HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-99 PC PACKET Abi AGENDA
'TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 9, 1999
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairperson Pontious
ROLL CALL: Chairperson Pon,tious, Bell, Davert Kawashima and
Kozak
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 AND/OR REMOVED
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
ACTIONI.)
Planning Commission Agenda
August 9, 1999
Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of the July 12 1999 Planning Commission Meeting.
2. Seating of Commissioner Bell
3. Planning Commission Reorganization
Recommendation —That the Planning Commission follow procedures contained in
the staff report to elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-tem.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
.4. Continued Public Hearinq for Conditional Use. Permit 99-002(B) .and Sign
Code Exce tion 99-001B a request for a conditional use permit and sign code,
exception .to install one (1) freestanding freeway sign, forty-five (45) feet in height
with a -120 square foot sign cabinet. The project is located at 13922 Red Hill
Avenue within the Central Commercial (C-2).
OWNER/° EDGAR PANKEY TRUST
.APPLICANT: KENT J. BICKELL
CONSOLIDATED RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 3686 'approving Conditional Use Permit 99-002(6)
and Sign Code Exception 99-001(6) to authorize the- construction of.a
freestanding .freeway sign, forty-five (45) feet in height, with a fifty (50)
square foot sign cabinet for a future fast food restaurant,located at 13922
Red Hill Avenue.
Presentation: Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner
Appeal Of Use Determination 99-002 a request to establish- agricultural uses
within the Regional Center and the .Office Center land use designations of the
Pacific Center East Specific Plan (PCESP). The project is located at the northeast
comer of Valencia Avenue and SR-55 within the Planned Community (PC) subject
to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (PCESP):
APPELLANT: A.G. KAWAMURA
PROPERTY
OWNER: . AAE PACIFIC PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC
- f
Planning Commission Agenda
August 9, 1999
Page 3
Recommendation
That the Planning, Commission adopt Resolution No. 3685 denying the
appeal of Use Determination 99-002 and determining that agricultural uses
are prohibited within the 'Regional Center' and "Office Center' land use
designations of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
Presentation: Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner
STAFF CONCERNS:
6. Report on Actions taken at the July 19 and August 2 1999 City Council
Meetings
Presentation: Elizabeth A: Binsack, Director of Community Development
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Adjourn to a special Planning Commission workshop on August 11, 1999 at 5:30 p.m.
and the 7:00 p.m. Special Joint Meeting with the U.S. Navy for the MCAS Tustin
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for disposal and
reuse of the Marine,Corps Air-Station (MCAS)Tustin.
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on August 23, 1999 beginning
at 7:00. p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin.
i
i
MINUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 1211999
CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kawashima
ROLL CALL: Chairperson Pontious, Browne, Davert, Kawashima
and Kozak
Commissioners:
Present: Chairperson Pontious
Vice Chair Kozak
Browne
Davert
- Kawashima
Absent: None
Staff: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development'
Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney
Karen Peterson, Acting Senior Planner
Lori Ludi, Associate Planner
Douglas Anderson, Senior Project Manager-Traffic
Bradley Evanson, Assistant Planner
Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.)
No Public Concerns were addressed.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of the June 28. 1999 Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Kawashima seconded, to approve the
minutes. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. Public Hearing For Conditional Use Permit 99-002 Design Review 99-001 and
Sign Code Exception 99-001 a request to establish a 3,322 square foot fast food
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Page 2
restaurant with drive-thru operations. The project is located at 13922 Red Hill
Avenue within the Central Commercial (C-2) Zoning District.
APPLICANT: KENT J. BICKELL
CONSOLIDATED RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA
PROPERTY
OWNER: EDGAR PANKEY TRUST
Recommendation
1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3680 approving
the environmental documentation; and,
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3681 approving
Conditional Use Permit 99-002, Design Review 99-009 and Sign
Code Exception 99-001.
The Public Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m.
Bradley Evanson presented the subject report and noted changes made to the
resolutions.
Marshall Wilkinson, applicant, stated that the property is challenging to develop but he is
pleased with the design. He stated his desire to have no restrictions placed on the hours
of operation.
Chaimerson Pontious asked staff if the hours could be amended at a later date.
