounding neighborhood. No amount of architectural treatment can change ~he £ac~ that a high rise tower is in conflict with the single story suburban character of the adjacent neighborhood. · ~. 2. Demand on City Services Servicing the elderly tower will significantly increase the ser- vice load on the City Fire Department, especially paramedic ser- vice. Of particular concern is the time factor in servicing residents of the upper stories of~any high rise structure. Strict adherence to building code requirements for high rise structures would be necessary and additional contracting for fire services ,y be necessary to insure that, in the event of fire, adequate protection would be available. Additional demands for more ces from the Recreation Department would require some expansion ting programs. Other aspects of City services have been addressed in the EIR. n Concerns open not hi enjoy ulus is contains service elevator daily ures as described in the text o.f the EIR and as shown s concern the staff, particularly the lack of usable nd outdoor recreation areas. While the elderly are at the suggested ages mentioned (80-$2), they do ~ble to sit in parklike s~ttings where ~he visual s~im- ~rent from what they encounter indoors. %Vhile the EIR ~ttal to staff's earlier concern for a secondary , it is still believed desirable to have a service emergencies and other uses not compatible with the of the complex. 4. Elde] Complex and Community Character While it · the City and tast character and esp structure. better refle live in'hous ,greed that the desirability of a high rise tower in jective matter dependent on Personal preferences s the opinion of staff that the existing community that the interests and desires of the community. e elderly, would not be bes~ suited by a high rise would contend that low rise structures would preferences of the elderly, who would rather flecting the current standards of the community. Specific Conc are as follows 1. Excessive Develo lative to the proposed multi-family housing · lty of 'Apartments--Potential Condominium EIR 77-4 August 1, 1977 Page three The proposal calls for 96 units on 4.6 acres, or 20.7 units per acre. This is clearly in excess of past City actions which limit development to no greater ~han 17 units per acre. Staff would recommend a density no greater than 17 units per acre'be authorized for the apartment house development. Further, staff has discussed with the developer the possibility of, at some later time, conver~- ing the units to condominiums. Proposed density would preclude the developer complying with the required design standards for con- dominiums. Condominium design would have to comply with Planned Development District Regulations as set forth in Ordinance 553. Those regulations require 50% open space, greater setback requirements, and'other more detailed design criteria. 2. Pedestrian Crossings tial plot plans and conceptual drawings do not clearly illus- e pedestrian crossings and walks to get residents of the (and elderly complex) from their dwellings to The two adja-- ~opping centers. Such crossings and walks should be required. un i t ~ · doesn.' car per Needs ineer has suggested that past .experience would make to require a minimum o£ 2¼ to 2½ parking spaces per would insure adequate guest ~arking, which often when so many units already have the maximum two usage, thus leaving little room for guest parking. 4. Bike 1 Concerns Expr bike t of the this are bein EMA share ern over the lack of provisions for a projected ave been answered in the EIR by suggesting that one ate routes would have to be used. Staff contends ~t address whether the best interests of the community rved, and the issue needs to be resolved. The County concern in the attached letter. 5. Traff Numerous t however, the cooper EIR 77-3 ( safety questions were raised by the City Engineer: not all, have been successfully .resolved throu~h f the traf£ic consultant in meetings considering center portion of project). EIR 77-4 August l, 1977 Page four Identified within the EIR and considered worthy of individual con- sideration are the following adverse impacts requiring mitigation and/or overriding: 1. Traffic-pedestrian safety conflicts. 2. Bike trail alignment. 3. Skyline domination of senior citiZens complex. 4. Sanitation District capacity restrictions (see letter). 5. Traffic circulation impact on Builders Emporium operations. 6. Impact on Fire and rescue capabilities. 7. Proposed density of the apartment complex (20.7 units per acre). Attached to this report are additional letters and comments ~ceived from the County EMA relative to bike trails and from the itation District relative to their ability to serve the site. ,[MENDED ACT ION · . th e A .family issues response public h e staff's belief that, with the exception of the high ri~ tower, acceptable mitigating measures can be found for-each :oblems outlined above. Staff would reconm'~end that the uest the developer to submit alternate designs for the sing portion of the project, .with a maximum structure es) height of 50 feet. It is further recommended tha't .llow a maximum of 17 units per acre for the multiple on of the site. To allow for the resoluzion of the lems described above, and to allow the mandatory for public comment, the staff recommends that the be continued as an open hearing to August 15, 1977. Respect submitted, R. Kennei Assistan' Commun i t eagle,~DPA y Administrator ~lopment Director RKF:km '~ Enc. · o OOUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS "OF ORANGE COUNT , CAMFCRNIA P. O. BOX B127. F'OUNTAIN VALLEY. IDALI~'I"II~NIA 92708 1OS-I~' ELL.IS AVENUE [,l!!lI. jOLID 0!'F':~AN~P. SAN C;IE0[] I: SL[-;,%/~¥ ) '714 ' q62-2411 JulY' 18, 1977 City of Tustin Centennial at Main Tustin, California 92680 Attention' Hr. Kenneth Fleagle Director of Community Development Subject' Draft EIR - Packers Square (77-.7.,, 77-4) ect Environmental Impact Report .has been reviewed and ~n found to be inadequate with respect to sewage £~tcilities. ion District No. 7 does not have planned capaci',v for this ment if the present land use plans change to hi?,i~ density tial. The project flows from this parcel and t'h,c drainage. Sanitation District 5o. 7 was incorporated into its Plan - Trunk Sewer Facilities", May i969. The trunk les to serve the District have been constructed l~:tsed on d use plans in existence at that time. have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. M. Reid Senior Engineer DMR- h ~0. U NTY OF ~ I:NViRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE: 834-4643 AREA CODE 794 MAILING P.O. BOX 4108 SANTA ANA, CAL. IFOR~;A ~,2702 H. G, OSBORNE DIRECTOR RICHARD G. MUNSELL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADVANCE PLANNING July 18, 1977 City of Tustin Planning Department Centennial at Main Tustin, California 92680 ect: Packers Square Shopping Center, Draft Environmental Impact Report dar~ cons being at Sirs: the primary concern of the Count~ of Orange that project plans for ioject reflect the County's plans