The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-22-99 PC PACKET AGENDA- TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00'p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE'OF.ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Davert ROLL CALL: Chairperson Kozak, Bell, -Davert, Kawashima and Pontious PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED. ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME'AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU.REQUIRE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY AT (714) 573-3106. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR _ ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE. MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED ANDIOR.REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of the November 8 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Agenda November 22, 1999 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. ,"Conditional Use Permit 99-014 a request to amend the development standards for, the Tustin Village 11 Planned Community under Conditional Use Permit 63-149 to include a definition, development standards and design review criteria for accessory structures. The project is located west of Tustin Village Way, north of Alliance Avenue, south of the 1-5 Freeway and east of Williams Street within the Planned Community (PC) zoning district. Ile APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: TUSTIN VILLAGE 11 HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. Recommendation V That the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 99-014 to the December 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Presentation: Lod Ludi, Associate Planner 3. Use, Deter a request to operate a martial arts studio in the retail center located at 640 W. First Street within the Commercial as Primary Use designation of the First Street Specific Plan APPLICANT: DAVID HUGHES O�OM YUNG DOE PROPERTY OWNERS: MELLILI FAMILY TRUST PLAZA CDN FIRST ASSOCIATES Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Nos. 3703 and 3704 approving Use Determination, 99-003 and Conditional Use, Permit 99-02�4 to allow a martial arts studio at 640 W. First Street within the "Commercial as Primary Use" designation of the First Street Specific Plan (FSSP), Presentation: Minoo Ashabi, Assistant Planner 4, Code Amendment 99-0011 a request to amend the Tustin City Code related to, Boarding Houses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) and Multiple Family Residential (1 -3) Districts and associated definitions. Ankh". APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Commission,Agenda November 22; 1999 Page 3 Recommendation That the Planning Commission: i' 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3706 recommending approval of the environmental determination for the project; and, 2: Adopt Resolution No. 3707 recommending, that the City Council approve Code Amendment 99-001. Presentation; Scott Reekstin, Acting Senior Planner REGULAR BUSINESS 5. AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN (AELUP). The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has the authority to adopt a, comprehensive airport land use plan. In 1975 the ALUC adopted Orange County's first Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP).• The. AELUP is a twenty-year planning document for the airports within Orange County. The AELUP may be amended on an annual basis. The City of Tustin has responded to a number of issues proposed in previous amendments and the current 1999 Amendment. Recommendation Receive and file. .6. Status Report Presentation: Karen Peterson, Senior Planner STAFF CONCERNS: 7. Report on Actions taken at the November 15. 1999 City_Council Meeting Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS: ADJOURNMENT: A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on December 13, 1999 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bell ROLL CALL: Chairperson.Kozak, Bell, Davert, Kawashima and Pontious Present: Chairperson Kozak Vice Chair Davert Bell Kawashima Pontious Absent: None Staff: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney • Lori Ludi, Associate Planner Minoo Ashabi, Assistant Planner Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: No Public Concerns were expressed. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of the October 25 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Pontious seconded, to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 99-010 is a request for authorization to extend a conditional use permit for 18 months to locate five modular trailers within the parking lot. The project is located at 14352 Franklin Avenue within the Planned Community— Industrial (PC-114D) zoning district. 4 APPLICANT/ PAIRGAIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. , PROPERTY 14402 FRANKLIN AVENUE OWNER: TUSTIN, CA 92780.. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 2 That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3702 approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 99-010. The Public Hearing opened at 7:01 p.m. Lori Ludi, Associate Planner presented the subject report and noted changes to the resolution. Chairperson Kozak asked Lois Bobak if he would be restricted from voting because he was absent when the original use permit was approved. Lois Bobak responded that it was not an issue. George Asmus, applicant, stated that PairGain is going through a growth mode and the temporary accommodations are needed to support their growth until they can add another building. He further stated that PairGain appreciates the Commission's support and approval. The Public Hearing closed at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Kozak noted that this is a welcome change from previous extension i requests. Commissioner Pontious stated that it is nice to see growth in the city and the Commission will do everything they can to accommodate the growth of business. She further noted that the Redevelopment Agency staff can be very helpful in assisting businesses when they are expanding. Commissioner Davert stated that he was initially concerned about the modulars but he went out to the site and they look fine. Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Bell seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3702 approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 99-010, revised as follows: Condition 2.1 typo "six (6)" changed to "eighteen (18)" Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS 3. General Plan Conformity a request to determine that the proposed 'location for lease of a 68,000 square feet warehouseloffice space for the Orange County Social Services Agency is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. The project is located at 1200 Valencia Avenue within the Industrial (M) zoning district.. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Page 3 APPLICANT: COUNTY OF. ORANGE SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY PROPERTY OWNERS: CALWEST INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES LLC Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3701 determining that the proposed location, purpose and extent for lease of a 68,000 square feet warehouse/office space for the Orange County Social Services Agency is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. Minoo Ashabi, Assistant Planner presented the subject-report. Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3701 determining that the proposed location, purpose and extent for lease of a 68,000 square feet warehouse/office space for the Orange County Social Services Agency is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: 4. Report on Actions taken at-the November 1 1999 Cily Council Meeting Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Bell Commented that she will be ordering new stationery and changing her checking account due to the Bruno Drive name change to Bruns Drive. Commissioner Pontious Noted that there has been a lot of graffiti tagging activity on Mitchell and Nisson. The Director responded that the taggers are going faster than the City can paint out but the City's contractor does a good job trying to keep up.. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 9999 Page 4 Chairperson Kozak Asked if there is Police Department gang unit involvement when graffiti citings are made. The Director responded that the Police Department is the first to photograph the graffiti. Commissioner Kawashima Noted that the City's web site is up and looks good. Chairperson Kozak Asked for clarificationabout the General Plan conformity item and if the Department of Corrections would be required to go through the General Plan conformity process. The Director noted that the City received a notification only but if a site had been identified the City would have gone through the General Plan conformity process. • She further noted that the Department of Corrections has been asked to notify the City of any future locations being considered in Tustin before going public. He noted there is a large Grubb & Ellis sign at the Fireman's Fund building and he did not believe the sign was in conformance with the sign code. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Pontious moved Commissioner Davert seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 7:97 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on November 22, 1999 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. - - _ ITEM #2 1` Y O eeport to the �UST1� Planning Commission DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1999 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-014 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: TUSTIN VILLAGE 11 HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. 1000 W. LA PALMA AVENUE ANAHEIM, CA 92801 LOCATION: TRACT 5142 (WEST OF. TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY, NORTH OF ALLIANCE AVENUE, SOUTH OF THE 1-5 FREEWAY AND EAST OF WILLIAMS STREET). ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL STRUCTURES IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CLASS 3 AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE TUSTIN VILLAGE II PLANNED COMMUNITY UNDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 63-149 TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 99-014 to the December 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. BACKGROUND Public notices for this project were mailed on November 10, 1999. On November 15, 1999 a concern was raised by one of the property owners within the Tustin Village 11 development after receiving the public notice, whether the Tustin Village 11 Home Owners Association has the authority to apply for the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends that the application be continued to allow the City Attorney the time necessary to review this issue. Planning Commission Report CUP 99-014 November 22, 1999 Page 2 Lori A. L Karen Peterson Assistant Planner Senior Planner s:perepWcup99-014con5nue.doc.- J �. ITEM #3 4 Oeport to the .DSIV Planning Commission DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1999 SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION 99-003, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-024 APPLICANT: DAVID HUGHES OOM YUNG DOE 640 W. FIRST STREET, SUITE E PROPERTY OWNERS: MELLILI FAMILY TRUST . PLAZA ON FIRST ASSOCIATES 23010 LAKE FOREST DRIVE, SUITE E LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 LOCATION: 640 W. FIRST STREET, SUITE E ZONING: FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (COMMERCIAL PRIMARY USE) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO IN THE RETAIL CENTER 'LOCATED AT 640 W: FIRST STREET WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL AS PRIMARY USE DESIGNATION OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Nos. 3703 and 3704 approving Use Determination 99-003 and Conditional Use Permit 99-024 to allow a martial arts studio within the "Commercial as Primary Use" designation of the First Street'Specific Plan (FSSP). BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting: 1) a determination by the Planning Commission to assess if �. martial arts studios are appropriate uses within the First Street Specific Plan (FSSP); and, 2) authorization to operate a martial arts facility in an existing retail center located at 640 W. First Street, Suite E. The site is Iodated on the southwest comer of Pacific Street and First Street (see Attachment A - Location Map) in the FSSP,.Commercial as Primary Use Planning Commission Report UD 99-003, CUP 99-024 November 22, 1999 Page 2 designation. The martial arts studio has been in operation since August, 1999 without approval of a conditional use permit or a business license. Other, uses within the retail center include a restaurant , dry cleaners, florist, salon and a mail box store. USE DETERMINATION Martial arts studios are not specifically listed in the First Street Spedific Plan (FSSP) (see Attachment B). According to Section 111-C(6) of the FSSP, uses that are not listed require a use determination by the Planning Commission. For evaluation of the request,-the Planning Commission must consider whether or not the proposed use is: a) consistent with the overall intent of the planning unit; and, ti) consistent with other listed permitted or conditionally-permitted uses in the planning unit. The area identified as First Street Specific Plan (FSSP) is divided into three (3) sub-areas containing thirty (30) planning areas. Of the thirty (30) planning areas, eighteen (18) are designated with Commercial as Primary Use (see Attachment B). Similar uses in FSSP are fraternal organizations and driving schools. These uses are similar to a martial arts. studio in that they involve individual and small group gatherings and classroom settings. The proposed location is within the Commercial as Primary Use designation of the FSSP that lists a variety of retail and service uses (see Attachment B). The Commercial designation is similar to the Retail Commercial district (C-1) of the Tustin City Code (TCC) where martial arts studios are conditionally permitted. As such, martial arts studios may be consistent with the intent of the district and could be listed as a conditionally permitted use within the Commercial as Primary U-se of the FSSP. Typically, instructional organizations are conditionally permitted to ensure adequate review of potential impacts related to safety, parking, traffic and noise. These types of training facilities typically do not geperate more traffic or noise otherwise associated with other retail uses in the area. Staff is recommending a parking requirement of one (1) space per (3) three persons (students and instructors) occupying the facility as typically required for instructional facilities. As with any other conditionally permitted use, future, proposals in the same land use designation would be reviewed with specific circumstances related to that project considering all possible impacts including but not limited to traffic, noise and parking. An approval of the'use determination could be supported by the following findings: 1) The proposed use is consistent with the overall intent of the Commercial as Primary Use designation for sub area-1 of the specific plan, which is to maintain and perpetuate a mix of commercial and office uses. 2) The proposed use is consistent with the other listed permitted uses in the planning unit, in that martial arts studios are similar to conditionally permitted uses in the First Street. Specific Plan such as-fratemal organizations and. driving schools. Planning Commission Report UD 99-003, CUP 99-024 November 22, 1999 Page 3 These types of training facilities typically do not generate more traffic or noise otherwise associated with other retail uses in the area. To ensure compatibility, as conditionally permitted uses, proposals for the Planning Commission would review martial arts studios on a case by case basis. 3) As-typically required for instructional facilities, martial arts studios would be required to provide one (1) parking space per (3) three persons occupying the facility to ensure sufficient parking. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 'Project Description The,'martial arts studio would operate as a small training facility for private lessons to individuals and small group classes for adults and youth in an approximately 900 square foot tenant space (see Attachment C). According to the applicant there would- be a maximum of 2-3 instructors operating classes. Only one group class would be held at one time. The classes would typically hold 3-4 students with one instructor. The martial arts studio would operate during the day and evening. However, as proposed, i afternoons and early evening hours would potentially be the most, intensive use of the facility. Younger students would typically be dropped off and picked up by an adult and there is no proposed waiting area for the parents. The following hours of operations are proposed for the martial arts studio (see Condition 2.2 of Resolution No. 3704 - Attachment D): Monday, Wednesday, Friday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 P.M. Tuesday and Thursday 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday No Scheduled Classes (Private Lessons Only) Sunday No Operations or Classes The reciprocal parking area for 610, 630 and 640 W. First Street provides 39 parking spaces. According to a parking study by-the City Traffic Engineer in 1998, of twenty-seven (27) parking spaces available for the retail center (excluding 7-11), 4.5 parking spaces would be allocated to Suite E. Based on this number, and a parking ratio of one parking - space per three occupants (students and instructors), the number of participants in the facility shall be limited to maximum thirteen (13) persons at any one time. Condition 2.9 is included to ensure that the maximum number of students and instructors is accommodated by the available parking spaces for this tenant space. With adherence to this condition, no parking impacts or demand other than what is typically associated with a small instructional facility are anticipated. • In determining whether to approve the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing in or working in the Panning Commission Report - UD-99-003, CUP 99-024 November 22, 1999 .Page 4 neighborhood or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity or to the welfare of the City. A decision to approve this request is supported by the following findings: 1) The proposed use, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to surrounding properties in that the hours of operation, number of participants, and scope of operations for the proposed martial arts facility would be compatible and consistent with the retail uses in the center and nearby residential properties. - 2) The proposed' use, as conditioned, would not. result in parking impacts since classes would be offered to' small groups and individuals and the maximum number of occupants for the facility would be limited to thirteen (13) persons (students and instructors) by the 4.5 parking spaces allocated to Suite E. Minoo Ashabi Karen Peterson Assistant Planner Senior Planner Ma:pereporticup99-024,UD99-003 Attachments: A. Location Map B. List of Commercial as Primary Uses/Sub-Area Map C. Site Plan/Floor Plan D. Resolutions 3703 and 3704 ATTACHMENT A Location Map y' -- r ; LOCATION MAP mf ,, L y + C � � J � r m r a • PROJECT J r I p 6 b Q G E E C •�_...' O.' .9 •'J B r r 1:4 :17 c• 5• .O.-.. tJrrl i's tr O D O O D O O O O E f lR4T' TREE7, r'EE I L lw PErl PAM I _ krtaxm NO SCALE MAN ATTACHMENT B First Street Specific Pian -Sub-area 1 • • .�,.,.--` tll_�� ^'r'"s�-`' •� r ��c �� :'�� lot Ir��1� t r' i+ :i f !�E�:��? lkrL'1••p �•s .� .'T'�... -".•Z2: �' ... ('„^„"r;�•.:• ... _.'••!<l..t ',ya .t -.>++nw .. � i -ti;,•:�1..,.�� 5��^��'-..�fT�. ,� t:7v-�..1� �>•�r=�' °� _ r 1 c,� �....,,�,^I::. t�r C r y Y 1.+�t.a[b ��A� t r , ;� ,� a ! .may -•! s " �c� r � -. v� qf'-.vj�j""•tr� ,1 .a �` �wwn nom..' ,::;].n :iC::;it.'.'.•r:7��r�r• r. 'tr ,.: af•,.;r � `� �o�t,4. x3: :4w'.q'•,:.r '_-_�.t r,. ••�^�•'..,! �{ .i.:A�.r.a,r.x�t....w.l.it�;.. S r. •v.,,uN� i r. �r n �� •'��e �^'!. A4•' 4 ,:il ,I�r� :�.w.� ��1 ` Er. i ' in� C' L:rH��fi1.�1?=� � `�.••r p'!rw cc ��t.t i:1.•.�Y ISS ti,E+�•.�i«�ti�n�i 1. ,, '"'r' �(.c�• �,�� \ "' •1;L: E'� ;�• yL'�y�� ' � Sir'' s^� ��' ai ��: •�• ' I�l'.. J,i[rr•�,; :t •� !•;•7•:�, rel }•�G r'4 YC�r .t i� �' ..� r1rJ�i• j�;f!;t( � •.i� E.L1• CCIy .•i„ �� :� �y7:�:j.i�i.ri.',:.f7.i:�:;�� ;_� f , �, Ems•.. ;, ' i i • i . r t 6tN 1 D. LAND' USE REGULATIONS 1 Commercial as Primary Use a. Permitted and conditional uses The following .uses shall be permitted by right where- the symbol "P' appears and may -be ! s permitted subject to a conditional use permit where , the symbol "C" appears in the column to the right. 1) Retail businesses conducted within a building: a) Antique shops P b). Apparel stores P Q): Appliance and hardware stores P d) Automobile parts and- supplies C e) Bakeries; retail only P f) -Books,, gifts and stationery P t g) Convenience, markets • C ` h)' Drug stores ,., pharmacies 'P__ ',i) -Florists P 3) Furniture stores. P i • k) General retail stores P 1) Hobby stores - •P m) Hotels and Motels C, n) Jewelry stores P Q) Laundry and Dry Cleaners P p) Liquor stores . C _ q) Neighborhood, Commercial Centers P r r), Nurseries and garden supply P -s) Pet stores and supply P I t) Print shops P I u) Service stations C v) Skating rinks C w) Sporting goods P E x) Supermarkets, grocery stores P y)'. Theaters C• z;•) Tire sales and service - C t 12-2-85 III--7 2. Service Business including ' retail sales - incidental thereto: a) Banks and financial institutions P b) Barber, beauty salons P c) Car washes C _ d),- Cocktail lounges- and bars when not an integral part of a 4 restaurant C e) Locksmith P f) Restaurants with/without- I alcoholic beverage, sales C g) Restaurant with drive thru +, service- C h) .Service stations C 1) Travel agencies- P j,) Real estate sales - P s 3. Any " other. similar retail use - the Planning _ 'Commission deems consistent with the other, uses permitted. b, Maximum Structural Height 1 story, 18. feet, unless offices are incorporated on a second floor in which case the maximum height shall be ` • 28 feet. c. Minimum Building Site Area - No minimum d. Yard setbacks': front:. 10 feet side: 0 feet rear: 20 feet e . Lot Coverage: ` Lot coverage shall include all enclosed building area. Atriums open to the , sky or plazas, open parking, hardscaped areas, shall 1 not constitute lot coverage. Maximum allowed: Limited only by setback areas. f. Landscaping: A minimum of ten percent of the , building site area shall .'be landscaped in conformance with the design guidelines of this [ specific plan area. 12-2-85 ITI-a ATTACHMENT' C - Submitted Pians j . 1 -6'6" 12' 9.5" 7 a Handicap Bathroom BACK of Space o " EXISTING WALLS j.+ CN O p M a � wU � 0 . .0 .V Main Ceiling Height: 9' 0" H 1/2 cr = Measurements do not account for wail thickness. Polly Wall Height: 7 11, N Added Pony Walls (Darker, Highlighted Lines) (See Photo's) �_, - 19' 6" First Street , I T 1 . 4 8 3 7- 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22` 23 24 o 7 -41 Ol x o • Handicapped Parking 640 W. First St. Suite E Tustin, CA 714—368—0963 a . aeae cfi'+i�tiv� *� dh.,.a�fr��:S�6�•..�"�"�'t•.. � *�'*�d� �- ��}� �r'Cda` �.'+''�<'�;''�""` ,-.: � - 7611 sr.,-r•. ,",•.rz ° (v'a� '{v r' = ----:.c. :�.-- Out r9 :i t� �6 ,.,r�"u/rti l�',�.��5.4 �'� 5r5 A� a� r' �•1 � �• s 1 � i fes' ��C��I Iyy�•IIS VI W'r r!: �l} �� —. • - �I TO•�, I�._ . rfl�■i N '�e�Yid r � r= _ ��3 • f 4 Y � + ATTACHMENT-D Resolutions No. 3703 and 3704 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3703 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 3 TUSTIN, APPROVING USE DETERMINATION' '99-003 'TO ALLOW MARTIAL ARTS' STUDIOS ASA CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN 4 THE COMMERCIAL AS PRIMARY USE DESIGNATION OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC -PLAN (FSSP) WITH A MINIMUM . OF ONE (1) 5 PARKING SPACE PER EVERY THREE (3) PARTICIPANTS. 6 The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: 7 I. " The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: S , A. That a proper application for Use Determination 99-003 was filed by David 9 Hdghes on,behalf of Oom Yung Doe to request a use determination from the Planning Commission for.establishment of a martial arts studio at 640: to W. First Street, Suite E more specifically described as Assessor's Parcel No. 401=551-.40. 11 • B. According to First Street Specific Plan (FSSP), martial arts studios are not 12 listed uses in the Commercial as primary land use designation and require a use determination by4he.Planning Commission as stated in Section III C (6) 13 of the FSSP. 14 C. That a.public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application •15 on November 22,-1:1999,,by the Planning Commission. '16 E. The.Commission finds that the proposed use will not impair the orderly•and harmonious development of the area, the presentor future development 17 therein, or the occupancy as a whole. Ls F. The Planning Commission finds that approval of the use determination to allow martial arts studios as conditionally;permitted uses in the First Street. 19 Specific Plan, Commercial as Primary Use designation can be supported by 20 the following findings: 21 ' 1) The proposed use' is consistent with the overall intent of the . Commercial as ,P(mary Use designation for sub area-1 of the specific plan,. which is to maintain and perpetuate a mix of 22 commercial and office uses. 23 2) The proposed use„is consistent with the other listed permitted uses 24 in.the planning unit, in that martial arts studios are; similar to conditionally permitted uses in the First Street Specific Plan such as 25 fraternal organizations and driving schools.• These types of training facilities typically do not generate more traffic or noise otherwise 26 associated with other retail uses in the area. To ensure compatibility, as conditionally permitted uses, proposals for the �7 Planning Commission would review martial arts studios on,a case by zs case.basis. 9 3) As typically required for instructional facilities, martial arts studio would be required to provide one (1) parking.space -per (3) three persons occupying the facility to ensure sufficient parking. - • - - Resolution No. 3703 2 November 22, 1999 3 Page 2 4 - Planning Commission would review martial arts studios on a case by 5 case basis.- 6 asis:6 3) As •typic ally required for instructional facilities, martial arts studio 7 would be required to provide one' (1) parking space per (3) three s personsoccupying the facility to ensure-sufficient parking. 9 G. That this project is. categorically exempt pursuant to Section'.15301 (Class 1).of the California Environmental Quality.Act 10 it II. The PIanning Commission, hereby approves Use Determination 99-033 to allow, r martial arts studios as a conditionally permitted use in the Commercial as Primary " 1z Use designation of the First Street Specific Planwith a minimum one (1) parking 13 space for every three(3) students. 14 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission-of the City of Tustin, at a.regular. i 15 meeting on the 22nd day of November,:.1999. 16 17 STEPHEN V. KOZAK. 1s Chairperson . 19 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 20 21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE• ) 22 CITYOF TUSTIN ) 23 1, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that a am the Planning 24 Commission Secretary,,of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin,,California; that Resolution No. 3703 was'duly passed and-adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin 25 Planning Commission, held on the 22nd,day of November, 1999. 26 27 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 28 Planning Commission.Secretary 029 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3704 02 3 'A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE-CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 99-024 a AUTHORIZINGTHE'ESTABLISHMENT OF A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO AT 640W. FIRST STREET, SUITE E,'TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA. 5 6 The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: 7 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: s A. That a proper application for Conditional.Use Permit 99-024 was filed by 9 David Hughes of Oom Yung Doe to request authorization to establish a martial arts studio atl 640 W. First Street, Suite E, , more specifically 10 described:as Assessor's Parcel No. 461=551-40. . B. According to Use Determination 99-003, approved by the� Planning 12 Commission on November 22, 1998, martial'arts studios are conditlonaAy 13 permitted in the Commercial as Primary Use designation of the First-Street Specific Plan (FSSP). 14 C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held'on said application 15 on November 22, 1999, by the Planning Commission. 16 D. That the establishment, maintenance and .-operation of the martial arts 17 studio will not, under the-circumstances of this case, be detrimental to .the 18 health; safety, morals; comfort, or general welfare of the.persons residing or working in the ,neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or 19 detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as 20 evidenced.by.the following findings: 21 1) The ;proposed use, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to 22 surrounding properties in that the hours,of operation, the number of participants, and scope of operations'for the proposed martial arts 23 facility would be compatible and consistentwith the retail uses in the 24 center and'nearby residential properties. 25 2) The proposed use, as conditioned, would not result in parking_ 26 impacts since classes would be `,offered to small groups and.. individuals and the-maximum number of occupants for the facility 27 would be limited to thirteen (13) persons (students and instructors) zs by,the 4.5 parking spaces allocated to Suite E. 9 E. That this project is a categorically exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1.) of the California Environmental Quality Act. 1 Resolution No. 3704 ` z Page 2 4 II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 99-024 to 5 establish a martial arts studio on..therope�Y located at 640 W. First'Street, Suite p . 6 E, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit attached hereto. g PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of November, 1999. 9 10 11 STEPH EN W KOZAK 12 Chairperson 13 ' 14 S15, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 16 Planning Commission Secretary 17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE. ) 18 CITY OF TUSTIN ). 19 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK,, the undersigned, hereby certify that I 'am the .Planning 20 Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission,of the City of Tustin, California; that 21 Resolution No..3704 was duly passed and adopted at a ,regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission-, held on the 22nd day of November, 1999. 23 24 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 25 26 27- 28 �9 " • : EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE.PERMIT 99-024 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NQ. 3704, GENERAL (1). 