The Director responded that a portion of the conditional use permit could be amended.
Marshall Wilkinson, applicant, stated that it would be logical to have a 24 hour operation
next to the freeway. He stated their desire to locate the trash enclosure at the rear
service door of the restaurant and would use landscaping to screen it from view. He
asked the Planning Commission to consider delaying a decision on the pole sign.
Commissioner Kozak asked the applicant if he considered placing the trash enclosure
elsewhere on the site.
Marshall Wilkinson, applicant, stated he had considered placing the trash enclosure at the
far east end of the lot.
Commissioner Kozak asked if a portion of the enclosure wall would be set in the berm. .
The applicant submitted photos for the Commission's review.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Page 3
Marshall Wilkinson, applicant, responded that there was no room for a berm and noted
that Cal Trans will be taking property from the southeast corner to expand the freeway
offramp.
Commissioner Kawashima asked if trash trucks would be a disturbance to customers with
the trash enclosure at the proposed location.
Marshall Wilkinson, applicant, replied that the trash trucks would be scheduled during the
time the restaurant is closed.
Commissioner Browne asked how far above the berm the trash enclosure is set.
Marshall Wilkinson, applicant, stated that the six foot cement block wall would be adjacent
to the future sidewalk.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:19 p.m.
Commissioner Davert stated he met with the applicant and believes having the trash
enclosure by the back door is the best solution and he is comfortable with the proposal to
screen the trash enclosure.
Chairperson Pontious asked if the landscaping could be conditioned and asked for photo
_ p g
simulations on the pole sign.
The Director responded that Condition 4.1.2 could 'be modified to indicate that the trash
enclosure shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Department for
materials and screening.
Commissioner Davert stated the photo simulations showing the sign at various heights
would be helpful.
Commissioner Kawashima asked for the background on previously approved signs in the
area.
Bradley Evanson responded that the Taco Bell sign was approved as a sign code
exception in 1995 and the Carl's Jr. sign was also a sign code exception.
The Director noted that the Planning Commission should consider visibility and the
differential of lots with respect to the freeway and suggested the applicant could provide a
photo simulation depicting the visibility if the sign met the code or how high it would need
to be to be visible.
Commissioner Browne asked staff if a curb might encourage traffic to turn right.
Doug Anderson stated that in the 'traffic analysis splitting the traffic between the two
intersections worked best for the on-site circulation.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Page 4
Commissioner Kozak asked if it would be helpful for the applicant to install a right turn
only sign and asked if the landscaping plan addresses;public trees. .
Bradley Evanson stated that the plan does not include plants in the public right of way.
The applicant indicated that they did not have a problem with installing a right tum only
sign.
The Director recommended that if there is consensus on the remaining aspects of the
project that the Planning Commission exclude references to the pole sign from the
resolution and continue that portion of the hearing to August 9'h.
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Kozak seconded, to adopt Resolution
No. 3680 approving the environmental documentation for Conditional Use Permit
99-002, Design Review 99-001 and Sign.Code Exception 99-001. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Kozak moved Commissioner Davert seconded to adopt Resolution
No. 3681 approving Conditional Use Permit 99-002, Design Review 99-001 and a
portion of Sign Code Exception 99-001, amended as follows:
Throughout entire resolution, where numbers are indicated, written format should
be inserted and parentheses added around the numerical form
Heading statement: third line, delete "A 'PORTION OF"; seventh line delete "AND
DENYING A PORTION .OF SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 99-001, A REQUEST TO
CONSTRUCT A FIFTY (50) FOOT TALL 180 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY SIGN"
I.A: Sign Code Exception 99-001 becomes Sign Code Exception 99-00.1(A); sixth
line delete "and a single fifty (50) foot high pole sign"
1.13: 3): 10:00 a.m. becomes 6:00 a.m.
F.1., delete second ,paragraph which starts "The proposed location of the pole
sign..."
F.2: delete "The proposed pole sign, appears out of scale with the proposed
project."
F.3: delete "pole and"
F.4: delete second paragraph starting "The proposed fifty (50) foot tall pole sign..."