for construction of proposed Trail 8B. As currently envisioned, this trail is slated to run Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad easement upon purchase unty. Since the proposed route defines the southeastern boun- subject project, the need for integration of plans for this ;eems apparent. !ormation related to the bike trail project can be gained througi~ .on of the Draft EIR mailed to you on June 13, 1977, as well as available at the Tustin Public Library and at our office th Broadway, Santa Aha. In the event of further questions, you t 'prompt and courteous responses by contacting Doug Wood at timel, for the opportunity to respond to these proposed plans; our olvement is greatly appreciated. DW:dlm Very truly yours, :~' .. ! Z 0 · ['L z z Tustin, California 92680 August'&, 1977 · Tus~in City Council City of Tustin Tus~in, California 92680 G entl emen: In 1960 we moved to the Tustin area to escape congestion and high-rise buildings of metropolitan Los Angeles. The proposed construction of low income, HUD financed, multi-story apartments within 'half mile of our residence is unjustifiable, to say the least. We sincerely believe that the property owner should be given consideration and be allowed to construct whatever he es so long as it meets current building codes and ons, s~nd does not interfere with the rights of c o~nuni ty. cting multi-story~ low income, HUD financed .housing area does interfere with the rights and pleasures of · ' in this community and would force us to sell our as we had to do some 16 ~ears ago. HUD ed property has defaulted and become blighted through- out Ami . If the~/~s no regulation against construction of multi-story buildi~in Tustin, then I am requesting, at this time, that you dr~~:~:and pass such a regulation without furtherdelay. How c; Tu even consider making BEAUTIFUL TUSTIN, a Blighted Very sincerely yours, August-9, 1977 City of Tustin Planning Co~,~,issicn and City Council Centennial Way at ~,ain St. Tustin,.Calif. 92680 Dear Sirs: I attended the meetin~ ~o~day, AUg, 1, evening session, re6~arding ~ne pz'o~,sed use o? the land where, the old fire station si ts on Newport Ave, Some of the ~oints -that were not brought up were: mnto '~rafi'~c on ~2~ewporv even thoogh ~hey ..~,~n~" a ~.'~"ht h~nd 1;urn mhe di n~nc..,~ f:~?em one drive~,~ay Se She corner is only ei2ht or Zen fees. Yo:~ can ..... ba ., oeo ~, a¥,~are el' the ero~'le -. .~ ., try to exi_t: on [~.iew~ort, ~o matter w~a~ yot~ des.- tinatior~ ia ycu a~'e forced ~o .go aro~d '~he cor- ner ~'~nd then .'m:~ke a ~.. -.. ~,-~,,~r s,,,~','~,~,,~e~ .... in Vhe next b].ock to aaiust; .7or=' course. [ Lave ~our:._l it t'o b,: a :~:rcb'e:n 'tr..e't. alre dy ez.~st,~ ~ without; arlded ~,um,.,ers o,. ,-,~, ~ c les, Because cC t'~..,, close prcx~~'~,,,~t'~,. of the ~roposed b~iJ. dings to the exist~n~ businesses in the Tustin Heights Sh. oppinf~ Center it wi il be difffficul, t or ~mpcssibie Zo make a [~turn to exit tb. rou~h the Pink ~eaner driveway, which is the exit i see most of their customers using. .~o we rea:.ly need another How many do we havc a!read::,:? points that ?~,ere brought up with which ! agree are: ~en story building wi]j 'be an eyesore for anyone zives in Tus~in and does business in the area, ~ and ,the 2'. ,~ree with the rerson who said the elder]..; -income Y"~mii~,.es (who usual ].y have chi],dren) wou.i be com~'a~b.~e. ~ ~h~t,k ~,h~ elderly v:o~]d oref...~. ~mu=t comn,unity. Why ccuidD't the c::tire evoZed to senior c:it!zerfs~ Why couldn't all of ~~uiidings be no more tha~,. ,, three stories,. ~~nk it would be first, tic to nave aoc, m~:iete-care ~~ity such as ~uaker Gardens in SZanto~f, or Town ~'~- :t~y Manor irt f~anta Aha. ., - 2 - MUSt we be so hasty in making a decision? We are going to live with The results for a long time. The proposed income to The city was ~20,OOO a year. I imagine the property of each home o~'mer in 'the area has appreciated that much in the past ~'~o years. That is not very much money for a city to consider as guaranteed income. Aren't there too many variables involved 'for that amount to be firm? I k~now, another figure was mentioned, ;)192 , 000 . 00 or somethir..gl, but i dld:3:t understand why the two amounts were mentioned separa-"~L- in my op.Lnio.u~ you :~:en have done an outstanding job in your p!annlrM, so ±'ar~ Tustln is beautiful. Please vote ',ce*~p it that w'~*, ~.~:oo t Sincere_]y, ,, ,' ~ / ..,,. - . .. .~ ~-. ~ t-' J T;i~ ora 1.}4-..']. ]'~'~'u'.:'ta i,oa Rd. DATE - TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Brian Chase, Acting Community Development Director Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer' Packer's Square Access Easements Adjacent to Builder's Emporium · , The 60' wide easement as shown on the attached map is a private ingress-egress easement to the 4.33 acre parcel shown as a cross hatched area. The City would have no direct control over this easement, except in controlling what type of development that may. occur on the landlocked property. requirements set forth in the Packer's Square development was to create a t type appearance of the area immediately adjacent to Builder's Emporium ing of curbs and a sidewalk adjacent to the building. The parking lot d the building, however, would remain, as it presently exists. -Bob CitY E BL/em C TO T H£ PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEAR I NG NO..5 DATE: August 15, 1973 SUBJECT: Genreal Plan Amendment 77-~(F) RECO~NDED ACTION: Because of the interrelated nature of the four public hearings bein9 heard the evening.of August 15th the staff is recornmendin9 fhaf Public Hearin9 on the General Plan, Amendment 77~2{F) be continued alon9 with the cerfificaficn of EIR 77-4. DEP'A RTM E NT ~ ': ~""' TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: August 15, SUBJECT: EIR 77-3 portion of RECOMMENDED ACTION 1977 (Focused Packers (Cont.) PUBLIC HEARING NO. 6 EIR on Commercial Development Square) . It is recommended that EIR 77-3 by adoption of substantially as drafted. Respectfully submitted, Brian J. Chase Acting Community Development Director C/db the Planning Agency certify Resolution No. 1655, PLAN N IN'G DEPARTMENT TO T HE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NO. 8 DATE: August 1, 1977 SUBJECT: EIR 77-3 (Focused) Commercial Development- Packers Square BACKGRO UN D: Environmental Impact .Report 77-3, a focused EIR for the commercial portion of the Packers Square Project, was advertised for public hearing on July 18, 1977, and continued to August 1, 1977, for the purpose of additional mitigating measures related to traffic circulation and perimeter buffers. (See Staff report dated July 18, 1977) DISCUSSION: Revised plans and mitigating measures have been submitted to the satisfaction of staff. Environmental Impacts and mitigating measures are .entified as follows: IMPACT MITIGATION path conflict edestrian Safety 1. Relocation to f!'ood control channel and delayed ccns:"~eration ' by County of Orange use of northeast- 2. Lighted and identified crcsswalks rly service road and sidewalk construction Avenue traffic :irculation 3. Limited to one-way traffic for service vehicles ohibition of south- ound traffic tricted access to 4. a) Change of median islands and prohibition of left turn =r_m bank b) Realignment of exit ~ ~ 5. No mitigation measure 6. Redesign of landscaped entrance Cer' Pe rmi on of EIR 77-3 does not approve the project but a requirement for further consideration of the Use ACTION: It is d that the City Council as Planning Agency 77-3 by adoption of Resolution No. 1655, substantially 2eport to the City' Council August 1, 1977 Page 2 as drafted. Respectfully submitted, R. Kenneth Fieagle, D. .A. Assistant City Administrator Community Development Director RKF/db Public Hearing No. 12 July 18, 1977 Page 2 one-way service road only with low traffic volumes. The question raised by the City Engineer related to pedestrian access through a drive-thru cleaners driveway has not been addressed by the consultant. 