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date November 22, 1999 on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director-of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans if such modifications are c_onsisteritwith the provisions of the Tustin City Code. a. (1) 1.2 Unless othd wise,specifred�,�the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with.prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department.. (1) 1.3 Approval'of Conditional Use Permit 99-024-is contingent upon the applicant • and property owner signing and returning an "Agreement.to Conditions Imposed"farm a&established by the Director of Community. Development. (1) 1.4 The applicant shalt hold harmless and defend the'City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge:of the City's approval for this project. (1) 1.5 This Conditional Use Permit may be reviewed by the Director of Community Development within,twelve (12) months-after the date of this approval and at twelve (12) month intervals thereafter, or more frequently if necessary,,to' determine if the operations;are conducted in accordance with this approval. If the Director of Community Development determines.that the method .of operation.is inconsistent with any of the conditions-of this approval or other applicable regulations,the applicant shall, upon notice, cease all violations., The Director of Community Development may also impose additional , conditions or.modifications.to the existing conditions or facilities as part of such review to protect the public health, safety and General welfare: SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION - -(5) RESPONSIBLEAGENCY (2) CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODEIS (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (4). DESIGN REVIEW` (7) PCICC POLICY *** EXCEPTIONS • Exhibit.A Resolution No. 3704 November 22, 1999 Page 2 USE RESTRICTIONS *** 2.1 'The reciprocal parking area for 610, 630 and 640 W. First Street provides 39 parking spaces. According to a parking study by the City Traffic Engineer in 1998, of twenty seven (27) parking spaces available for the • retail center (excluding '7-11), 4.5 parking spaces would be allocated to Suite E. Based on this number, and a parking ratio of one parking space per three participants (students and instructors), the number of persons occupying the.facility shall be limited to maximum thirteen (13) at any one time. *** 2.2 Hours of operation shall'be-limited to 10:00 a.m.'to 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p:m. Monday, Wednesday and Friday; 3:00 p.m: to 9:00 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday; and private lessons on Saturday. The school shall be closed on Sundays. Modifications to.,the hours of operation may be approved by the Director of Community Development if it is determined that no impacts to surrounding tenants or properties will occur. (1) -2.3 Operations of the martial arts studio shall, comply with the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance(Tustin City Code Section 4611 et seq.). (1) 2.4 No congregation in the parking area or walkways are allowed in association with the proposed use. (1) 2.5 The subject property shall be maintained in a safe, clean and sanitary condition at all times. The applicant is responsible for collection of any trash .associated with the martial arts studio or its participants. (1) 2.6 No signs or other forms of advertising or attraction may be ;placed on the site without approval from the Community Development Department. (1) 2.7 If, at any time in the future, the City is made aware and concurs that a parking problem exists at the subject site as a result of insufficient on-site parking availability, then the Community Development and Public Works Departments may require the property owner to submit a parking demand analysis prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer and/or a civil engineer-experienced in preparation of these documents, at no expense to the City, within the time schedule stipulated by the City. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking, the applicant may.be .required to.reduce the demand for parking. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3704 November 22, 1999' Page 2 PLAN.SUBMITTAL (1)' 2.1 Tenant improvement plans shall be submitted for review and:approval by the Community Development Department. The applicant shall obtain building permits for the existing tenant improvements and any sign installed. (5) 3.2. The pians submitted to plan check shall indicate that restroomis shall be made accessible to persons with disabilities as per State of California Accessibility Standards(Title 24). FEES (1)_ 4.1 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of-the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check. payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $38.00' (thirty-eight dollars) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. if within such forty-eight(48).hour period that applicant has not delivered to the'Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the { California EnvironmentafQualityAct could be significantly lengthened. eport to the �U�T Fanning Commission DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1999. SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT 99-001, AMENDMENT TO TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATED,TO BOARDING HOUSES IN. THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL(R-4) AND•MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-3) DISTRICTS AND ASSOCIATED DEFINITIONS APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: CITYWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL 'STATUS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 'CALIFORNIA 'ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL,EVIDENCE.THAT • THE PROJECT MAY_-HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND -A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS -BEEN PREPARED. REQUEST: AMENDMENT TO TUSTIN CITYCODE TO: 1. ADD- BOARDING HOUSE AS ' A ' CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL(R-4). DISTRICT;. 2. ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BOARDING HOUSES IN THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) AND MULTIPLE , FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) DISTRICTS; 3. AMEND THE DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS "BOARDING HOUSE," "DWELLING" AND "FAMILY;" AND ELIMINATE THE TERMS "GROUP- DWELLINGS" ,AND "ROOMING HOUSE"AND, 4. REMOVE GROUP DWELLING AS A PERMITTED USE IN- THE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL(R-4) DISTRICT. Planning Commission Report CA 99-001 November 22, 1999 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION ; That the Planning,Commission: 1. 'Adopt Resolution. No: 3706 recommending approval of the environmental determination for the project; and, 2., Adopt Resolution No. 3707 recommending that the City Council approve Code- Amendment.99-00 1. ode`Amendment.99-001. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION The following amendments to the Tustin City Code are,proposed: 1. Add a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use in the Suburban Residential (R-4) District; and, 2. Establish development standards for boarding,houses.in the Suburban Residential (R-4) and Multiple Family Residential.(R-3) Districts; and, • 3. Amend the definitions of the terms "boarding house," "dwelling",and "family;" and eliminate the terms "dwelling,groups" and "rooming house" and, 4. Remove group, dwelling as a, permitted Use in the Suburban Residential (R-4) District. ' The actual text amendments are included in Exhibit A of Resolution No..3707 and are described below. Boarding Houses' Code Amendment 997001 proposes to include boarding houses as conditionally permitted . uses in the Suburban Residential. (R-4) District. The Tustin City Code lists a boarding • house as a conditionally permitted use imthe Multiple, Family Residential (R-3) District. However, boarding'houses are not listed under any other zoning district. The proposed code amendment would provide for consistency between the two residential zoning districts, both of which allow multiple family dwellings. Planning Commission Report CA 99-001 November 22, 1999 Page 3 • Development Standards for Boarding Houses The Tustin City Code provides some development standards for boarding houses in the R-3 District. Code Amendment 99-001 would modify most of the development standards for boarding houses in the R-3 District, establish development standards for boarding houses in the R-4 District, and add new open space development standards in the R-3 and -R-4 Districts. The proposed development standards include regulations related to setbacks, height, building site, lot coverage, lot width, parking, and common and private open space. The following table lists the existing development standards for boarding houses in the R-3 District and the modified/new development standards proposed for the R-3 and R-4• Districts: Development Standard Existing in R-3 District Proposed for R-3 and R-4 Maximum hei ht 40 feet 35 feet Minimum building site 7,500 square feet 7,500 square feet Minimum lot width at 70 feet 70 feet property line Maximum lot covers e 75 percent 75 percent Minimum front yard setback 15 feet 20 feet Minimum side yard setback Corner: 10 feet Corner: 10 feet Interior.: 5 feet [nterior: 5 feet Minimum rear yard setback 10 feet 25 feet Minimum lot area per family 500 square feet (To be deleted) unit Off-street parking Onespace/two guests Ones ace/two occupants Common open space (N/A) 300 square feet plus 50 square feetloccu ant Private open sace' NIA 25 s uare feetloccu pant With the proposed'changes, the boarding house development standards for setbacks and height would be consistent with the existing development standards for,other residential uses in the R-4 District. Definitions The Tustin City Code definitions for "boarding house," "dwelling" and "family" are proposed to be amended, and the definitions for "dwelling groups" and "rooming houses" and the reference to "group dwelling" are proposed to be deleted as described below. i • Planning Commission Report CA 99-001 November 22, 1999 Page 4 • • The only significant change is to the definition of "family." The existing Tustin City Code definition for "family" was adopted in 1961 and does not adequately'describe.a family unit. • "Boarding House" means a dwelling other than a hotel H L 1, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." • "Dwelling" means a building or portion thereof designed for residential occupancy; ' , . b t Ret inGlu ding hotels mnfnln OF beaFdinn heus-es. "Dwellingn family, twe faMl�y, nr multiple dwellings E)G--,.,i^reRZI n r. inrcnl of land in en e (d) ew%FShip and . • "Family" means single housekeeping pini{ as dintinni�hnrd frnm a rrFeup n n a hotel, � an �ndiuidu I of t nror`(2}nor more personsj,,related by"blood'or [egai;status ori ra ou • of not more than six (6) pe sons who°are not,so related;living1 jogether;asa4_smgle M s,.. ... .-ru.��. housekeepingunn'adwellingun f » See 13eaFdiRg . • A"group dwelling".is listed in the R-4 District as a permitted use. Code Amendment 99-001 would remove "group dwelling" .from the Code because the Code does not define the term and, therefore, is too ambiguous. Scott Reekstin Eliz th A. Binsack Acting Senior Planner Direc or of Community Development Attachment A- initial Study/Negative Declaration Attachment B - Resolution Nos. 3706 and 3707 SR:CA 99-001 boarding houses.doc ATTACHMENT A Initial Study/Negative Declaration COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEO 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714)573-3100 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Code Amendment 99-001 Project Location: Citywide Project Description: Amendments to Tustin City Code Sections 922803, Suburban Residential District (R-4); 9226b3, Multiple Family Residential District (R-3); and 9297, Definitions, and adding Section 9228b5 to add a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use and delete a group dwelling as a permitted use in the Suburban Residential Zoning District, consistent with the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zoning District. The proposed amendments would establish development standards for boarding houses, amend related definitions and would apply to all properties located within the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. Project Proponent:- City of Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Telephone: (714) 573-3016 0 . The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: Z That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on-the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial. Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore,the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary, ` REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON December 8,-1999 Date it//zA9� s Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY ' - , A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Code Amendment 99-001 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780• Lead Agency Contact.Person: Scott Reekstin Phone:-(714j 573-3016 Project Location: Citywide Project Sponsor's•Name and Address: City of Tustin,.300 Centennial Way, Tustin, 92780 General.Plan Designation: Not'Applicable Zoning=Designation: ,Not Applicable Project Description: Amendments to Tustin City Code Sections 9228a3, Suburban Residential District (R-4); 9226b3, Multiple Family Residential District (R-3); and 9297,, Definitions, and adding Section-9228b5 to add,a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use and'`delete a group,.dwelling as' a,permitted use in.the Suburban Residential Zoning;District, consistent with the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zoning District. The proposed amendments would establish development.standards for,boarding houses; amend related definitions and would apply to all properties'located within the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. Surrounding Uses:' J North: NIA- East: NIA South: NIAWest NIA Other:public agencies whose approval is required: Orange County Fire Authority City of`Irvine Orange'County Health Care Agency [] City of Santa Ana South Coast Air"Quality Management, _ Orange County District EMA Other , B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Hazards ❑Population and Housing ❑Noise ❑Geological Problems ❑Public Services ❑Water [—]Utilities and Service Systems ❑Air Quality ❑Aesthetics ❑Transportation& Circulation ❑Cultural Resources ❑Biological Resources. ❑Recreation ❑Energy and Mineral Resources ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑• I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and.2)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier_EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are.imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed proj ect could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Scott Reekstin Title Acting Senior Plazu�er Date Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Directions 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact'answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based.on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All'answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. f "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect maybe significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross- referenced). �) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063,(c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other'sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;however,lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. �) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question; and, b) the mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Im a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ❑ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ EO b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ 01 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ M. AIR QUALITY: Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ El- ❑ ' c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region-is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? . ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ ZO e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑: ❑ ❑ M. i Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation SignificantO . IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the•project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Im act a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or r through habitat modifications,on any species identified as.a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ .® c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ El d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ ❑ ❑ ie)_ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation`Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? 0 ❑ ❑ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:-Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse-change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§.15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to§ 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ ®, c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred _ outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:-Would the project: 0 a) Expose people or structures to.potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: 1 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant - - Impact Inco oration ITpact No I i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for.the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ❑ ❑ ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project;and potentially result in on-or off-site Iandslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal.of waste water? ❑ ❑ ❑ VII-HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of' hazardous materials? ❑' ❑ ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environinent through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would if create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in • a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑' ❑ ❑ f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact Inco oration Impact No Impact adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ ❑ VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATERQUALITY: —Would the project: , a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of,the site or area,including through the alteratiort.of the course of a Otream.or river,in a manner which would result in substantial rosion or siltation on-or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface,runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ❑ ® ❑ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff`? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Place within.a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ j) Inundation by seicbe,tsunami,or mudflow? El ❑ El61'X. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?' ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant. Mitigation Significant b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or Impact Incorporation Im act No IMO regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ X. MINERAL,RESOURCES—Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a]mown mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local genera_I plan,specific plan or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ XI. NOISE— Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Tor a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise Ievels? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, f necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Potentially ff"ith Less Than • Significant Mitigation Significant Inr act Incorporation Impact No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ®. I 0 RECREATION-- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ El b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ XV.TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC—Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is sub§tantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g. lWharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses .(e.g.,farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No In g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? - - ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑• ❑ ❑ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Be.served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important' examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively. considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ ❑ ❑ Fe c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings; either directly or indirectly? ❑ 0 ❑ r PART E-DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES FOR CODE AMENDMENT 99-001.. BACKGROUND Code Amendment 99-001 includes amendments to Tustin City Code:Sections 92280, Suburban Residential District (R4); 9226b3, Multiple Family Residential District (R-3); and 9297, Definitions,and the addition of Section 9228b5. The amendments would add a boardinghouse as a conditionally permitted use and. delete a group dwelling as a permitted use in the Suburban ,Residential Zoning District,consistent with the Multiple Family Residential(R-3)Zoning District. The proposed amendments would establish development_standards for boarding houses, amend related definitions and would apply to. all properties located 'within the R-3 and R-4.Zoning Districts. The following terms would be defined as follows: "Boarding House" means a dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided four compensation." "Dwelling"means a building or portion thereof designed for residential occupancy. . "Family" means an individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood or legal status or a group of not more than six (6) persons who are not so related, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a.dwelling unit. In addition,the terms"group dwellings"and"rooming house"would be deleted. The Tustin City Code does not list a boarding.house•as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Suburban Residential(R-4) District. However, a boarding house is conditionally permitted in the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District. Code Amendment 99-001 would provide for. consistency between the R-4 and R-3 zoning districts, both of which allow multiple family residential uses. A "group dwelling" is listed in the R-4 District as a permitted use. Code Amendment 99-001 would remove "group dwelling"from the Code because the Code does not define the term; and, therefore,is too ambiguous. Code Amendment 99-001 would also establish development standards for boarding houses in the R-4 District, amend development standards for boarding houses in the R-3 District, and add open, space.developmeni standards to the R-3 and R-4. Districts. Development standards for boarding houses would regulate setbacks,height,building site,lot coverage,lot width,parking,and common and private open space. There is no physical development proposed as part of Code Amendment 99-001. All impact categories in the Initial Study have been identified as "No Impact." The Code Amendment will not create significant environmental impacts nor does it have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature. When future applications are submitted to the City in compliance with the provisions of the.Code Amendment, independent environmental review will be undertaken. I. AESTHETICS Items A through D — "No Impact": The Code Amendment would have no affect on scenic vistas, scenic resources, light, or the visual character or quality of the site and its. surroundings in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Source: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment.99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. II. -AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Items A through C—"No Impact": The project will not result in farmland conversion or conflict with agricultural zonirig or agriculture resources in that the. Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no 'physical development is proposed. Any future development applications Would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation 1 Monitoring: None Required. III. AIR QUALITY Items A through E—"No Impact": The Code Amendment would not violate air quality standards, conflict with any air quality plan, increase pollutants or create objectionable odors .in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. • e Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation 1 Monitoring: None required. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items A throu h F- "No Impact": The project will not conflict with conservation plans, and no impacts will occur to endangered, threatened or rare species or habitats, locally designated species or natural communities, or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and, administrative_in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring:. None Required. • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items A through D - "No Impact": The Code Amendment would not have any impacts on historical, archaeological or paleontological resources:or to human remains in that the Code Amendmentis regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation 1 Monitoring: None required. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items A though E - "No Impact": The project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving earthquake faults,seismic ground shaking,liquefaction,landslides or expansive soils in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and- independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. .. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation 1 Monitoring: None required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items A through H - "No Impact": The proposed project would not involve hazardous materials nor expose,the public to the potential for aircraft-related hazards in"that the Code Amendment is regulatory and- administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications 'would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. VIII.. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Items A through J- "No'Impact": The project would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements br substantially deplete groundwater or alter drainage; degrade water quality or cause flood hazards; nor,change the course or direction of water courses,water bodies, discharge into water-bodies, alter groundwater or water supplies or flooding from the site in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future-development applications would be individually reviewed.for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. . Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. • IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING . Items A through C - "No Impact".: The project would not significantly divide an established community or conflict with any land use plans;or habitat conservation or natural community conservation, plans in :that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be'individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code. Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Items A and B "No Impact": The Code Amendment would not result in the loss of any mineral resources in that it is regulatory and administrative-in-nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/'Monitoring: None Required. XI.. NOISK Items A through F — "No Impact": The Code Amendment,would have no impact on noise levels in that it is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is-proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING • Item_A through C - "No Impact": No residential development would be displaced or is proposed directly or indirectly in conjunction with- the project which would increase the City's population in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the' applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation I Monitoring: None Required. XIII. PUBLIC.SERVICES Item A - "No Impact":, The project would not require any significant additional public services in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any, future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and. independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. XIV. RECREATION Items A and B - "No Impact": No recreation facilities would be provided,and the project would not create a demand for additional recreational facilities in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time: Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. XV. TRANSPORTATIONCIRCULATION AND CI Items A through G - "No Impact":. The project will not result in negative transportation or circulation impacts,nor have an impact on parking capacity in that the Code.Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Items A through G - "No Impact": Since no actual development is proposed with the project, no additional need for utilities to service the area would be required. Any future development applications- would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. • Sources: .Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation 1 Monitoring: None Required. XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items A, B, C - "No Iinpact": The project would not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat, nor have impacts which are potentially individually limited but are cumulatively considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. Sources: As previously noted. Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required. ScottlEnvironllnitial Study Discussion CA 99-boarding houses.doc • ATTACHMENT B Resolution Nos. 3706 and 3707 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3706 2 ,A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING.COMMISSION OF THE CITY 3 OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ' RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS 4 ADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT 99-001, RELATED TO 5 BOARDING HOUSES. 6 The Planning Commission-of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 7 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: S A. That Code Amendment 99-001 is considered a "project" pursuant to 9 the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. to . B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has. 11 been distributed for public review. 12 C. Whereas, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has 13 considered evidence presented by the .Community Development Director and other interested :parties with respect to the subject 14 Negative Declaration. Public comments,received after adoption of this resolution would- be addressed by the City Council prior to 15 approval-of the project. 16 D. The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed draft Negative 17 Declaration and determined that the project is regulatory and 18 administrative in nature and therefore, would not have a significant effect on the environment. 19 I[. , A Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and 20 state guidelines. The Planning Commission-has received and considered 21 the information contained in the Draft Negative Declaration prior to recommending approval of the proposed project, and found that it 22 adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project. Public comments received` after adoption of this resolution would be 23 addressed by the.City Council prior to approval of the project. On the basis 24 ofthe initial study and comments received during the public hearing process, the Planning Commission has found that the project would not have a 25 significant effect on the environment: 26' In addition, the Planning Commission has found that the project involves no 27 potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and recommends that the City Council make a De Minimis Impact 28 Finding 'related to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes-of 1990. • 29 i, 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at.a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning,Commission, 3 held on the 22nd day of November, 1999. A 5 STEPHEN V. KOZAK Chairperson 6 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 7 Planning Commission Secretary s 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 10 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY-OF TUSTIN' ) 11 12 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that°1 am the Planning 13 Commission Secretary'of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3706 was duly passed and adopted at- a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning 14 Commission, held on the 22nd day of November, 1999 15 • 16 17 �s ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 19 Planning Commission Secretary 20 4 ' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2s 29 f • ' RESOLUTION NO. 3707 . 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, 3 CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT 99-001, AN AMENDMENT TO TUSTIN .CITY CODE SECTIONS 4 9228a3, 9226b3, AND 9297,•AND ADDING SECTION 9228b5 RELATED TO 5 BOARDING HOUSES. 6 7 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: s I. . The Planning Commission finds and determines: 9 A. That,the amendment to Tustin City Code Sections 9228a3, 9226b3 and 10 9297 and the addition'of the Tustin City Code Section 9228b5 have been prepared to establish a boarding house as'a conditionally permitted use 11 and delete a group dwelling as .a permitted use in the Suburban 12 Residential (R-4) District consistent with the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District, to establish development standards. for ,boarding houses, 13 and to clarify related definitions. 14 B. That a public hearing'was duly noticed, called and held on this ordinance by 15 -the Planning Commission-on November 22, 1999. 16 C. That a Negative,Declaration has been recommended for approval by the City Council in conformance with the requirements of the. California 17 Environmental Quality Act. 18 D. The proposed amendment would not have an,adverse affect on the public 19 health, safety and welfare of residents or businesses of the City. . 20 ' r E. The proposed amendments are regulatory and administrative in nature and. 21 would provide for.consistency between the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. 22 F. The requirement for.a conditional use permit is necessary to protectthe 23 health, safety and welfare of the City of Tustin in that the City will be able to examine land use compatibility and potential. impacts of boarding 24 houses in the R-4 District though the conditional.use permit process, as is 25 required in.the R-3 Zoning District. 