F.5: Delete second sentence in second paragraph "The proposed pole sign..."
11.1: Conditional Use Permit 99-002 becomes Conditional Use.Permit 99-002(A)
11.2: Sign Code Exception 99-001 becomes Sign Code Exception 99-001(A)
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Page 5
11.3: deleted in its entirety
Condition 1.4: CUP 99-002 becomes CUP 99-002(A) and SCE 99-001 becomes SCE
99-001(A)
Condition 2.1.1): delete second sentence "Expanded information..."
Condition 3.1: delete "and the proposed freeway sign shall be eliminated from the
sign plans"
Condition 4.12 changed to read: "The landscape screening and architectural
design of the trash enclosdre shall. be subject to approval by the Community
Development Department."
_Condition 4.14: second,sentence inserted to read: "In addition to the directional
striping on the plans, a.right-turn only exit sign shall be installed at the;end of the
drive-thru aisle subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Department and the City's Traffic Engineer."
Condition 4:15: first sentence deleted"A preview board..."
Condition 4.16 changed to read: "The property owner shall dedicate a parcel
twelve (12) feet of additional street right-of-way along EI Camino Real from the
existing end curb return (ECR) at the southeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and El
Camino Real to the easterly boundary of the subject property, plus an additional
parcel for the appropriate corner cut-off from the existing begin curb return (BCR)
to the existing ECR at the southeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and El Camino
Real .for future street widening. Provide legal descriptions and sketches as
prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer or California Licensed Land
Surveyor. These legal descriptions and sketches are to be submitted to the
Engineering Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
All dedications and/or offers of dedication shall also state that the City of_Tustin
shall be permitted to obtain, at no cost, a right-of-entry for all on-site joins when the
ultimate street improvements are constructed. The right-of-entry shall terminate on
the date that the Notice of Completion of.Public Improvements is recorded at the
Orange County Recorder's Office." Motion carried 5-0.
The Public Hearing was reopened at 7:29 p.m.
Commissioner Kozak moved. Commissioner Davert seconded, continue the pole
sign issue to the August 9, 1999 meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
3. Public Hearing For Conditional Use Permit 99-013 And Design Review 99-001
are requests to: 1) expand an existing supermarket"into 3,200 square feet of
existing vacant space and to construct an additional 8,200 square feet of new floor
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Page 6
area; and, 2) establish shared parking requirements for the Larwin Square
.shopping center. The project is located at 550 E. First Street within the First Street
Specific Plan.
APPLICANTI JEFF HERBST
MCA ARCHITECTS, INC.
PROPERTY
OWNER: LARWIN SQUARE MANAGEMENT
Recommendation
1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3683 approving
the environmental determination for the project; and,
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3684 approving
Conditional Use Permit 99-013 and Design Review 99-019.
The Public Hearing opened at 7:30 p.m.
Bradley Evanson presented the subject report and noted some changes made to the
resolutions.
Commissioner Davert asked if Condition 4.1.6 should be deleted.
Bradley Evanson responded affirmatively.
Chairperson Pontious asked where the trash enclosures were located.
Bradley Evanson responded that trash enclosures were not included as part of the site
plan but as part of project review and approval they will have to be approved by Great
Western Reclamation and sited to allow for appropriate screening and emergency vehicle
access.
Chairperson Pontious asked if the trash enclosure location be conditioned.
The Director read new language for Condition 4.1.6 into the record.
Commissioner Kozak asked if elevation changes could be made to beautify the flat block
wall by adding texture.
The Director indicated that staff could work with the applicant on the appearance of the
wall but indicated that the wall is adjacent to a service road. •
Jeff Herbst, applicant, asked if Condition 3.1 could be deleted since new signs are not
being proposed.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Page 7
The Director indicated that Condition 3.1 could be deleted.
Chairperson Pontious asked if the condition could be amended to apply to new signage
only.
Jeff Herbst, applicant, asked if Condition 4.1.0 related to downspouts applies to the
existing downspouts on the facade.
The Director indicated that the condition applies to any new downspouts.
Jeff Herbst, applicant, noted that Condition 4.1.2 conflicts with Safeway's prototypical
corporate theme for the entry which encourages customers to enter nearest the produce
department.