2.' The City Engineer states that the.plot plan shows parking for the commercial areas along the northerly side of the commercial buildings (29 stalls). This drive was described as a drive for service vehicles only, but the elevations in the appendices shows store fronts with access. The consultant responds that public entrances of the three buildings which back onto the service drive will be from the front and not from the service entrance sid. e. However, deliveries and employees entrance will be from the rear ~~of these shops with a total of 32 employee parking spaces proposed ~!~r. the area immediately behind the two northern, mos~ shop bullc~ngs ~~cent to the service road. It is the City Engineer's opinion that ~~~the elevations and convenience of parking at this site will ~~ the use of the service road as an entrance way into the shc~s ubl~c. ~"'.~3ii~?~~ity Engineer raises a question pertaining to the alignr~nt °fi'~~nge County bike trail along th~ AT&SF right-of-way. The conS~~ responds that it is his understanding that the bike trail woui.d '~~w the E1 Modena-Irvine Flood Control Channel since no provis~~have been made for a bike trail thru Packer Square. As ~~ we have not received a report from the Orange County EnViron~~l~ Management Agency related to the proposed bike trail a 1 i g nme n~~ The~~tementi!~ of extending the center median on Newport Avenue 4. to res~~ left egress from the site is not practical. The motorists would left t left st to den~ me an turn on economic congest ze any open area near their intended movement to make a rom Newport Avenue. The only practical way to prohibit gress is to restrict all cross street movement by con- raised median. The consultant's response states that turn access into the site at the center driveway would ingress from Newport Avenue would have to be right- their estimation, this could adversely effect the ty of the retail outlets and could potentially cause ~ere. 5. The of Builder may not be consultant suggests installation of a stop sign at the northeast corner property in the opinion of the City Engineer, t!on to the problem that would be created. The ledges that enforcement could be a problem and r solutions may be ava'ilable. Public Hearing No. 12 July 18, 1977 Page 3 To Appendix 1 of the master EIR Traffic Impact Analysis, the City Engineer has taken exception to the circulation pattern for the proposed development. Some comments relate to the total development while others relate solely to the commercial development. The respon'ses of the consultant's Traffic Engineer to the concerns of the City Engineer have not been satisfactory. . . -. It's believed that there are distinctive problems related to traffic circulation both for the commercial development and the total site. It is further suggested that mitigating measures proposed have not alleviated the adverse impacts upon traffic circulation. There has not been an opportunity for the City Engineer and the consultant's Traffic Engineer to fully discuss the proposed circulation plan and mitigating measures. Prior to certification of EIR, it is suggested that these matters shOuld be fully addressed and brought to the attention the Planning Agency fo~ resolution. Res ENDED ACTION: It is recon%~ended that the Planning Agency continue public hearing EIR 77-3 until August 1, 1977, for furt?_%er ;omment and resolution of conflicts and mitigating measures to traffic circulation. ly submitted, R. Assist FLEAGLE, D.P.A. ity Administrator ~evelopment Director RKF ' I '3^¥ i i · _ i i i : i i iii ~z ! ~o9' I I-, Z LU I,U >, n <{ 0 LU 0 · u~ 1 2 5 6 ? 10 11 RESOLUTIOX i<O. 1'655 · ~...,C.t el' TIlE CITY A I[ESOLbTiON OF T'HE ['LAN'~INC AG' ...... ':" ' .... ,~.L.~,AL I~Ii~.. REPORT 77-2 A FOCUSED E.I.R. FOR THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PORTION OF PACKER SQUARE. The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows' ~ 1. The Planning Agency finds and determines as follows' a. That a draft Environmental Impa2t Report was prepared on the basis of information submitted by Westec Services, Inc., 1S0 East Main Street, Tustin, California 92~S0, for ~tl~e purpose evaluating the impact related to the construction of a commercial development of · 40,400 square feet on 4.5 acres, for the prop- erty located on the southeasterly side of Newport Avenue southerly of Irvine Boulevard, known as Packer Square. 17: 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 b. That an independent analysis was included in the staff distribution to all agencies havin~ jurisdiction over subject area. c. That a public hearing was held by the Planning Agency on July 18, 1977, to receive public testimony related to the impa~t upon tho environment of proposed development, on the sub- jeer property, with public hearing continued to August 1, 1977. d. That EIR 77-3 adequately addresses those items of environmentkl significance as related to the proposed land uses. e. That adverse factors have been identified with mitigating measures as identified in the staff report dated '1 August 1977, to consist of the following items: (1) Conflict with design of Orange County bicycle path plan. (2) Pedestrian safety for occupants and resi- dents of the area. (3) Public use of the northeasterly service road. (4) NewPort Avenue traffic circulation. (5) Prohibition of egress for southbound traf- fic. (6) Restricted access to the center. f. Plans have been modified to accommodate all the adverse impacts ~dentified within thru report, with thc exception of the prohibition of left-turn .movements out of the commercial 1 2 6 ? 8 9 10 center onto Newport Avenue, which will have resultant impact upon other .traffic intersections The economic and service benefit of the project is dcomod to override the advc~r-~e impact ~f' th~ prohibition of left-turn movements for egrcss from the commercial center. 2. The City Council, as Planning Agency, hereby certi- fies Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 77-3. to consist of the initial .draft, indepe.ndent analysis, public testimony, and minutes of the meeting's of July 18 and August 1, 1977, and related correspon- dence, and directs Sta££ to file notice of determi- nation with the [lecorder of Orange County. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City of Tustin Planning~ Agency, held on the first day of August, 1977. CHA I RMAN 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SECRETARY 2 9 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. 1655 A RESOI,UT-ION OF TIlE PLANNING AGENCY OF' THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING E {VIR0 ,,d i rAL I IPACT REPORT ~77-3, A FOCUSED E.I.R. FOR TIIE C~MMERCIAL DEVI{LOPI. IENT PORTION OF'PACKER SQUARE. Thc Planning Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows' 1. The Planning Agency finds and deter'mines as follows' a. That a draft Environmental Impact Report w:ts prepared °n the basis of information submitted by lVestec Services, Inc., 180 East Main Street, Tustin, California 92680, for the purpose evaluating the impact related to the construction of a commercial development of 40,400 square feet on 4.5 acres, for the p~op- erty located on the southeasterly side of Newport Avenue southerly of Irvine Boulevar'd, known as Packer Square. b. That an independent analysis was incldded in the staff distribution to all agencies havin~ jurisdiction over subject area. c. That a public hearing was held by the Planning Agency on July 18, 1977, to receive public testimony related to the imp:ttc~:, upon th~:~ environment of proposed development on the sub- ject property, with public hearing continued ~o August 1, 1977. d. That EIR 77-3 adequately addresses those of environmental significance as related to the proposed land uses. e. That adverse factors have been identified ~vit. h mitigating measures as identified in the staff report dated 1 August 1977, to consist of ~he following items' (1) Conflict witt~ design of Orange County bicycle path plan. (2) Pedestrian safety for occupants and resi- dents of the area. (3) Public use of the northeasterly service road. (4) Newport Avenue traffic circulation. (5) Prohibition'of egress for southbound traf- fic. (6) Restricted access to the'Center. f. Plans have been modified to accommodate all the adverse impacts identified within th(~ report, with the exception of the prohJbiti, on of left-turn movements out of the commercial 10 center onto Newport Avenue, which will have resultant impact upon other traffic intersections The economic and service benefit of the project is deemed to override the adverse impact of tile prohibiti, on of ].eft-turn movements for egress from the commercial center. 2. The' City Council, as PI. arming Agency, hereby corti- fies Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 77-3, to consist of the initial 'draft, independent analysis, public testimony, and minutes of the meetings of July 18 and August .1, 1977, and relaZed correspon- dence, and directs staff to file notice of determi- nation with the Recorder of Orange County. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City of TUstin Planning Agency, held on the first day of August, 1977. CHA I RMAN 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 .. · SECRETARY TO T PLANNING COMMISSION (Cont.) PUBLIC HEARING NO. 7 DATE: August 15, 1977 SUBJECT: Use Permit 77-16 Packers Square Commercial Portion Only DISCUSSION St in th of significantly Parcels ii and aff's position remains unchanged from the August 1st meeting regards to the Use Permti 77-16. A review by City staff and e applicant has resulted in the staff to conclude that approval the commercial portion of the site (Parcel l) will not affect the development alternatives proposed for Ill. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Planning Agency approve Use Permit 77-16 authorizing the commercial portion of Packers Square by adoption of Resolution No. 1656, substantially as drafted. Respectfully submitted, an J. Chase ing Community Development Di rector · /db :~]]7 pL.'A N N IN G DEPARTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISS ION CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NO. DATE: August 1, 1977 SUBJECT: Use Permit 77-16 (Packers Square Commercial Portion) LOCATION: Easterly side of Newport Avenue, souterly of Irvine Boulevard BACKGROUND: Use Permit 77-16, for the purpose of authorizing the development of 4.5 acres for commercial use, as a portion of the proposed Packers Square Project, was advertised for public hearing on July 18, 1977, and continued to kugust 1, 1977, for review and certification of EIR 77-3. (See staff report, July 18, 1977) DISCUSSION: ¸Re certification of EIR 77-3 the Planning Agency may approve ]se Permit 77-16, with such conditions imposed as necessary assure compatibility with existing and proposed develop~ents. City Engineer and Community Development Department met · the developer's representatives and have resolved major ilems related to site design and traffic circulation. sed development of the Commercial portion is in with the Land Use Element of the General Plan Zoning Ordinance. s the opinion of staff that the commercial portion be authorized to proceed with development prior to necessary processes related to the General Plan and change amendments for the remainder of the' project. ACTION: commended that the Planning Agency approve Use -16, to authorize the development of the commercial f Packers Square by adoption of Resolution No.1656, lly as drafted. ly submitted, Administrator .~velopment Director LAN N ING DEPARTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISS tON PUBLIC HEARING NO. 13 DATE' July 18, 1977 SUBJEC.T' USE PERMIT 77-16 (PACKER SQUARE) APPLICANT' Harry Kassebaum, 3848 Campus Drive, Newport Beach PROPOSAL' LOCAT I ON' To develop 40,400 square feet of commercial and office use on a 4.5-acre parcel. , The location.is the westerlymost 4.5 acres of the 10-75 acres located southerly of Irvine Boulevard on the easterly side of Newport Avenue and west- erly of Tustin Heights Shopping Center. ZONING' Planned Community (Commercial), requiring a Use Permit and precise plan submittal for development. I R ONM ENTAL · EIR 77-3 has been submitted for consideration and certification.. ',OUND ' ;~ relative to previously considered EIR 77-3 are appli- o this proposed project. Concerns relate primarily to circulation. Concerns of the Community Development ~nt related to the proposed ~ommercial development pertain asterly property line and drive access. There is ~al separation between the two properties and the service ~e appears to be the most pronounced of all accessways to ;er. It would also be a primary access road to the resi- developments that are progran~ed for the southeasterly in of the site. A negative impact would be created unless preime~er walls or landscaping, or alternatively ating the common service entrances to serve the two properties. As such, it would be inappropriate to ing located along the service road, and to the :sible this alleyway or service road should be screened view. The c re and ad land use is appropriate to the site and would be th other uses within the vicinity. Staff would royal of the Use Permit upon modification of the attern to the satisfaction of ~he City Engineer, ition of the aesthetics of the site as related to S - PL'AN N lNG DEPARTM ENT ': ....... .. Use Permit 77-16 (Packer Square) Public ttearing No. 13 July 18, 1977 Page two RECOMMENDED ACT ION: It is recommended that the Planning Agency continue the public hearing as an open public hearing until August 1, 1977, following certification of EIR 77-3. Respectfully submitted, R. Kenneth Fleaole, D.