26 G. The development standards imposed by this Ordinance are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City of Tustin as follows: 27 28 Maximum Heights: , The. height limitation will reduce the potential for shade and shadow impacts on adjacent properties, promote orderly and 29 'compatible development and improve access to emergency personnel. Resolution No. 3707 Page 2 ' Minimum Building_Site_ The requirement for a minimum building site will • 2 promote orderly and safe development by providing for,adequate access, open space, and off-street parking accommodations. 3 Minimum Lot Width: The requirement for a minimum lot width will ensure 4 orderly and compatible development that is appropriately scaled in 5 relation to the dimensions of the lot. 6 Maximum Lot Coverage: The limitation on maximum lot coverage will 7 foster compatibility with adjacent residential uses and provide for open areas that may be used for recreational purposes. s ' Minimum Setbacks: The minimum required setbacks will promote orderly 9 development, adequate access to emergency personnel, improved noise 10 mitigation between adjacent properties, and adequate natural light and ventilation. 11 i2 Minimum Off-street Parking: The requirement for off-street parking spaces will promote safety by minimizing on-street parking and parking in 13 non-designated.areas thereby improving emergency access and providing for the safe parking of automobiles. 14 15 Minimum Common and Private_ Open Space: The requirement for common and private open space will provide usable and functional areas 16 for active and passive recreational activities that will minimize the use of 17 public streets and other vehicular areas for recreational purposes. 18 H. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that they comply with the following General Plan Policies: 19 20 Land Use Element Policy 1.12: Where feasible, increase the amount and network of public and private open space and recreational facilities which 21 will be adequate in size and location to be usable for active or passive recreation as well as for visual relief. ' 22 23. Land Use Element Policy 4.6: Maintain and enhance the quality of healthy residential neighborhoods, and safeguard neighborhoods from intrusion by 24 non-conforming and disruptive uses. 2s Circulation Element Policy 7.2: Provide sufficient off-street parking for all 26 land uses. 27 Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy 14.8: Encourage 28 and, where appropriate, require the inclusion of recreation facilities and open space within future residential, industrial, and commercial 29 developments. S Resolution No. 3707 Page 3 • 1 2 II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Code Amend ment99-001, as shown and attached hereto as.ExhibitA. 3 4 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of-Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of November 1999. 6 7 s STEPHEN V. KOZAK Chairperson 9 10 11 ELIZABETHA. BINSACK 12 Planning Commission Secretary 13 14 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE. } SS, 16 CITY OF TUSTIN ) 17 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning . is Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3707 was duly passed and adopted at regular meeting of the Tustin 19 Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of November, 1999. 20 21 22 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK. 23 Planning Commission Secretary , 24 25 26 27 28 i 29 - EXHIBITA • RESOLUTION NO. 3707 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1225 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT 99-001 AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9228a3, 9226b3, AND 9297, AND ADDING SECTION 9228b5 RELATED TO BOARDING HOUSES. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: Section I The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the amendment to Tustin City Code Sections 9228a3, 9226b3 and 9297 and the addition of the Tustin City Code Section 9228b5 have been prepared to establish a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use and delete a group dwelling as a permitted use in the Suburban Residential (R4) District consistent with the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District, to establish development standards for boarding houses, and to clarify related definitions. B. That a public hearing was dully noticed, called and held on this Ordinance by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1999 and by the City Council on January 3, 2000. C. The proposed amendment would not have an adverse affect on the public health, safety and welfare of residents or businesses of the City. D. A Negative Declaration has been adopted for this project in accordance with the provisions of the .California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). E. The proposed amendments are regulatory and administrative in nature and would provide for consistency between the R-3 and 'R-4 Zoning Districts. F. The requirement for a conditional use permit imposed by this Ordinance is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City of Tustin in that the City will be able to examine land use compatibility and potential impacts of boarding houses in the R4 Zoning District though the conditional use permit process, as .is required in the R-3 Zoning District. Ordinance No. 1225 Page 2 G. The development standards imposed. by this Ordinance are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City of Tustin as follows: Maximum Heights: The height limitation will reduce the potential for shade and shadow impacts on adjacent,properties, promote orderly and compatible development and improve access to emergency personnel. Minimum Building Site: The requirementfor a minimum building site j will promote orderly and safe development by providing for adequate access, open space, and off-street parking accommodations._ - Minimum Lot Width: The requirement for a'minimum lot width will ensure orderly and compatible development that is appropriately scaled in relation to"thedimensions of the lot._ Maximum Lot Coverage: The limitation on maximum lot coverage will foster compatibility with adjacent residential uses and provide for open areas that may be used for'recreational purposes. Minimum Setbacks: The minimum required setbacks will promote orderly development, adequate access to emergency personnel, . improved noise mitigation between adjacent properties, and adequate natural light and ventilation. Minimum Off-street Parking: The requirement for off-street parking spaces will promote safety by .minimizing on-street parking and parking in noxi-designated areas thereby improving emergency access and providing for the safe parking of automobiles. Minimum Common and Private Open Space: The requirement for common-and private open space-will provide usable and functional areas for active and passive recreational activities that will'minimize the use of public streets and other vehicular areas for recreational purposes. H. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that they comply with the following General Plan Policies: Land Use Element Policy 1.12: Where feasible, increase the amount and network of public and private open space and recreational facilities which will be adequate-in size and location to be usable for active or passive recreation as well as for visual relief. Ordinance No. 1225 Page 3 Land Use Element Policy 4.6: Maintain and enhance the quality of healthy residential neighborhoods, and safeguard neighborhoods from intrusion by non-conforming and disruptive uses. _ Circulation Element_Policy 7.2: Provide sufficient off-street parking for all land uses. Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy 14.8: Encourage and, where appropriate, require the inclusion of recreation facilities and open space within future residential, industrial,and commercial developments. Section II. Section 9228a3 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 413. One-family dwellings, two (2) or more detached one-family dwellings, two- family dwellings, , multiple family dwellings and apartment houses, all of a permanent character, placed in permanent locations." (StFikethreur,h denotes deleted text.) „ Section III. Section 9226b3 of the Tustin City Code.is hereby amended to read as • follows: 113. Hotels, motels and FGOMiRg 9F boarding houses, dwelliRg gFOUP , subject to use permit (a) Maximum height: 49 CKs#ociessor3 feet (b) Minimum building site: 7,500 square feet (c) Minimum lot width at property line: 70 feet , (d) Maximum lot coverage: 75 percent (e) Minimum front yard setback: 45 EO feet OR ZaRinn Maps) (f} Minimum.side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet (g) Minimum rear yard setback: 4.9 2�feet (h) Wni.m.um. let rrea peFfamilyuRi+.---500 squafeTzi (i) nimm off-street parking: One (1) parking space for each four (4) rooms in a hotel; One (1) parking space for each two nes One 1 parking accup�ER in a boarding house { ) p g space for each motel unit; ff steet' parkig&?,s, lallbe : riaoVedcons�stenf �#h,�` the Ci#y • Patktng�a��6,L��dscapang�Deve�opment Standa,�ds�� and�eaeh o treet parking�space�sha ,�e ��de�ender,�tly�acce,_ssrble�and�,�`usa�,�e or eiatomobile Frk1ngi purpose Ordinance No. 1225 Page 4 Parking requirements for senior citizen housing projects to include accommodations for tenants, guests, and service employees shall be determined as a condition of the use permit approving the project. Q) inff:n-u-fKN%rnrnon�o erg space ar?boar mg howses: 00 square feet per baardW'- ofirr roWIN quse jantl 50 square feet per ccapant ;C� mc�pen�hpace ssfaaltconsistfner �losedor partlalyrenclosi", b passial .�»: «� uses Co_mrnonaer�4�spaceslafnot,�ncludecr�ares ar1cn areas;arequif"eonanclsrde ardxsetback�rea5. (j) Jnimmpnv�#e�trper��spac%,fiortl oarcling houses 25ksquare� per,,pccupant ° vate open spae shall consist of a pally enclosed ��-eas se��as�defor�pass�ve;ani actfi%xr�e reat�a��uses[I�i�. ata�e assigned�,t"a��n+divi�ua{, occu an#s -andlar�:�rovrns.;':such f<asr�`p �aftos or�balcor;les - (9t9kethF9denotes deleted text. =h tl na ii denotes new text.) Section IV. Section 9297 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: The following definitions shall be amended as follows: "Boarding House" means a dwelling other than a hotel .:.i' riofel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." "Dwelling" means a building or portion thereof designed and used �eI for residential occupancy; ' , "Family" means Glub, ffatemify�seGi family shall he deemed te,-innl„rla ReGes a4y �sd �dualEork 4 } rrrmore;personsgrelatedabybtoo; iorlegals#atu r argroup�ofiotmyore fan �(6) prsonswlo�arenot 5orelafed [�rirge as_a ingle l b sekeeping,u n a dwelling�unifi, (,Stgkethr,,,",h denotes deleted texts denotes new text.) Ordinance No. 1225 Page 5 Section V. Section 9228b5 shall be added to the Tustin City Code to read as follows: 51Boar mgE_Houses axi'-f` 0 al ff 0-a ui in c 1;s e.,-,,, 'A arc.;se ac g"' ifili d "4 f d ION- ch Nsp ,,-pa,r J p a ir k 1 Minim'LJ M" 0 street t . acef�or each 0 ,Locc; pan s��,voffi�st Aq sistenv,� __ptr at, n s M ve opmen ,ji and. a rdls-.N%'!�a n ad'a-c- I e". R-- . IV 6 Midi fifi"6t§p space:.,g3umsquarefeet @-r oardIN house, 0050 sisquare Meet occupants 6mffi6n-,.,op 61 per spac-il-ft' k" 'k d --` as e JI.b6h§itt,,'p ,,.',unene ose ldf-,'Oqf fib 4 # M Y:t 4set aside forpassve4 .01 . W.I. `W.., -,on riot incude driveways€ ar sidepyart� setback areas " ' -Cbf I W.1 --T, Rxivateto�en,space s all '990&Jor2p a,.,-,us th' ,metivei-recreatioO gC�� ASSIV Clignew natQr grooms,- ....such...... (Sty aif'fg. denotes new text) Section V1. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held out be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such.decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, Ordinance No. 1225 Page 6 subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the day of , 2000. TRACY WILLS WORLEY - Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF TUSTIN } CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1225 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California,does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1225 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of January, 2000 and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17' day of January,2000 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBERAYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBERABSTAINED: COU NCILMEMBERABSENT: ' t PAMELA STOKER • City Clerk ITEM 45 OATE: Inter-Com NOVEMBER 22 1999 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN (AELUP) BACKGROUND Section•21670 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California requires every county that has an airport served by a scheduled airline to establish an airport land use commission. The purpose of the airport land use commission is to consider and act upon noise, safety and land use issues affecting an airport. The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) was established on December 30, 1970. The ALUC consists of seven members, including two members representing cities in the county, two members representing the county, two members having expertise in aviation and one member who represents the general public. Section 21670.1 provides the authority for the ALUC to adopt a comprehensive airport land use plan. Section 21675 allows the ALUC to include the surrounding area of any military airport within the comprehensive airport land use plan. The requirement for ALUCs to adopt comprehensive land use plans was established in 1970. In 1975 the ALUC adopted Orange County's first Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The AELUP is a twenty-year planning document for the airports, within Orange County. The plan is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of airports and to ensure the continued operation of the airports. Specifically the.plan,seeks to protect the public from adverse effects of aircraft noise, aircraft accidents and to ensure that structures and activities do not adversely affect navigable airspace. Each city whose General Plan includes areas covered by the AELUP is required to submit a copy of their General Plan to the ALUC. The ALUC has the authority to determine if the General Plan is consistent with the AELUP. As part of the 1994 Comprehensive update of the City of Tustin General Plan certain Implementation Programs were included in the plan that made it consistent with the AELUP. On March 18, 1993 the ALUC made a formal finding that Tustin's Land Use Element and Public Safety Element were consistent with the AELUP. ISSUES The ALUC periodically reviews the ALEUP for adequacy. Most recently there have been several issues during the regular amendment process that the City of Tustin has commented on. These issues/actions are summarized below: S Planning Commission November 22, 1999 AELUP Page 2. OVERFLIGHT ZONES The 1997 Draft AELUP amendment proposed to define Overflight Zone as the area beneath any distinctly visible and' audible passage of an aircraft, not necessarily one which is directly overhead. The 1997 amendment also proposed to add language that would impose certain regulations for MCAS, Tustin. The proposed Ianguage specifically defined the areas 4,500 feet on each side of the runway and extending to 5,200 feet beyond the.end of the runway as Overflight Zones. As such, this area would be subject to Avigation Easements and Buyer/Tenant Notification. The following is a summary of correspondence between the City of Tustin and the ALUC regarding the Overflight Zone issue: • October 31, 1997 - The ALUC notified local agencies that they will be considering a 1997 Amendment to the AELUP. The 1997 Amendment proposed to add Overflight Zone criteria, clarify avigation easement requirements, clarify determination of consistency, revise the Land Use Category matrix and make other non-technical changes. The amendment also clarified that the ALUC authority was not retroactive and applied to vacant properties and new uses established through formal Redevelopment action. • November 12, 1997 - The City of Tustin provided comments on the 1997 Amendment. Tustin opposed the establishment of an Overflight Zone for MCAS, Tustin because the base closed in July 1999 and the re-use plan provided for only non-aviation uses (Attachment A). A November 20, 1997 - The ALUC responded to the City of Tustin comments, stating that Overflight Zone language in the amendment would not be changed and would remain as proposed by staff(Attachment B). • May 6, 1998. ALUC notified local agencies that the 1997 Amendment would not include Overflight Zone language. The decision to defer the inclusion of Overflight Zone language in the AELUP was based on controversy and comments received (Attachment Q. MCAS, TUSTIN The first AELUP adopted in 1975 included the MCAS, Tustin facility. Prior to the AELUP, the ALUC adopted a Land Use Plan for each airport in Orange County, including MCAS, Tustin. The following is a summary of correspondence between the City of Tustin and the ALUC regarding MCAS, Tustin: • September 9, 1996 -- ALUC staff acknowledged receipt of MCAS, Tustin Reuse Plan and recognized that the Plan will not include an aviation use. ALUC staff stated they would pursue an amendment deleting MCAS, Tustin from AELUP (Attachment D). • Planning Commission November 22, 1999 AELUP Page 3 • November 12, 1997 - The City of Tustin provided comments on the 1997 Amendment. Tustin requested that the ALUC delete MCAS, Tustin from the AELUP, as recommended by ALUC staff in 1996 (Attachment A). • . November 20, 1997 - The ALUC responded to the City of Tustin continents, stating that the AELUP reference to MCAS, Tustin will be repealed at the Commission's earliest convenience(Attachment B). ® Qctober 21, 1999 - The ALUC approved the AELUP as recommended by:ALUC staff 4-3. With respect to the City of Tustin's comments about deleting reference to MCAS, Tustin because of the future non-aviation use, the County Counsel advised the ALUC that removal of Tustin was pre-mature because title had not passed-to'Tustin. County Counsel advised the ALUC to consider Tustin's request next year in the Amendment 2000 process. 