Chairperson Pontious stated that the center is eclectic in nature and the entries do not
appear to be too unbalanced.
Commissioner Kawashima asked the applicant if the centerpiece could be redone.
Chairperson Pontious asked for Commission consensus on eliminating Condition 4.1.2.
Commissioner Davert suggested modifying rather than deleting the condition.
Commissioner Kawashima suggested the applicant modify the interior of the store to
direct customers to the produce department.
Commissioner Kozak noted that the condition states similar, not identical and perhaps the
applicant could redesign the entrance.
Commissioner Kawashima asked the applicant what is proposed for the area where the
store is being expanded.
Jeff Herbst, applicant, stated that the expanded area will contain the bakery and deli.
Commissioner Browne stated that the Commission should allow the applicant to design
the storefront as they wish.
Commissioner Kozak asked the applicant if they could add trim to give the rear building
wall more character.
Jeff Herbst, applicant, responded that would be possible but that it would not be money
well spent as the car wash remodel landscaping will hide any improvements to the wall.
Chairperson Pontious asked for a vote for removing Condition 4.1.2.
p g
Commissioner Browne moved,. Commissioner Davert seconded, to remove
Condition 4.1.2. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Kawashima was opposed.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999'
Page 8
Dick Kaye, property manager for Larwin Square, asked if Condition 4.1.4 refers to the
rear of the building there was another condition he referenced and it was deleted.
Bradley Evanson stated that the condition was supposed to be an adjunct to the Orange
County Fire Authority.emergency access that it.be striped for emergency access.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:50 p.m.
Commissioner Kozak moved Commissioner Kawashima seconded, to adopt .
Resolution No. 3683 approving 'the environmental' determination for the project.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Davert moved Commissioner Kawashima seconded, to adopt
Resolution No. 3684' approving Conditional Use Permit 99-013 and Design Review
99-019 amended as follows:
Condition 2.6 changed to read: "Within thirty.(30) days from.the date of project
approval, the Owner shall submit a complete and accurate restriping plan for the
parking areas, subject to approval by the Community Development Department.
Said improvements shall be installed within ninety (90) days from the date of •
project approval. Said plan shall be fully dimensioned, include a table
summarizing the number of spaces within the parking area and their allocation to
the individual .tenant spaces within the center, and incorporate landscaping in
conformance with the City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines."
Condition 3.1: last sentence changed to read "All new signage shall conform to the
Larwin Square Master Sign Program." ;
Condition 4.10 changed to read: "No new exterior downspouts shall be permitted;
all new construction regarding roof drainage shall utilize interior piping, but may
have exterior outlets at base of building."
Condition 4.12 is deleted in its entirety and new Condition 4.12 to read: "The trash
enclosure screening and landscaping shall be submitted. for review and approval
by the Community Development Department.
'Conditions°4.16 and 4.17 are deleted in their entirety.
Motion carried 5-0.
4., Conditional Use Permit 99-015 Desmon Review 99-014, and Tentative Parcel
Map 99-161 are requests to: 1) combine three lots into one; 2) construct a 10,716
q 9 3)
'establish foot building; and, 3
s 'establish a mail order use and apply warehouse and •
industry parking ratio. The project is located at 145-165 EI Camino Real within the
Central Commercial Combining Parking District (C-2P).
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Page 9
•
APPLICANT: GREGORY BENNETT, ARCHITECT
PROPERTY
OWNERS: PRESCOTT PROPERTIES, LLC.
Recommendation
1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3678 approving
the environmental documentation for the project.
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3679
recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map
99-161.
3. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3682 approving
Conditional Use Permit 99-015 and Design Review 99-014.
The Public Hearing opened at 7:51 p.m.
Lori Ludi presented the subject report.
Jennifer Rigby, co-owner of Acorn, stated that Acorn
-was established in Tustin in 1990
and their present location is overcrowded. She further stated that the Craftsman style
architecture was chosen because it best reflects the essence of their company and Old
Town Tustin.
Guy Stivers, landscape architect, stated that the project is unique and the property will be
beneficial as an educational tool.