~P.A. Assistant City Administrator Community Development Director 6 ? '8 9 10 11 12 17 18 19 2O 21 22 26 RESOLUTION.NO. 1656 A RESOI_,UTIO:~ OF TIFF-. ,-~..,~.~..ING ACE?.[CY OF TIiE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PER.~IT 77-16, FOR THE CO~[\IERCIAL DEVELOPMEi'~T OF PACKEt~ SQUARE. The Planning Agency .of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows- 1. The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin finds and determines as follows- A. That a proper application (No. UP 77-16) was filed by Harry Kassebaum, 3848 Campus Drive. Newport Beach; for a conditional use permit - to allow the construction and operation of a 40,400-square-foot commercial center on a 4.5- acre parcel located on the southerly side of Newport Avenue, southerly of Irvine Boulevard, known as Packer Square. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application. C. That establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the cir- cumstances 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 propos.ed use, evicienced by the following findings: (1) The proposed use is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan the commercial zoning of the subject · (2) The subject use is in a portion of a mas~er plan for the development of the total vacant parcel. (3) That traffic circulation patterns will be compatible with other developments within the area. D. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of a commercial center will not be injUrious nor detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subjec-~'property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. E. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and the development policies adopted by the City Council, Unil'()rr, t Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Fire Chie'f, and street improvement requirements as administered by the Public Works Director. F. That the proposal has been addressed by Environ- mental Impact Report 77-3, as certified by the Planning Agency, with mitigating measures. 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 16 17 18 2. Tl~e Planning Agency hereby grants a Use Permit, as applicd for, to allow .the construction and oi)~ration of a drive-thru bank', restaurant, and retail shops, subject to tile following conditions' A. Compliance with mitigating measures proposed by EIR 77-3. B. Staff approval of precise development plans for any structure or portion of the project, to include but not limited to' (1) Handicapped parking accommodations. (2) Landscaping (3) Street improvements (4) Installation of fire hydrants (5) Signing in accordance with Tustin Sign Code. (6) Undergrounding of utilities. (7) Lighting (8) Colors and materials (9) Elevations (lO) Screening of roof-top equipment C. Substantial deviation from the conceptual plan as hereby approved shall require the submission to and approval of the Planning Agency. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special adjourned meeting of the tY of Tustin Planning Agency, held on the first'day of ~ust, 1977. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SECRETARY CIIA I R~JAN ti] T) t- Z .JW~ · ..~W,~ · ~7 Z~Z:~ ..,i !-.0 ~ruj ,~z d Zw 12100 1 2 3 6 7 .8 9 10 11 17 18 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 1656 A RESOLUTION OF RH,.c PLANNING AGENCY OF TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PER~IIT 77-16, FOR THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PACKER SQUARE. The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows- 1. The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin finds and determines as follows' A. That a proper application (No. UP 77-16) was filed by Harry Kassebaum, 384S Campus Drive, Newport Beach, for a conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of a 40,400-square-foot commercial center on a acre parcel located on the southerly side of Newport Avenue, southerly of Irvine Boulevard, known as Packer Square. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application. C. That establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the cir- cumstances of this case, be detrimental zo the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or workin~ in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: (1) The proposed use is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the commercial zoning of the subject parcel. (2) The subject use is in a portion of a master plan for the development of the total vacant parcel. (3) That traffic circulation patterns will be compatible with other developments within the area. D. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of a com~nercial center will not be injurious nor detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. E. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official,. Fire Code as administered by the Fire Ch{cf, and street improvement requirements as administered by the Public Works Director. F. That the proposal has been addressed by Environ- mental Impact Report 77-3, as certi£ied by the Planning Agency, with mitigating measures. 1 £ 6 ? 8 9 2. The Planning Agency hereby grants a Use Permit, as applied for, to allow the construction and operation of a drive-thru bank, restaurant, and retail shops, subject to the following conditions- A. .Compliance with mitigating measures proposed' by EIR 77-3. B. Staff approval of precise development plans for any structure or portion of the project, to include bun not limited to' (1) tiandicapped parking acconm~odations. (2)' Landscaping (3) SZreet improvements (4) Installation of fire hydrants (5) Signing in accordance, with Tustin Sign Code. (6) Undergrounding of utilities. (7) Lighting (8) Colors and materials (9) Elevations (10) Screening of roof-top equipment C. Substantial deviation from the 'conceptual plan as hereby approved shall require the submissi, on to and approval of the Planning Agency. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special adjourned meetin~ of the tY of Tustin Planning Agency, held on the first day of gust, 1977. CHAIRMAN SECRETARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISS ION . , DATE: August 15, 1977 OLD BUSINESS SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Constitution Savings Monument Sign BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Following the the exception Savings on 17t Doug Danielson has submitted Council and st 6, 1977, at 3: City Council's action of August 1, denying to the mounded monument sign for Constitution h Street, the staff was approached by , architect on the project. Mr. Danielson for a Variance as recommended by the City aff. The Variance will be heard on September OO p.m. Because the agenda and felt that h is now aski the City Co the interes with the Ci this item o City Council took this item out of the evening moved it up to the afternoon session Mr. Danielson e was unable to properly represent his case and ng for an opportunity to discuss the matter with uncil while they sit as Planning Agency. In ts of providing all citizens or parties dealing ty, fair and equitable treatment, I have placed n the agenda,' so Mr. Danielson can present his case. Respectfully submitted, rian J. Chase cting Community Development Di rector JC/db PLAN N ING,~. · No. 2 .. '8/1/77 Inter-Con TO: Honorable Mayor and the City Council FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: ReconSideration of Sign Code exception BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On June 6, 1977, the City Council authorized an exception to the Sign Ordinance No. 684 by the approval of a cubical monument sign for Constitution Savings. The conditions of approval were: "The monument sign is approved subject 6'-0" maximum height and copy limited to three (3) sides." plan which was presented to the Council an~ staf-f picted a monument sign slightly over 6' placed on grade. sign as currently being contructed is placed upon in excess of 7' in height. Staff believed that the , as presented, showed a sign which was only slightly excess of Sign Code provision and would be installed close to curb grade. believes that the City Council may. have interpreted plans as dicussed and therefore it is being brought your attention for reconsideration. A stop work order has ~en placed on the sign construction (7/26/77) until the is resolved. NGS 1. The sign exceeds the maximum height provided in the Sign Code: - 6' maximum height above grade - 4' maximum height above mounding .. 2. The sign structure is approximate].y 13 feet above curb grade. 3. The original building plans, as submitted, · Report :to the City Councii August 1, 1977 Page 2 by the architect, did show the sign as presently placed. At the time of building plan approval, the archtitect was notified that the sign could not be approved as ~shown. After construction had begun, Coast Sign Company requested signing exception based upon newly submitted plans. 4. No other monumeSt signs have been constructed to this height in the City without a Variance procedure. 5. The construction has proceeded to the present stage because the required footing inspection was not requested by the contractor. Had the request been made staff would have been made aware of the situation' earlier. 6. Staff assumed the sign would be placed near the original location in the ten foot (10') level area adjacent to the property line. RECOmmENDED ACTION__ the City Council finds that the sign, as constructed, does not ~sent the proposed plans it is recommended that the exception denied and recommend that a formal Variance be applied for )nstitution Savings. ~rnatively, if the Council believes that the sign does exceed the provision of Article VII, Section 1 (Exceptions), Sign Code, construction should be allowed to continue. ctfully submitted, Kenneth Fleag!e, D.P.A. sistant City Administrator y Development Director Constitution Savings Plaza sign part way through construction r~ -. :o L THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEW BUSINESS NO. 1 DATE: August 15, 1977 SUBJECT: Demand for Senior Citizen Housing in Tustin BACKGROUND- .. During the Public Hearing on the EIR for Packers Square, the Planning Agency requested the staff to determine just what the needs for Tustin's Senior Citizens are. Attached is a report from Mr. Gene Snyder of the Community Development Department outlining what information is know about Tustin's elderly and their current status. To summarize Mr. Snyder's findings: 1. A high proportion of Tustin's elderly are located in the City's Mobile Home Parks and Condominiums reflecting their desire for minimum maintenance forms of hoqsing. 2. Nearly 2/3 of the elderly have incomes in excess of $12,000 per year. This is well above, the national average. 3. Persons in need housing assistance can clearly be identified as those earning less than $5,000 per year. As the figures show 57 persons earn less than $3,000 and 60 persons earn between $3,000 and $5,000. In addition, of those earning between $5,000 and $8,000, it can be assumed that at least one half are in need or could use some form of housing assistance. This leads the staff to believe that'a minimum of 187 elderly housing units receiving some form of subsidy would be 'desirable within the City of Tustin. This does not mean that the staff recommends or endorses the building of a 187 unit senior citizens complex. The staff would suggest that a combination of housing alternatives would be appropriate such as, the rent subsidy program for ing housing units, encouragement of private and church lated housing assistance programs, an elderly housing ex of a size and design in keeping with the community's y, the Orange County Housing Authority has less than Tustin area resients requesting some form of assistance. department receives on the average two requests each month 'uesting information on rent subsidy programs. It is 's belief that the need for senior citizens housing is need for a small, but significant, portion of Tustin's Report to the Planning Agency Page two August 15, 1977 residents. The City Council's long standing position, that it will encourage efforts to help meet this need, has served as a constant stimulus to staff to encourage private-developers and other public agencies to aide in finding solutions to the problem. Respectfull~ubmitted, Acting Community Development Director BJC/db T0: Director, Conununlty Development Department- FROM: Public Services Assistant, Com~.unity Development Department SUSJ£CI: Senior Citizens; population data and other pertinent information The following information is furnished concerning Senior Citizens within Tustin City Limits: AGE DISTRIBUTION 1973 Census - 26,957 Tustin Population 2,441 Total number of Sr Citizens, 60 years & older The Cen: data 9. 081% on - 32,650 X 9.081% = 2,964 Sr Citizens, 60 '& older Estimated AGE '1977 data (Difference)' 60 - 64 960 (164) 65 - 69 757 (144). 70 - 74 519 (117) 75- 79 344. (52) 80- 84 251 (37)' 85 & over 133 (9) 2964 (523) 523 Senior Citizens over a period of 4 years .