1999 AMENDMENTS In March 1999, the ALUC commenced their 1999 annual review/revisions of the AELUP. The proposed amendments included 'incorporation of avigation easement policies into the AELUP text as a method that could be employed by airport proprietors for controlling and reducing noise complaints around an airport. Inclusion of the avigation easement language provided authority to the ALUC to find that a proposed land use in a Planning Area is not consistent with the AELUP if an avigation easement is not dedicated. The 1,999 Amendments also includes language regarding Disclosure Notification of aircraft noise impact to all initial and subsequent buyers, lessees and renters within the AELUP Noise Impact Zones. The ALUC may find a project inconsistent with the AELUP for failure to provide this notification. No portion of the City of Tustin falls within the John Wayne Airport Impact Zones (see attached AELUP map). The following is a summary of correspondence and actions of the ALUC regarding the 1999 AELUP amendment: 0 June.17, 1999 - ALUC conducted a public meeting on the AELUP proposed amendments. Based on continents received. from local agencies the ALUC deferred action on the 1999 Amendment to a subcommittee of the ALUC. O July 15, 1999—ALUC subcommittee conducted a public meeting. a August 19, 1999 -Notification of a Special Meeting of the ALUC received. © August 19, 1999- The City of Tustin requested that action on the 1999 AELUP amendments be continued due to insufficient notification and lack of opportunity to review the proposed amendments (Attachment E). PIanning Commission November 22, 1999 AELUP Page 4 s • August 1999—The cities of Cypress, La Palma, Costa Mesa and Lake Forest, Fullerton, Los Alamitos and' Tustin requested elimination of the proposed Avigation easement and Disclosure language in the AELUP. • September 16, 1999 - The City of Tustin submitted a letter requesting elimination of the Avigation Easement and Disclosure language in the proposed AELUP (Attachment F). • October 21, 1999—The City of Tustin provided testimony at the ALUC meeting and submitted a letter requesting elimination of the MCAS, Tustin facility from the AELUP and deletion of the Avigation Easement and Disclosure language in the Plan(Attachment G). • October 21, 1999'- The ALUC approved the 1999-AELUP amendments as recommended by ALUC staff 4-3. The other changes raised by Tustin and the other communities were'not approved. ALUC staff advised Tustin that the ALUC action is final and there are no provisions for appealing to the Board of Supervisors. Several cities opposed to the action taken by the ALUC are considering litigation. Attachments: A. November 12, 1997 - City of Tustin correspondence B. November 20, 1997 -ALUC correspondence C. May 6, 1998' , 1998,--ALUC memorandum D. September 9, 1996—ALUC correspondence E. August 19, 1999 - City of Tustin correspondence F. September 16, 1999 - City of Tustin correspondence G. October 21, 1999—City of Tustin correspondence Airport.impact Zones for John Wayne Airport Map . 's1 Community Development Department . City of Tustin November '12, 1997 . 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Eric• R. Freed, Executive officer ' (714) 573-3100 Airport Land Use Commission •3153.- Airway Avenue, Building K--101 Costa Mesa, CA, 92626 SUBJECT: DRAFT AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN ' (AELUP) AMENDMENT , Dear Mr. Freed: On October 16, 1997, the Airport Land, Use Commission (ALUC) considered the Draft ' Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) amendment~ . The City of Tustin has the following comments pertaining to the amendment of' the AELUP: 1. The Overflight Zone as stated in Section 2 .1. 4 is determinedr by the guidelines in the Caltrans/Aeronautics Program Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The draft AELUP, however, does not specify what the above guidelines are and how it will affect • development in the overflight zone.. 2 . There is no supporting evidence in the Draft AELUP amendment related to the establishment of the overflight zone. 3 . Section-2 .1 .4 does not specify whether the requirements of the overflight zone apply only to new development, or if any modification of existing land use such as a conditional use permit 'will also be affected by creation' of this zone. 4 . Section 2 . 2 .2 of the draft AELUP adds an Overflight Zane to the - planning area for MCAS . Tustin. The Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) in Tustin tis' closing in 1999 and the re-use plan of the area contains only non-aviation uses . On September 9, 1996 , in response to the review of the MCAS re-use plan submittal, ALUC informed the City. of 'Tustin that upon the closure of the MCAS, the ALUC will pursue an amendment to its planning document (AELUP) to delete Section 2 .2 .2, MCAS Tustin (see attachment) . The new amendment should state the closing ' date of the MCAS and repeal of the overflight zone- upon the base closure. 5 . Under the TWENTY YEAR FUTURE (Section 2 .2 .2) , re-use of the base, beyond , 1999 should be stated as - a mixed development including residential , commercial , recreational and light industrial uses. ATTACHMENT A • Airport Land Use .Commission ARLUP Amendment Page 2 �. 6 . Section 4 .3 , General and Specific._Plans, states that as part compliance with the AELUP; cities are required to incorporate the performance standards of - the AELUP into their, planning, zoning and .development processes. It is not clear, whether affected cities will need to amend their General ' Plans based ' on the amendments to the AELUP. Please consider the above comments - in review of the draft AELUP amendment. Should you have any questions regarding the comments, please contact me at (714) 573-3109 . Sincerely. Rita Westfield Assistant Director, Community Development Department cc: Minoo Ashabi i ma:aelupame.let ti un�var. uoun•rr AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY phone:(714)2S2-5170 •' ALUC 3151 Airway Avenue, Building K-101 Fax: (714)252-5290 Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 November 20, 1997 Ms:•Rita Westfield Assistant Director, Community Development,Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92780 Subject: Response to Comments Dear Ms: Westfield: The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County is in receipt of your letter dated November 12, 1997. On behalf of ALUC, the following is in response to your comments regarding the Draft Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Amendment: . a The AELUP Amendment does.specify Overflight guidelines and their effect on development. 'The new definitibns in Section 1.5, the new text in Section 2.1.4, • Sections 2.2.1 - 2.2.5 and Section 3.2.2, and the new maps and accompanying Caltrans tableldiagram in Appendix D adequately define, describe, and depict the Overflight Zone and mitigation measures that apply therein. The Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook , by which the ALUC is required under law to be guided, provides ample support for the Commission's approach, particularly since the AELUP Amendment is providing detailed clarification of those areas subject to the Commission's Avigation Easement/Public Notification Policy adopted on December 20, 1979, as Resolution 79-2 (see AELUP Appendix Q. The application of all Commission requirements are specifically limited by the PUC to land within,the vicinity of an airport that " . . .is not already devoted to incompatible uses.", which is understood to mean undeveloped land, and significant redevelopment wherein the existing land use will be changed to a new land use. Staff supports the City's comment and favors the City's suggestion to add text indicating that upon closure of MCAS Tustin, and with the cessation of airport/aviation activities, Section 2.2.2 of the AELUP will no longer apply and will be repealed at the Commission's earliest convenience. Staff supports the City's comment and favors the City's suggestion to add tent, to • Section 2.2.2-Twenty Year Future, citing that the reuse of the Base will be a mixed development including residential, commercial, recreational and light industrial uses. ATTACHMENT B Tustin, Response to Comments November 207 1997 Page 2 • Chapter 4 of the AELUP makes it clear that affected Cities and the County must either: amend their General Plans, Specific Plans, Zoning'Codes, and Building Regulations_ to ' be,consistent with the AELUP, or refer all land use projects to the Commission for Determinations of Consistency or Inconsistency, or else override the Commission according to the procedure specified in the PUC. Thank you for your comments regarding the Draft AELUP Amendment, they will be provided to the ALUC during their review and consideration of this matter. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 252-5170. �Sincerely, Eric R.Freed Executive Officer cc: Elizabeth Binack Director Community Development > tY AIR-PORT LAND USE COMMISSION ' Q�A7.rQL COUNTY � .+�• FOR ORANGE COUNTY Phone (714) 252-5170 .3160 Airway Avenue. Fax (714) 252-5290 ALUC Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - May 6, 1998 RECEIVED TO: Commissioners/Alternates MAY - 8 1908 FROM. Thomas U. Wall, Chairman COMMUNITY D�VELOPf�DT i^ ` SUBJECT: -ALUC Workshop and Related Issues This memo reports the results of the recent ALUC Workshop, sponsored by the California Pilots Association, aconducted by Caltrans/Aeronautics rrogra. . associates. Approximately 85 add persons from land use planning agencies and other interested parties attended the workshop_from throughout central and southern California,.and even from Nevada_ Seven of our Members also participated. A broad range of ALUC matters were covered by the presenters, and several key issues were discussed during the afternoon Q & A session. The formal presentations along with the discussion among the panel and`the audience served to clarify some areas of uncertainty and provided a prudent direction for our Commission to consider. Some key issues that were addressed include: • An ALUC is a regulatory agency similar to a City Council, Board of Supervisors, or Coastal • Commission and-is not merely an advisory body like a Planning Commission. the • Amendments to the Public Utilities Code since 1982 have enhanced, not diminished, ALUC's land use planning responsibilities. • An ALUC must follow the guidelines promulgated in.the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, although some flexibility is permitted to,ALUCs in applying land use.policies around individual airports. • It was emphasized that ALUCs are prohibited from exercising any authority over the operations of any airport= 0 Under Title 21, Avigation Easements.are intended to be applied to projects that are potentialIy incompatible, so as to deem them legally compatible in an airport environs. • Caltrans is commencing a majorok and will be holding forums for local input throughout the.State during the course of the project. Accordingly, it is clear that our Commission should defer any amendment to our Airport Frivirons Land Use Plan (AELUP), other than routine corrections, and should strive to,participate fully in the' Handbook revision'process. In particular, I believe that our.Commission should defer indefinitely the Overflight Zone clarification proposed last year(and subsequently canceled) for addition to our AELUP. Also, in accordance with Caltrans Counsel's view, we should limit future Avigation Easement recommendations to case by case projects, in which land use compatibility is uncertain. To this end, it is imperative that our Members and staff closely monitor the State's progress in revising its Handbook, and participate throughout with the Caltrans staff and their consultants. • Additionally, mindful of the numerous,inq uin es made during andafter the recent Workshop, I find it appropriate to share this memo with those local public agencies and private organizations that have expressed their direct concern with our ongoing activities. ATTACHMENT C AIR POR'T° LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY Phona(714) 252-S1 ALUC 3151'Airway Avenue, Buildi K-101 r Fax: (714) 252-5294 _ Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 ! September 9, 1996 Ms. Christine ShingIeton Assistant City Manager - - Ff City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin,.CA 92680 Subject: WAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Dear Ms. Shingleton: The Airport Land Ue Commission for Orange County(ALUC) is in receipt of the subject Reuse Plan. • After reviewing the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, it appears that the Reuse will not include an aviation use. Therefore, after the departure of the military.from WAS Tustin, and the 4doption of a:Reuse Plan that does not include an aviation use, the ALUC will pursue an Amendment to its planning document, the Airport Environs Land Use Plan, to delete section 2.2.2,,MCAS Tustin (Helicopter). If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number listed above. For the Commission, Eric R Freed Executive Officer FS K99492 ATTACHMENT D 919.'96 C' . S'C Community Development Department August 19, 1999 . C.1 LY Q1 - i u sf i n 300 Centennial Way Tustin. CA 92780 Airport Land Use Commission (7 t Y) 5 i 3-3100 3160 Aizt;Vay Avenue - Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Proposed 1999 AELUP Revisions Airport Land Use Commission: The City of Tustin supports the recomrriendation of the cities that are requesting continuance of the 1999 AELUP revisions. These cities have not received proper notification of the Plan revisions and should be provided.the opportunity to review and provide-input to the Commission on potential impacts to their community. The City of Tustin requests that the'Commis' ion continue or table the 1999 AELUP revisions. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Binsack Commuhity Development Director ATTACHMENT E 7=-k Cemmun�.ty Development Department - C ity of Tustin 300 Certenniai Way Tustin, CA 92780 September 1.6, 1999 (714) 573-3100 Chairman Bresnahan Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA. 92926 Subject: Proposed 1999 AELU-P Revisions Dear Chairman Bresnahan and Members of the Airport Land Use Commission: At your August 19, 1999 Commission meeting, Ms. Joan Hoesterey, City of La Palma read a letter from the Citv of Tustin into the meeting record. Our letter requested that the Commission • delay action on the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) revisions because cities had not received appropriate notification of the pending plan revision. On August 30, 1999, the City of Tustin received a letter from your staff indicating that the comments expressed.at the August 19, 1999 meeting and comments received from cities would be considered and may be integrated into the AELUP text. The City of Tustin was disappointed to find that the Iatest AELUP draft did not eliminate the Avigation Easement and Disclosure Notification language that the cities opposed. The City of Tustin along with the cities of La Palma, Cypress, Lake Forest and Costa Mesa, request elimination of Section 3.2.9 Aviaation Easements and Section 3.2.10 Disclosure language from the AELUP. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Binsack- Community Development Director EAB:RIK.Bm�aelup letter September 16 ATTACHMENT F 'RS Community Development Department - City. of Tub in 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 r. October 21, 1999 _ (714).573-3100 Chairman Bresnahan, Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA. 92926 Subject: Proposed 1999 AELUP Revisions Dear Chairman Bresnahan and Members of the Airport Land Use Commission: The City of Tustin Community Development Department received the October 21, 1999 staff report and staff's recommendations for the 1999 Airport Environs Land Use,Plan{AELUP) revisions. e 1 99 the Ci of Tustin transmitted a letter to the commission requesting that On September 16, 9 City . MCAS, Tustin be eliminated from the Plan since this property was no longer in use as'a military or aircraft facility. Your staff has suggested that the commission delay considering changes to MCAS, Tustin until the Year 2000 amendments. The City of Tustin requests that the commission recognize that MCAS, Tustin.will not now or in the future be used for aircraft.operations and delete all sections of the 1999 AELUP which refer to MCAS, Tustin. In addition we request elimination of Section 3.2.9 Avieation Easements and ' Section 3.2.10 Disclosure language from the 1999 Airport.Environs Land Use Plan: Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director EAB:RW:kbm`aelup letter October 21 ATTACHMENT G IL I � � �► Cif TUSTIN p MINI Iy .�/A90 V� 14- IAF1� LI zolli c W f ��'r• AIRPORT IMPACT ZONES JOHN WAYNE 'AIRPORT T LEGEND CUMFICLAMON OZ OVr-R=LIGHT ZONE >ik SCHOOL I ro to AnLai�:rerc�+x��G�-;^cam., C - 23W 3252 45U 5752 Raz RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE FIRE STATION _ 11.1 Fm ---60-- CII=L CONTDUR i F.Y P inrr•F:aranw fkfrwr ITEM #6 Inter Com ' �� 06ATE: Ci NOVEMBER 22, 7999 S'C TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ` SUBJECT: STATUS REPORTS RECOMMENDATION Receive and file. BACKGROUND Please find attached the current status reports related to development activity in the City. There are two reports provided: 1. Development Review Status Report- Citywide 2. Development Review Status Report- East Tustin Staff would be happy to respond.to any questions the Commission may have at the meeting. Karen Peterson Senior Planner pereportsWatreptl 1-99 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CURRENT PLANNING PROJECT STATUS . NOT INCLUDING EAST TUSTIN PROJECTS PROJECT STATUS LEGEND DATE OF.REPORT: November 17, 1999 01 - ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL 05 - PROJECT APPROVED SORT: LEGEND ITEMS 01-07 02 - RESUBMITTAL 06 - PLAN CHECK 03 - COMMENTS OUT/PENDING APPLICANT RESPONSE 07 - PERMITS ISSUED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION 08 - PROJECT COMPLETE TENTATIVE HEARING DATES 09 - WITHDRAWN 10 - EXPIRED 04.1 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 11 - DENIED 04.2 - PLANNING COMMISSION 12 - REVOKED 04.3 - CITY COUNCIL STATUS RESPONSE CASE 4 APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF CUP99-026 Foothill Chevron 17241 IRVINE BL Gas Station/Convenience Store/Carwash 01 11/02/99 12/01/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-027 AT&T Wireless Services 1421 EDINGER ST Monopole Cell Site 01 11/04/99 12/01/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-028 Mitsui Real Estate 14151 NEWPORT AV 9 Assigned Parking Spaces 01 11/05/99 12/01/99 Lori Ludi DR 99-033 Foothill Chevron 17241 IRVINE BL Gas Station/Convenience Store/Carwash 01 li/02/99 12/01/99 Lori Ludi DR 99-034 Rosa Gaston 14701 CHARLOMA DR Balcony/Front Porch Alteration 01 11/02/99 11/24/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-036 AT&T Wireless Services 1421 EDINGER ST Monopole Cellular Site 01 11/05/99 12/01/99 Brad Evanson DR 99-037 Robert Lindquist 140 MAIN ST Second Story Addition/Ped Bridge 01 11/04/99 11/30/99 Minoo Ashabi GPA99-003 Foothill Chevron 17241 IRVINE BL . Gas Station/Convenience Store/Carwash 01 11/02/99 12/01/99 Lori Ludi ZC 99-004 Foothill Chevron 17241 IRVINE BL Gas Station/Convenience Store/Carwash 01 11/02/99 12/01/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-012 Sprint PCS 15201 WOODLAWN AV 60'Monopole w/ 12 Antennas 02 11/02/99 11/23/99 Lori Ludi CUP98-018 Orange County Rescue Miss MCAS PA3 Emergency/Transitional Housing 03 09/03/98 Lori Ludi CUP99-007 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV 60-Unit Senior Housing Project 03 04/26/99 Justine Wilkhom CUP99-009 Willy Paul,.Architect 1352 IRVINE BL Law Office & School 03 65%06/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-014 Tustin Village 11 HOA 16625 TOWNHOUSE DR Amend CUP for Accessory Structures 03 _ 10/25/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-017 'Alex Mann 1091 IRVINE BL Live Entertainment/Tustin Lanes 03 11/01/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-019 Donald Frizzell .1111 EL CAMINO REAL 90-Student Pre-School/8 Staff 03 11/15/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-020 Reverend Mark E. Whitlock 1541 PARKWAY LOOP Church in Industrial 03 09/15/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP99-021 L.J. Hausner 505 1ST ST Construction office 03 09/30/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP99-024 David Hughes 640 1ST ST UD/CUP for Marital Arts Studio 03 10/26/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-318 Orange County Rescue Miss MCAS PA3 Emergency/Transitional Housing 03 09/03/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-024 ASL Consulting Engineers 235 E MAIN ST Main Street Reservoir/Parking 03 11/09/99 Lori Ludi DR 98-032 Arther Masaoka 140 A ST Demo/New Residence 03 07/14/99 Karen Peterson DR 99-006 American Senior Living _1101 SYCAMORE AV 60-Unit Senior Housing Project 03 04/26/99 Justina Wilkhom Page 7 • • STAT139 RESPONSE CASE 0 APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF DR 99-010 Media One Phase 11: 12 Power supply Cabinets- 03 06/24/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-012 Media One Phase 111: 50 Power Supply Cabinets 03 10/28/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-024 Media One Phase IV: 6 Power Supply Cabinets 03 08/19/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-027 Conrad 8 Denise Sawicz 13571 FAIRMONT WY Residential Remodel 03 08/16/99 Brad Evanson DR 99-028 Media One Phase V: 6 Power Supply Cabinets 03 08/23/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-030 Sprint PCS Cell Site a Commuter Rail Platform 03 10/14/99 Minoo Ashabi GPA99-002 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV MDR to HDR 03 04/26/99 Justina Wilkhom SCE99.004 Jerry Firth 12821 NEWPORT AV Wall Sign 03 09/30/99 Lori Ludi UD 99-003 David Hughes 640 1ST ST UD/CUP, for Martial Arts Studio 03 10/26/99 Minoo Ashabi VAR99-001 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV 60-Unit Senior Housing 03 04/26/99 Justine Wilkhom ZC 99-003 American Senior Living 1101 SYCAMORE AV R-4 to R-3 03 04/26/99 Justina Wilkhom CUP98-022 Jack StanaLand 13011 NEWPORT AV Add parking on vacant ROW 05 07/06/99 Justina WiLLkom CUP98-028 Dr. Craig/Or. Lavach 2955 EDINGER ST Veterinary Hospital at Jamboree Plaza 05 01/05/99 Brad Evanson CUP98-031 Akira Takashio 65B EL CAMINO REAL Amendment: 39 Seat Expansion '05 10/25/99 Justina WiLLkom CUP99-002 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED HILL AV CUP 99-002(A)&(B) Restaurant/Pole Sign. 05 08/09/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-003 Craig Wasserman 675 EL CAMINO REAL Entertainment Permit 05- 03/22/99 Scott Reekstin CUP99-004 Pacific Bell Wireless 14451 MYFORD RD Modification of existing cell site. 05 04/12/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP99-008 Michael & Lisa Broome 3047 EDINGER ST Vetrinary Nuclear Imaging 05 05/10/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP99-010 PairGain Technologies 14352 FRANKLIN AV Temporary Office Trailer (18 Month Extension) 05 11/08/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-016 Denise Menz 14392 HOLT AV Second Unit 05 10/11/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-018 MeL Melkoff 2111 BRYAN AV Expansion of pre-schoolto 79/modular unit. 05 09/13/99 Lori Ludi CUP99-023 Hassan Keivannia 13862 NEWPORT AV Restaurant ABC License 05 11/01/99 Lori Ludi DR 98-026 Jack Stanaland 13011 NEWPORT AV 'Add parkingon vacant ROW 05 07/06/99 Justine Wiltkom DR 98-036 Hal Woods12569 NEWPORT AV New Building 05 11/01/99 Lori-Ludi DR 99-001 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED .HILL AV New Drive-thru Restaurant 05 07/12/99 Brad Evanson DR 99-009 EuiLan Enterprises 13891 RED HILL AV Exterior Remodel of Shell Station 05 07/21/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-015 Audrey Heredia 355 C ST Gazebo/Removal of Parking 05 06/21/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-016 Tyrone Hurtado 305 6TH ST Residential Remodet 05 07/19/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-020 Ed and Diane Finkbeiner 163 MOUNTAIN VIEW D New Residence, 05 09/22/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-021 Ed and Diane Finkbeiner 165 MOUNTAIN VIEW D New Residence 05 09/22/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-022 Jersey Business Center As 2741 WALNUT AV New 35,000 S.F. Building 05 11/01/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-023 Hien Pham 14092 C ST Kitchen/Bath Expansion 05 07/16/99 Minoo Ashabi OR 99-025 Curt and Sheila LiLLy* 145 A ST Reconstruction of fire-damaged residence. 05 07/27/99 Brad Evanson DR 99-029 Mel Malkoff 2111 BRYAN AV Expansion of pre-school to 79/modular unit. 05 09/13/99 Lori Ludi SCE99'001 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED HILL AV SCE 99-001(A)&(B) Wall/Pole Sign 05 08/09/99 Brad Evanson TPM99-196 Jersey Business Center As 2741 WALNUT AV Lot Split/New Building 05 11/01/99 Minoo Ashabi TPM99-197 Consolidated Restaurants 13922 RED HILL AV Lot Consolidation 05 10/18/99 Brad Evanson VAR99-003, Willis SutcLiff 330 CALIFORNIA ST Fence Height Variance 05 09/13/99 Minoo Ashabi Zc 98-006 Hal'Woods 12569 NEWPORT AV New Building 05 11/01/99 Lori Ludi Page 2 _ STATUS RESPONSE CASE N APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF CUP97-005 Bennett Architects 535 E MAIN ST Appeal Carwash/Service Station/RetaiL 06 06/22/99 Brad Evanson CUP98-007 Alegre Associates 12972 NEWPORT AV Appeal - Lube/Oil Facility 06 06/16/99 Lori Ludi CUP98-013 The Meridian Group 3017 EDINGER ST ABC Type 20 06 02/10/99 Karen Peterson CUP98-023 Barbara Krull 1091 BRYAN AV 60 student Preschool 06 01/11/99 Justina Willkom CUP99-013 Vons 550 IST•ST Vons expansion of 11,400 square feet. 06 07/12/99 Brad Evanson CUP99-015 Bennett Architects 155 EL CAMINO REAL Mail Order Use/Parking Ratio 06 08/25/99 Lori'Ludi DR 95-044 Michael A. Murphy 8 Assoc 2832 DOLL AV Parking tot Expansion 06 11/20/98 Justina Willkom DR 96-056 The Meridian Group 3017 EDINGER ST Service Station/Conv. Market 06 02/10/99 Karen Peterson DR 97-031 city of Tustin 13331 FOOTHILL BL City Water Reservior Booster Pump 06 06/08/9B Lori Ludi DR 98-006 The Meridian Group 3017 EDINGER ST Service Station/Conv. Market/Drive-thru 06 02/10/99 Karen Peterson DR 98-007 Alegre Associates 12972 NEWPORT AV Appeal - Lube/OiL Facility 06 06/16/99 Lori Ludi OR 98-022 William B. Standford O.D. 190 EL CAMINO REAL Remodel 06 06/04/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-034 DeBeikas/Jeff Bergsma 765 EL CAMINO REAL Exterior Rehab 06 08/12/99 Lori Ludi DR 99-007 City of Tustin Commuter Rail Platform 06 05/10/99 Scott Reekstin DR 99-014 Bennett Architects 155 EL CAMINO REAL New Building 06 08/25/99 Lori Ludi DR 99-019 Vons 550 1ST ST Vons expansion of il,400 square feet. -06 07/12/99 Brad Evanson TPM97-117 Bennett Architects 535 E MAIN ST Carwash/Service Station/Retail 06 06/22/99 Brad Evanson cUP96-019 James Kincannon 14752 HOLT AV 10 Person Rest Home 07 04/16/98 Lori Ludi CUP96-020 Service Station Services 13891 RED HILL AV Time Extension - Station Remodel 07 03/29/99 Minoo Ashabi CUP97-006 Richard RengeL 333 EL CAMINO REAL Office Addition 07 02/09/99 Karen Peterson CUP98-021 IEA 630 E 1ST ST New monument signs 07 09/28/98 -- Minoo Ashabi CUP98-037 ,David Smith/Bally Fitness 630 EL CAMINO REAL Health Club 07 04/12/99 Lori Ludi DR 95-037 Ralph Turner 235 S MYRTLE ST Remodel/Addition 07 02/05/96 Dan Fox DR 96-007 Chevron USA 13052 NEWPORT AV Soil Remediation 07 07/14/98 Brad Evanson DR 96-044 Kimberly Bernhard 265 S PACIFIC ST Room addition and detached garage - OLd Town 07 10/10/96 Karen Peterson DR 96-053 MC WILLIAMS, TRAVIS 0 328 W 3RD ST Roof Remodel 07 01/17/97 Karen Peterson DR 97-009 Bennett Architects 535 E MAIN ST Appeal Carwash/Service Station/Retail 07 04/09/99 Brad Evanson DR 97-011 Richard RengeL 333 EL CAMINO REAL Office addition 07 02/09/99 Karen Peterson DR 97-012 Patrick Mattison ' 510 S B ST Room Addition 07 10/01/97 Karen Peterson DR 97-018 Julie Chamberlain Archite 158 N MOUNTAIN VIEW D Residential Remodel 07 01/16/98 Brad Evanson DR 97-034 Terry TULL 165 S PACIFIC ST Room Addition 07 10/05/98 Minoo Ashabi OR 98-013 McCausland, Charles 8 Ali 135 S A ST Second Dwelling Unit 07 04/22/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 98-017 BORUSKY, THOMAS J 160 N B ST Residential Remodel 07 08/19/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-023 Custom Signs, Inc. 1091 OLD IRVINE BL Neon Sign, Paint/Reface pole sign 07 09/29/98 Brad Evanson DR 98-030 Arnold surfas 145 IST ST Exterior Modification 07 03/10/99 Minoo Ashabi OR 98-037 Jerry Soxman/Leslie Mitch 13792 MALENA DR Room Addition/Remodel C7 03/22/99 Justina Wilkom OR 99-002 John 8 Dori Radice 180 A ST Porch Addition 07 04/26/99 Minoo Ashabi DR 99-004 Jahangeer Shahidzadeh 465 6TH ST Remodel/Room Addition 07 06/07/99 Brad Evanson Page 3 • • STATUS RESPONSE CASK 0 APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DOE STAFF DR 99-013 William H. Barstow 14282 WILLOW LN Residential Remodel 07 07/08/99 Minoo Ashabi SCE98-003 PBMS 2521 MICHELLE DR Increase sign area 07 10/28/98 Lori Ludi VAR98-005 E/C Engineering 1452 EDINGER ST Equipment Building encroaching into Streetsid 07 02/17/99 Minoo Ashabi •*• END OF REPORT Page 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CURRENT PLANNING PROJECT STATUS - EAST TUSTIN PROJECTS PROJECT STATUS LEGEND . DATE OF REPORT: November 17, 1999 01 - ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL 05 - PROJECT APPROVED SORT: LEGEND ITEMS 01-07 02 - RESUBMITTAL 06 - PLAN CHECK 03 - COMMENTS OUT/PENDING APPLICANT RESPONSE 07 - PERMITS ISSUED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION 08 - PROJECT COMPLETE TENTATIVE HEARING DATES 09 - WITHDRAWN '10 - EXPIRED 04.1 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 11 - DENIED 04.2 - PLANNING COMMISSION 12 - REVOKED 04.3 - CITY COUNCIL PROJECT LOCATIom STATUS RESPONSE CASE 0 APPLICANT LOT TRACT DESCRIPTION STATUS DATE DUE STAFF DR 95-045 HOME DEPOT Monitor outside display area 02 01/13/00 Karen Peterson CUP98-025 The Church 7 12870 900 Seat Church/Pre School 03 11/11/98 Lori Ludi DR 98-029 The Church 7 12870 900 Seat Church/Pre School 03 11/11/98 Lori Ludi DR 99-032 Home Depot Home Depot Garden Area Remodel 04.2 12/13/99 Lori Ludi DR 96-054 The Irvine Company 24 13627 113 Custom Home Sites, Equestrian Center 05 02/12/98 Karen Peterson HR 96-002 The Irvine Company 24 13627 113 Custom Nome Sites, Equestrian Center 05 02/12/98 Karen Peterson IT 14396 Irvine Community Developm 24 13627 113 Custom Home Sites, Equestrian Center 05 02/12/98 Karen Peterson DR 96-050 Mr. Mel Mercado 27 13627 162 SFD 07 01/19/98 Minoo Ashabi DR 96-057 John Laing Homes 4 12870 75 SFD 07 04/16/98 Lori Ludi DR 97-014 LPA, Inc. Auto dealer/museum 07 04/09/98 Minoo Ashabi DR 97-019 Rielly Homes, Inc. 19 12870 Add New Recreation Facility 07 02/23/98 Karen Peterson DR 97-035 Warmington Homes 26 13627 44 sfd 07 07/09/98 Karen Peterson DR 9.8-012 BrookField Homes 9 13627 114 sfd 07 12/07/98 Karen Peterson DR 98.015 Standard Pacific 24 13627 46 sfd on Tract 15563 07 10/15/98 Karen Peterson DR 98-027 James H. Parkinson Exterior remodel/Remove canopy 8 office build 07 10/01/98 Lori Ludi OR 98-031 Frank Bennett Development of 2 pads in Tustin Annex 07 08/11/99 Lori Ludi OR 99-018 Richard Chang old Navy Storefront Modification 07 06/28/99 Brad Evanson HR 98-001 Warmington Homes 26 13627 HILLSIDE REVIEW 07 06/01/98 Karen Peterson HR 98-002 BrookField Homes 9 13627 114 sfd 07 12/07/98 Karen Peterson MA 99-002 Hunsaker 8 Associates Increase Wall Height 07 09/27/99 Brad Evanson TT 15380 Mr. Mel Mercado 27 13627 162 SFD, Amend Conditions 07 01/19/98 Minoo Ashabi Page 1 PROJECT LOCATION STATUS RESPONSE CASE P APPLICANT LOT TRACT. OESCRXPTXON STATUS DATE DUE STAFF TT 15420 John Laing Homes 4 12870 75 SFD 07 01/30/98 Lori Ludi TT 15568 Kaufman & Broad Coastal, 19 13627 130 SFD 07 04/16/98 Lori Ludi TT 15601 uarmington Homes 26 13627 44 sfd 07 06/01/98 Karen Peterson TT 15681 BrookField Homes 9 13627 114 sfd 07 12/07/98 Karen Peterson t�• END OF REPORT *'• Page 2 ITEM#7 port to the Planning ' Commission ,DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1999 `SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 PRESENTATION: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT: CIN COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA- NOVEMBER 15, '1999 • ACTION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1999 0 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER GIVEN INVOCATION - Mr. Bill Stevens, Salvation Army Church GIVEN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ALL PRESENT ROLL CALL PRESENTED PROCLAMATION - Nick Burkey, Community Recognition PUBLIC INPUT KENT SUTCLIFF, WILLIS SUTCLIFF: ADDRESSED COUNCIL REGARDING DIFFICULTIES THEY HAD ENCOUNTERED IN OBTAINING A PERMIT FOR FENCE INSTALLATION ON THEIR PROPERTY, AND COMPLAINED ABOUT .INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND FINES IMPOSED BY STAFF. MAYOR WORLEY STATED SHE • WOULD MEET WITH THE SPEAKERS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: STATED SHE HAD VOLUNTEERED WITH NICK BURKEY AND COMMENDED HIS SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. LILLY EMERSON: REPRESENTING A SENIOR WOMEN'S SOFTBALL TEAM, REPORTED ON THEIR, CHAMPIONSHIP WIN, DISPLAYED MEMENTOS FROM THEIR GAMES, ,AND STATED SHE WOULD BE RECRUITING IN TUSTIN. TOM McCAULEY: REFERENCING THE PLAZA LAFAYETTE TRAIL, REPORTED A STUDY HAD BEEN CONDUCTED ON RAIL-TRAILS THAT REVEALED TRAILS WERE SAFE, LACK OF CRIMES RELATED TO TRAIL USE, TRAILS IMPROVED PROPERTY VALUES, AND, ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF TRAILS TO THE COMMUNITY. Action Agenda — City Council November 15, 1999 — Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING ( ITEMS 1 THROUGH 2 ) INTRODUCED 1. ABOVE GROUND CABINET DESIGN GUIDELINES AND. ORDINANCE ; ORDINANCE NO. 1213 N0. 