Audrey Heredia, President of Tustin Old Town Association (TOTA), stated that TOTA
embraces the project and it will be a wonderful addition to Old Town Tustin.
Phil Cox, owner Cox's Market Plaza, stated his support for the project.
Mike Doyle, resident 160 A Street, stated that the project is impressive and necessary to
Old Town Tustin.
Greg Kelly, secretary for TOTA, complimented the Prescott's and the Rigby's on their
work and suggested perhaps a mural or artwork would benefit the project.
Caren Sanford, resident 2800 Keller Drive, stated her support for the project.
Ken Teschke, resident 2322 Apple Tree Drive, stated his support of the project.
Tim Somerset, Pankow Companies, builder for applicant, stated that his company is
capable of completing the project in, a short time and displayed 'some projects his
company completed in the past.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Page 10
•
Doug Prescott, property owner, thanked staff for fast-tracking the project and asked that
Condition 2.3 be removed and reduce the number of required parking spaces to thirty
seven (37) and noted a typo in Condition 5.5.
Greg Bennett, architect, stated his concern with staff trying to alter the plans as drawn
which might hinder future expansion plans.
Commissioner Davert asked Greg if the back door would function as a loading door only.
Greg Bennett, architect, responded that the back door was strictly a service entrance for
shipping purposes.
Commissioner Browne inquired about the approximate number of trucks per day.
Greg Bennett, architect, stated that one (1) truck per day would be adequate for the
needs of the business.
Commissioner Kawashima asked Greg what was planned in place of the four (4) parking
spaces that are requested to be eliminated.
that more landscaping •
Greg Bennett, architect, indicated p g would be installed.
The meeting recessed at 8:44 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
The Public Hearing closed at 8:51 p.m.
Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission cannot consider
an issue discussed in private with Mr.. Bennett. Any issues or information that the
Commission uses in its decision making should be made part of the record.
Commissioner Kawashima asked staff about the suggested changes to the rear
elevation.
Lori Ludi stated this was to maintain consistency in all elevations.
Commissioner Browne stated_ that he responds negatively to Mr. Bennett's
characterization of staff and he supports deleting Condition 2.3.
Commissioner Kozak stated his support for removing Condition 2.3.
Commissioner Davert stated that although he did meet with the applicant, nothing was
discussed that was not being discussed during the hearing. He further stated that the
City has an excellent staff and he supports the removal of Condition 2.3 and it would not
be fair to hold the applicant to retail counts for parking.
Planning Commission Minutes ?'
July 12, 1999
Page 11
Commissioner Browne stated that Condition 5.1 should be taken out and then put back in
if the site is underparked. -
The Director stated that the applicant should modify the plan to show a higher level ratio
for the mail order, area to accommodate the. four spaces so the actual square footage
should be higher-than the retail or office area.
Chairperson Pontious asked the applicant if that would be a problem for them.
The applicant indicated that would not be a problem.
Commissioner Kawashirrma noted the applicant's interest in the adjoining lot and asked
the applicant if that site would be another building site or additional parking.
Chair erson Pontious noted that the question does not relate to this project.
Commissioner Browne moved Commissioner Kozak seconded, to adopt
Resolution No. 3678 approving the environmental documentation for the project.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner .Browne moved. Commissioner Kozak seconded, to adopt
Resolution No. 3679, asamended, recommending that the City Council approve
Tentative Parcel Map 99-161. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Browne moved Commissioner Kozak seconded, to adopt
Resolution No. 3682, approving Conditional Use Permit,99-015,and Design Review
99-014 amended as follows:
Condition 2.3 deleted in its entirety and renumber subsequent conditions.
Condition 2.9 change "must" to "shall"
Condition 5.1: change "thirty-eight (38)" to "thirty-three (33)" in first sentence and
last sentence and change "7 spaces" to°"6 spaces" in last sentence.
Condition 5.2: changed to read "A total of 2,704 square feet of mail order use and
2,344 square feet of retail use shall. be -located on the first floor. A total of 771
square feet of office use and .4,290 square feet of mail order use "shall be located
on the second floor. Any modifications .to this allocation of uses may be
considered by the Community Development Department if sufficient on-site
parking is provided or off-site parking is secured by the applicant or property
-owner.