~ase of 130 per year. Senior Citizens according to age, location and shown on the attached enclosure, using 1973 Census Population Data August 8, ·1977 Page 2 The below listed information concerning'Senior Citizens according to Orange County's Special Census of 1976, was obtained from Mr. Raus Miller, Public Relations for Orange County's Senior Citizens Program (834-6017): Total number of Tustin Senior Citizens, 60 & over = 2,609 Of this number, 711 live alone. ANNUAL INCOME OF TUSTIN'S SENIOR CITIZENS (60 and over) NUMBER INCOME 57 60 141 337 329 490 493 569 133 ,609 Total below $3,000 below $5,000 below $8,000 below $12,000 below $15,000 below $20,000 below $25,000. below $50,000 OVER $50,000 units required by Senior Citizens (55 and over) in Orange = 125,000 Citizens Housing status in Orange County is considered as problem". Pul C~ submitte~, ~ Assistant etopment DePartment - 2 - 0 0~ t'~ o o c zo z z 1 o m o o o I · 1. i "I i ! co r-i o l I 0 ~ 0 ~ v i ~ o I Ir O00C 03 000 ~) O00C ® 01.1 (~ 01.2 · 00000 --------I I~00001 00~0 -~1'0 ----4 01.4 ..... 0 I ..... mmmmm o0o ~_ · (" T 0 T HE PLA NNING COM MISS ION DATE: NEW BUSINESS NO. 2 SUBJECT: August 15, 1977 EIR for Walnut Extension-Myford Road to Harvard Boulevard BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION In July, the City of Irvine, submitted an EIR for the Walnut Extension, now under consideration. The staff is in the process of reviewing the EIR and composing.a response for the City of Irvine which lists Tustin's concerns over the proposal. Staff will be presenting a report to the Agency during its afternoon session of August 15, 1977, meeting. As a brief background~ the City's principal interest in seeing the Walnut Extension completed is as follows: 1. Help complete the overall circulation system for that area. · Alleviate existing and future traffic congestion which presently occurs with the existing road alignment that interconnects with Myford Road. · Increase the level of Fire Protection'by providing reduced response times for County Fire trucks located on Walnut- near Culver in the City of Irvine. The City of Irvine has requested responses be submitted by August 24, 1977. . RECOMMENDED~ ACTION It is recommended that the Planning Agency reView the project with staff and authorize a letter containing comments on the EIR to be forwarded to the City of Irvine. Respectfully submitted, · J. Chase Community Development Director ~~?. T 0 T H E P L ^ N N IN G COM MISS ION DATE' SUBJECT: APPL I CANT: New Business #5 August 15, 1977 FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 77-97 L. E. CARPENTER AND ANDREW J' HAMER, INC. BACKGROUND & D I SCUSSI ON' Final Parcel Map No. 77-97, consisting of 2.4 acres, is being subdivided into three (.3) parcels by L. E. Carpenter and Andrew. J. Hamer, Inc. This subdivision is located on the westerly side of Yorba Street between Vandenberg Lane and Jacaranda Avenue. This final map is in substantial conformance with the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 77-97, as follows- 1. Planning Co~nission Resolution No. 1639, dated June 13, 1977. 2. City Council Resolution No. 77-65, dated June 20, 1977. The developer of parcels 2 and 3 has requested that the City include all the street improvements adjacent to these parcels with the forthcoming Yorba Street AttFP project, and will place on deposit with the City a sufficient .amount of money to cover improvements. The developer of parcel 1 has requested the City include the curb and gutter, paving and sewer lation with the Yorba Street AHFP project, and will on deposit with the City a sufficient amount of money ~to cover these Street improvements. Improvement agreements executed by each party will be required prior to the final approval of the Parcel Map by the City Engineer. RECOMMENDAT I ON: It ms recommended that the Tustin Planning Agency, at their lng of August 15, 1977, recommend approval of Final Parcel No. 77-97 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution 1664, substantially as drafted. fully submitted, J. Chase Conm~unity Development Director PLAN N I'NG DEPART M'E NT 2 6 RE$OLUTION NO. 1664 ^ RESOI,UTION OF THE PI;ANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVii'4G FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 77-07 FOil I'~[~OPEIITY ON TIlE WEST SIDE OF YORBA S~RL,u~ SOU~II OF 17Tt[ STRFET The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin hereby resolves as follows' 1. The Planning Agency fJ. ncts and determines as follows' A. That Final Parcel Map No. 77-97 was submitted pursuant to Ordinance No. 651 by L. E. Carpenter and Andrew Hamer, Inc., for the purpose of creating three (3) separate parcels £rom two (2) existing parcels as indicated in Book 401, 'Pa. ge 32, Block 1, 9arcels 3 and 5, Records of Orange County, with properties bordered by Yorba Street between Jacaranda Avenue and Vandenberg Lane. B. That the City Council reviewed Tentative Parcel Map No. 77-97 and approved it by adop- tion of Resolution No. 77-65. C. That the proposed Final Parcel .,Map division is categorically exempt from the requirements of an Environmental Impact RCl-)ort. 2. The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin recommends approval of Final Parcel Map 77-97 to the City Council, subject to' A. All of the conditions of Planning Conm~ission Resolution No. 1639, dated 'June 1.3, ].977, and City Council Resolution No. 77-65 dated June 20, 1977. B. Execution of improvement agreements by the developers of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 for street improvements along Yorba Street as required' by the City Engineer. C. Final approval of the City Engineer. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Tustin Planning Agency, held on the 15th day of August, 7. CHAIRMAN CITY CLERK !:11/77 km ~~ TO THE PLANNING COMMiSS iON NEW BUS ! NESS NO, 4 DATE: August 10, 1977 SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map 77-103 LOCATION: Property located on south side of 6th Street at Pacific Avenue. APPLICATION: City of Tustin BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: The subject parcel map is located on the south side of Sixth Street, west of Pacific Avenue. Th.is map proposes division of the Boys Club and Youth Center site into three (3) .parcels to enable the sale by the City of the Youth Center (Parcel 1). Parcel 2 presently is leased for 50 years to the Boys Club, and Parcel 3 is leased for one year to the Boys Club. Street improvement conditions have been previously imposed under conditions of approval'for the Pine Tree Day Care Center, the prospective purchasers of Parcel 1. The map involves street right-of-way dedication to provide for the Sixth Street cul-de-sac. COM : MENDATION: It is recommended that the Tustin Planning Agency recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 77-103 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 1665 and that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Consent and Dedication Certificate for the Sixth Street right-of-way on behalf of the City of Tustin. ectfully submitted, . CHASE Community Development D i rector ! 