1213 Ordinance No. 1213 and the Above Ground Cabinet ADOPTED Design Guidelines would establish regulations pertaining RESOLUTION to the installation of above ground cabinets in the public NO. 99-84 right-of-way. AS MODIFIED TO ELIMINATE Recommendation by the Community Development LOCATION AND Department: SCREENING , REQUIREMENTS I. Open and close the Public Hearing. FROM MANUAL 2. Have first reading by title only and introduction of the following Ordinance No. 1213: ORDINANCE NO. 1213 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR ABOVE GROUND CABINETS WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF- WAY 3. Adopt the following Resolution No. 99-84 approving the Above Ground Cabinet Design Guidelines: RESOLUTION NO. 99-84 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ABOVE GROUND CABINET DESIGN GUIDELINES ADOPTED 2. GRADUATED COMPLIANCE PLAN FOR EXISTING RESOLUTION BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AT MCAS TUSTIN NO. 99.100 Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18941.9, a INTRODUCED local agency affected by a federal base closure or ORDINANCE realignment may adopt an ordinance that allows a NO. 1203 building or other structure located on a former military base to comply with the State Building Code in a graduated manner over a period of no more than seven years in order to support rapid redevelopment and job creation while ensuring that a building or structure is not hazardous to life safety, health or sanitation. Recommendation by the Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency staff: Action Agenda — City Council November 15, 1999— Page 2 I. Open and close the Public Hearing. 2. Adopt the following Resolution No. 99.100 approving a Graduated Compliance Plan for Marine Corps Ait� Station Tustin: RESOLUTION NO. 99.100 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A GRADUATED COMPLIANCE PLAN FOR CERTAIN EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AT MARINE CORPS AIR STATION TUSTIN. 3. Have first reading by title only and introduction of the following Ordinance No. 1203: ORDINANCE N0. 1203 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, PERTAINING TO CERTAIN EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AT MCAS TUSTIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 18941.9 CONSENT CALENDAR ( ITEMS 3 THROUGH 11 ) APPROVED • 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- NOVEMBER I, 1999 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AND SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TUSTIN PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Recommendation: AppPove the City Council Minutes of November 1, 1999, and the Tustin Public Financing Authority Minutes of November 1, 1999. APPROVED 4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $1,111,317.35 and ratify Payroll 'in the amount of $406,492.51. ADOPTED 5. RESOLUTION NO. 99-97 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, NO. 99.97 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECT, FY 1999.00, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (C1P NO. 7001) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99.97 approving plans and specifications for the Annual Major Maintenance Project FY 1999-00 and authorizing and Action Agenda — City Council November 15, 1999 — Page 3 directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. APPROVED 6. AGREEMENT FOR FACILITY USE — SHOOTER'S WORLD Recommendation: Authorize the Chief of Police to execute an agreement with Shooter's World located at 1935 Enterprise, Orange, California,: for police firearm qualification and training as recommended by the Police Department. ADOPTED 7. RESOLUTION NO. 99-99 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, NO. 99-99 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR PROJECT FY 1999-00 (PROJECT NO. 402.6235) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-99 approving the plans and specifications for the Annual Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repair Project FY 1999-00 and authorizing and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. RATIFIED . 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA -- NOVEMBER 8, 1999 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of November 8, 1999. ADOPTED 9: RESOLUTION NO. 99-98 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, NO. 99-98 DIRECTING THE CHANGE OF STREET NAME FROM BRUNO DRIVE TO BRUNS DRIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-98 renaming "Bruno Drive" to "Bruns Drive" as recommended by the Community Development Department. APPROVED 10. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF .TUSTIN AND ORANGE CHILDREN AND PARENTS TOGETHER Recommendation: Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement between the' City of Tustin and Orange Children and Parents Together, Inc. as recommended by Action Agenda — City Council November 15, 1999— Page 4 the Parks and Recreation Department. APPROVED 11. ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM UPGRADE Recommendation: (1) Appropriate $137,910.32 fro the unappropriated Reserve Fund balance for Acces _ System upgrade, and (2) Authorize the Chief of Police to execute a contract with LJ & Associates, Tustin, California, for installation of a Y2K compliant security system. upon contract approval by the City Attorney as recommended by the Police Department. REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 12 THROUGH 18 ) ADOPTED 12. ORDINANCE NO. 1222 — DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE N0. ].222 Ordinance No. 1222.had first reading by title only and introduction at the November 1, 1999 City Council meeting. Recommendation by the City Clerk's Office: 1. Have second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1222. 2. With a roll call vote, adopt the following Ordinance No.� 1222: ORDINANCE NO. 1222 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF PROVIDING DEVELOPER INCENTIVES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW ADOPTED 13. ORDINANCE NO. 1224, ZONE CHANGE 98-006 ORDINANCE NO. 1.224 Ordinance No. 1224 had first reading by title only and introduction at the November 1, 1999 City Council meeting. Recommendation by the City Clerk's Office: 1. Have second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1224. 2. With a roil call vote, adopt the following Ordinance No. 1224: Action Agenda —City Council November 15, 1999— Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. 1224 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF . TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE NEWPORT WARREN PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12569 NEWPORT AVENUE FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY-GARDEN OFFICE TO GARDEN OFFICE DOUBLED 14. COMPENSATION FOR COMMISSIONERS AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR COMMISSIONERS AND AUDIT COMMITTEE Councilmember Potts requested that the City Council . EFFECTIVE 1/1/00 consider increasing the compensation paid to Planning Commissioners and Parks and Recreation. Commissioners. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. APPROVED STAFF 15. CONSIDERATION OP PETITION TO RESTRICT RECOMMENDATION VEHICULAR THROUGH-TRAFFIC USAGE OF PUBLIC ALLEY NORTH OF FIRST STREET BETWEEN "B" AND "C" STREETS A review of the traffic conditions t ns In the alley and results of a public meeting with area residents and business owners find that it is in the best interest of the public to continue to allow vehicular usage of the subject public alley. Recommendation: Maintain existing vehicular access in subject alley to promote efficient neighborhood traffic circulation and provide for emergency access as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. RECEIVED 16. MAIN STREET RESERVOIR AND BOOSTER STATION AND FILED CONSTRUCTION (CIP PROJECT NO. 600103) This Capital Improvement Project involves the construction of a 2.2 million gallon subsurface reservoir, a booster station, a new well, a permanent generator, chlorination facilities and two public parking lots that will provide 74 additional parking spaces. The construction of this facility will. provide needed • operational, fire and emergency water storage for the Action Agenda — City Council November 15, 1999— Page 6 service area and will allow other reservoirs to be removed from service to construct necessary repairs. The additional storage will also allow the City to reduce the amount of imported water purchased from the East Orange County Water District and replace the demand with less expensive groundwater from City wells. Recommendation: No formal action is required at this time. Upon completion of the design plans and specifications, the project will be agendized for Council approval of " final plans and specifications and authorization to advertise the project for construction bids as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Water Services Division. APPROVED STAFF ' 17. DENIAL OF CLAIM NO.. 99-37, CLAIMANT: MICHAEL RECOMMENDATION MCKI.NLEY Recommendation: Deny subject claim and direct the City Clerk to send notice to the claimant and the claimant's attorney as recommended by the City Attorney. APPROVED STAFF 18. DENIAL OF CLAIM NO. 99-38, CLAIMANT: DENNIS RECOMMENDATION BROOKS Recommendation: , Deny subject claim and direct the • City Clerk to send notice to the claimant and the claimant's attorney as recommended by the City Attorney. NONE PUBLIC INPUT OTHER BUSINESS / COMMITTEE REPORTS POTTS: REQUESTED LETTER REGARDING WATER PRIVATIZATION STUDY BE MADE AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYEES. REQUESTED CITY CONSIDER JOINING ETRPA AS A NON- VOTING, NON-PAYING MEMBER. REQUESTED ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY OF ANDY SAVAGE, FORMERLY ASSOCIATED WITH WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER. SALTARELLI: CLARIFIED THAT THE CITY HAD TAKEN NO POSITION ON THE EL TORO AIRPORT, INCLUDING NEUTRALITY. Action Agenda —City Council November 15, 1999— Page 7 SALTARELLI: REFERENCING THE TWO. RESIDENTS WHO HAD EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION REGARDING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, :NOTED THAT PERMITS WERE REQUIRED FOR SAFETY, AND THE MAYOR WOULD MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS TO ASSIST IN A RESOLUTION. STATED HE ATTENDED THE O..C.' RESCUE MISSION DEDICATION AT MCAS TUSTIN, CLARIFIED THAT THE PROGRAM FOCUSED ON TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR FAMILIES;-AND THE PROJECT WAS .A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD IN BASE DEVELOPMENT. STAFF SUGGESTED THAT THE MISSION DIRECTOR PROVIDE A PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THOMAS: COMMENDED STAFF AND THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR PERSEVERANCE IN DEVELOPING THE O.C. RESCUE MISSION PROJECT. REFERENCING THE RESIDENTS WHO HAD COMPLAINED REGARDING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, STATED THE PROCESS COULD' BE CUMBERSOME AND COMPLICATED, AND ' REQUESTED STAFF REVIEW CITY BROCHURES TO INSURE EASE OF USE FOR THE LAY PERSON, STAFF RESPONDED BROCHURES . WER.E WRITTEN WITH THE LAY PERSON -IN MIND, HOWEVER, ADHERENCE TO THE PERMIT PROCESS WAS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. REQUESTED THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE A POSITION ON THE EL TORO AIRPORT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, AND REQUESTED A LEGAL CLARIFICATION OF THE -MARCH BALLOT INITIATIVE'S POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE MCAS TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT. REPORTED THE MAYOR'S PRAYER BREAKFAST WOULD BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 18TH. CLARIFIED THAT THE CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY WOULD BE HELD ON DECEMBER 3H°. CLARIFIED THAT THE DECEMBER 20TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING WOULD BE CANCELLED. WISHED EVERYONE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING. Action Agenda —City Council November 15, 1999— Page. 8 DOYLE: WISHED THE TUSTIN-HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAM A SUCCESSFUL GAME AGAINST BELLFLOWER HIGH SCHOOL. WORLEY: REPORTED THE' .SENIOR CENTER MEN'S VOLLEYBALL TEAM HAD- WON A BRONZE -. MEDAL, IN NATIONAL COMPETITION. REPORTED THE GRAND JURY WAS IN NEED OF VOLUNTEERS. WISHED MARGARETE THOMPSON A HAPPY 80TH BIRTHDAY. REPORTED THE DINOSAUR DASH HAD BEEN A 'SUCCESSFUL FUNDRAISER. ANNOUNCED _ CLOSED SESSION - The City Council shall confer in closed session, regarding pending-litigation to which the City is a party: . Sara Pashalides v. City of Tustin, et.al, OCSC',No. 801875. 8:55'P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The .next.regular meeting of the City 1N MEMORY OF Council is scheduled for Monday, December 6, 1999,. at ANDY SAVAGE 7:00 p.m. in the Council, Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Action Agenda — City Council November 15, 1999— Page 9 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOVEMBER 15, 1999 8:55 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT ROLL CALL REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 1 THROUGH 3 ) APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — NOVEMBER 1, 1999 REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve the -Redevelopment Agency Minutes of November 1, 1999. APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Recommendation: Approve Demands in- the amount of $119,184.28. • APPROVED STAFF 3. LIBRARY RECOMMENDATION Redevelopment Agency approval is requested for special tax consulting services for financing an expanded Tustin Branch Library and services. Recommendation: Appropriate $20,000 from Town Center Project Area funds and authorize the Assistant City Manager to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with David Taussig & Associates, Inc. for special tax consultant services related to financing of a Tustin library expansion, subject to approval of the City Attorney, as recommended by the Redevelopment Agency staff. NONE OTHER BUSINESS NONE CLOSED SESSION - None 8:55 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The next regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency is scheduled for Monday, December • 6, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Action Agenda—Redevelopment Agency November 15, 1999—Page 1