Condition 5.5: capitalize "c" and "o" in Certificate of Occupancy; change "building
permits" to "a Certificate of Occupancy"
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Page 12
Motion carried 5-0.
STAFF CONCERNS:
5. Report on Actions taken at the J uly 6 1999 City Council Meeting
Elizabeth A. Binsack, .Director of Community Development reported on the subject
agenda.
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Chairperson Pontious
- Thanked Commissioner Browne for serving as a Planning Commissioner
and asked staff to prepare a proclamation.
Commissioner Kawashima
Also thanked Commissioner Browne for serving as a Planning
Commissioner.
Asked if the second meeting Y in Jul was cancelled.
The Director indicated that there were'no items to be agendized so the meeting
has been cancelled.
- Asked if fireworks were permitted in the City.
The Director indicated that they were only permitted when used by a professional.
Commissioner Kozak
Stated that Commissioner Browne would be missed and asked him to keep
in touch.
Commissioner Davert
- Stated that the City did a great job on the 41 of July celebration and wished
Commissioner Browne good luck.
Commissioner Browne
- Stated that he has enjoyed serving as a Planning Commissioner and
thanked staff for their support. He further noted that every citizen should
have a chance to serve on the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 1999
Page 13,
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Browne moved. Commissioner Davert seconded, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:06 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will. be held on August 9, 1999 beginning
at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin.
r
ITEM #3
DATE: inter- Com
AUGUST 9, 1999
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RE-ORGANIZATION
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission follow procedures noted below to elect a Chairperson
and Chairperson Pro-tem.
BACKGROUND
As a matter of standard procedure, the Planning Commission re-organizes once a year
by appointing a new Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-tem.
In re-organizing and appointing a new Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-tem, the
Commission should undertake the following actions:
1. A current Commissioner should open nominations for Chairperson.
2. The Commissioner should then close nominations and call for a vote for
Chairperson.
3. The new Chairperson will open nominations for Chairperson Pro-tem.
Nominations should be closed and the Chairperson should call for a vote for the
Chairperson Pro-tem.
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
. EAB:kbm:pereorg99
'ITEM #4
Oeport to the
Planning Commission
• DATE: AUGUST 9, 1999
SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 99-002(B)AND SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 99-001(B)
OWNER: EDGAR PANKEY TRUST
320 WEST MAIN'STREET
TUSTIN, CA 92780
APPLICANT: KENT J. BICKELL
CONSOLIDATED RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA
15375 BARRANCA PARKWAY#G-105
IRVINE, CA 92618
LOCATION: 13922 RED HILL AVENUE
ZONING: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL(C-2)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ON-
PREMISE SIGNS AND IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION
15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
REQUEST: -A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SIGN-
CODE EXCEPTION 'TO INSTALL ONE (1) FREESTANDING
FREEWAY SIGN, FORTY-FIVE(45) FEET IN HEIGHT WITH A 120
SQUARE FOOT SIGN CABINET.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 3686 approving.Conditional Use Permit 99-002(B) and Sign Code
Exception 99-001(13)as proposed or modified.
Continued Public Hearing
CUP 99-002(B)and SCE 99-001(6)
August 9, 1999
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On July 12, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 99-002(A),
Design Review 99-001 and Sign Code Exception 99-001(A). This approval authorized
the construction of a 3,322 square foot fast-food restaurant (Wendy's) with a drive-thru
facility and the installation of four (4) wall signs on a vacant 39,000 square foot site at
13922 Red Hill Avenue. At that meeting, the public hearing was continued on Conditional
Use Permit 99-002(B) and Sign Code Exception 99-001(B) to allow the applicant an
opportunity to prepare studies and graphics to support a request to construct-a fifty (50)
foot tall, 180 square foot freestanding freeway sign. The applicant has since revised his.
.proposal to request a forty-five (45)foot tall, 120 square foot freestanding freeway sign.