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 RESOLUTION NO. 1665 A RESOLUTION OF TtIE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPIIOVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 77-103 FOR TttE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTtt 'SIDE OF SIXTH'STREET AT PACIFIC. The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Planning Agency finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, Tentative Parcel Map 77-103, has been submitted by the City of Tustin, pursuant to Ordinance No. 651, for the purpose of creating three (3) separate parcels from one (1) existing parcel, being a portion of Lots X and Y of the Stafford and Tustin Tract, in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on map recorded in Book 2, Page 618, of Miscel- laneous Records, in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, bordered by Sikth .Street to the north. B. That said Tentative Parcel Map is in con- formance with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan for the City of Tustin and the applica- tion is in conformance with requirements of Ordinance No. 651 of the City of Tustin. 2. The Planning Agency hereby recommends to the City Council the approval of Tentative Parcel Map 77-103, subject to the following condition: That the street right-of-way along Sixth Street shall be dedicated as recommended by the City Engineer. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Agency, held on the day of ~77. ~'IAYOR CITY CLERK APPENDIX B-11 Job #07577 - .Tustin Youth' Cen~er J~l.y 8, 1977 · (date) File No. · TO: Community Development Director City Hall ' 140 W. 2nd Street Tustin, CA 92680 SU~ECT: .Request for Environmental Impact Report Exemption Pursuant to Section 3, Resolution No'. 73-22, City of Tustin, April 2, 1973, a request is made for an exemption from the require- ment' of an Environmental Impact Report. ~ECT.!O_N IA.. BACKGROUND INFORMATION __ 1. ProjeCt Description: It--is proposed to divide the 2 887 acre $~bject DrQ- · perty___into____~3 parcels;_ _ ...Parcel. _ 1 of which_ contains, the former Tustin Youth Center bu±lding mged._ by fire., in September,. 1976, to be sold to Icenhower and Aria for use as a Day School; Parcel 2 of which is presently improved with Tustin Boys' Club ties and which together with Parcel 3 will be.newly leased to said Tustin Boys' on (to include street address, Assessor's Parcel No,, maps photograph~: ,. property is triangular in shape-, bounded on. the North by Sixth Street and Westerly prolongation; on the East by the Waiter Foster Light Industrial Park; on the Southwest b~he ~gn~a AD~ Freeway The street address of the present Youth Center building is 600 W.. Sixth Street; and the Tustin Boys' Club ss is 580 W. Sixth Street: both in Tust~n. Cal~forn~.a 92680. - __ ty Assessor's Map showing the subject property shaded in green is attached to Club. [ption of existing environmental factors of subject property the in-mediate vicinity: tv is resentlv improved wit~ the aforementioned public/instit~- ~ype buildings, and the si~e is further improved with paved off-street driveways. There exists a number of older specimen trees which are generally near the outer boundaries of the overall parcel, together · ~_ Southw¢$~. _ and sidewalk exist along the Southerly side of Sixth Street. Surround- uses are li ht industrial -office on the Eastj single-family reside,l- ; and apartments on the Northwest. --1- 1. Does the ~roject involve displacement of people and/or removal of structures? - If yes, explain. No displacement of people will result from the project. The purchaser of Parcel ~1 proposes to remodel the exi.sting Youth Center building and adapt it for use as a Nursery Day School, with little change in the building, parking, driveway or other improvements as they presently exist. No change in ~- ~ , ,, _ - ,11, __ , . ' 11 ,, the use of Parce%s 2 and 3 are contemplated at this time. 2, Does the project involve the removal of landscaping? (trees, shrubs, etc. ) No . If yes, explain Describe the effect the completed project may have on the sub- ject property and the surrounding area: , No Cha~ge Increase Decrease (a) Traffic: · Periodic (b) c) d) (e) Noise Level: Vibrations: Air Pollution: X _ Water X Pollution-. Explain in detail any answers, other than "no change.'" ° ed that the use of the Parcel 1 as a Nursery Day School will in- ·' ~ase traffic on Sixth Street Easterly of the subject property during those s when children are being transported to and from school, ~oresumably in , and then later in the afternoon. This would represent a 'current ;e in traffic since the Youth Center building has not been in use for a year. It should be noted, however, that Youth Center traffic prior to , 1976, was probably heavier than that which will result from the School operation. -2- 4. Describe the visual impact of the .proposed project. · · a. Percentage of land ccverage and open space. b. Height of structures related to 9djoining developments. c. Architectural style of proposed development as related to adjoining developments. (*) d. Character, style; size, and .location of proposed signing. Proposed landscaping as related to structure, perimeter, and street scape. ' · · (,) None of the above questions are applicable to this project, which contemplates division of the proper~y only, and does not propose any significant change in the buildings, street Or onsite improvements which are'already existing. --3--. (Please check appropriate box) · 1. Is the proposed project in conformance with the City of Tustin General Plan? 2. Could the project deny the peaceful en- · joyment of adjoining properties? 3. Could the project have an effect on' natural, ecological, cultural or scenic resources of national, state or local concern? Could any geologic features (slides, faults, etc.) cause adverse condi'tions to result from this project? 5. Could the project have any adverse affect upon wildlife or unique vege- tation? 6. Could the project cause substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation? 7~ 'Will the project require certification, authorization, or issuance of a permit by any other local, State or Federal agency? Could the project affect a historical or archaelogical site? Is any part of the project located in or near a flood plain? Could the project possibly contaminate the public water supply system or ad- versely affect the flow of ground water? Will. the project be at vari-ance with 'published national, state or local Is relating to solid waste and control? · the project result in a detri- 1 effect on 'air or water quality, ambient nOise levels for adjoin- eas? · Applicant ' s Response revic excep ( operation f Nursery ( School wil , but ( division o the pro- ( perty will not. -4- IX ~any of the above responses are checked "Yes" discuss the extent of the impact and mitigating measures. Not applicJble The information herein contained is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further understand that 'an Environmental Impact Report shall be required, 'in addition to this request for exemption, in the event a determination is made that the proposed project, eithe] individually or cumulatively, may have a significant impact upon the environment. · I /.. / , ,, signatury ' ~Ag,¥ ~. S~E~En Licensed Land Surveyor No. 4125 - Na~ne ~rint or type) 160 So. Centennial Way Tustin~ California 92680 544-0160 -Pho ne STAFF CO~..~IENTS ,.' ~.. · --5--. I, 81 ""~"- .L33~L£ ~0