Site and Surrounding Properties
The project site is located at the southeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and ,EI Camino Real
(see location Map -Attachment A). A freeway on-ramp and a service station are located
across Red Hill Avenue to the west, and a service station and retail commercial center
are located to the north across El Camino Real. The 1-5 Santa Ana Freeway is located to
the south and the freeway right-of-way and a hotel are located to the east along EI
Camino Real. The pole sign would be located at the eastern edge of the property,
adjacent to the Caltrans sound wall.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing a forty-five (45) foot high single pylon pole sign with a double-
faced sign cabinet that is ten (10) feet by twelve (12) feet in size, or a total of 120 square
feet (see Plans -Attachment B). The proposed sign copy would identify "Wendy's" in red,
black and white colors. The cabinet frame and pylon would be fabricated of metal and
painted dark bronze. The sign cabinet would be internally illuminated with fluorescent
lamps.
On July 23, 1999, the applicant conducted 'flag tests" to determine how the proposed
sign would appear at various heights. A ten foot by twelve foot Wendy's sign cabinet,
similar to the proposed sign, was hoisted into the air by a crane and the applicant took
photographs of the sign from the north and southbound 1-5 Santa Ana Freeway (see
Attachment C). The sign was photographed at heights of twenty-five (25) feet, forty-five
(45) feet, and fifty (50) feet. Except for the photograph of the fifty (50) foot southbound
sign, the photos were taken from a point on the freeway where the sign was first visible.
The fifty (50) foot southbound sign was taken from a random point on the freeway where
a view of the sign was not obstructed by truck traffic (see Photograph Locations
Attachment D).
After conducting the "flag tests", the applicant reduced the height of the requested sign
from fifty (50) feet to forty-five (45) feet, which is the minimum height for the sign to be
visible above the elevated freeway and Caltrans sound walls at a sufficient distance for a
driver on the southbound 1-5 Freeway to make a decision to exit onto Red Hill Avenue.
Continued Public Hearing
CUP 99-002(8)and SCE 99-001(8)
August 9,1999
Page 3
The applicant also reduced the sign copy area.from 180 square feet to 120 square feet.
At a height of twenty-five(25) feet, the sign did not project above the sound wall and was
not visible from the freeway.
Section 9404(B)(3) of the Tustin Sign Code allows certain businesses with freeway
frontage,such as auto services, lodging facilities or eating facilities to have a freestanding
freeway sign, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Freestanding freeway signs are limited
to a maximum of twenty-four (24) feet in height and a maximum sign copy area of fifty
(50) square feet.
There are several non-conforming freestanding signs in the immediate area of the
proposed sign that were approved prior to adoption of the current Sign Code or modified
thereafter.
Business Name Address Height Cabinet Area Date Approved
Mobil 13872 Red Hill Avenue @65 feet @180 square feet 1980
Shell 13891 Red Hill Avenue 60 feet- 144 square feet 1985
Denny's 1571 Fi Camino Real 46 feet 96 square feet 1987
(Face Change in 1995)
There are also two (2) freeway signs in the vicinity of the project site that were approved
under the current Sign Code with Sign Code Exceptions and/or Conditional Use Permits:
Business Address Height Cabinet Area Date Approved
Name
Carl's Jr. 14041 Newport Avenue 30 feet 45 square feet 1990
(Reaffirmed in 1997)
Taco Bell 14042 Red Hill Avenue 45 feet 50 square feet 1995
Although the proposed height of forty-five (45) feet would provide minimum visibility, the
proposed freeway sign cabinet appears to be excessive in that it more than doubles the
maximum area allowed under the Tustin Sign Code. While recent Sign Code
Exceptions have allowed an increase in height to provide for visibility above
improvements along the 1-5 Freeway, no exceptions to the maximum cabinet area have
been approved. Given these recent approvals and the number of non-conforming signs
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed sign, staff recommends approval of a modified
pole sign with a maximum height of forty-five (45) feet and a maximum sign cabinet
area of fifty (50) square feet (see Attachment E) based on the following findings and
those contained in Resolution No. 3686:
• That the establishment,maintenance and operation of a freestanding freeway pole
sign forty-five (45) feet in height with a fifty (50) square foot cabinet, as
recommended by staff, will not, under the circumstances of this case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use,, nor be injurious or
detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood-of the subject
property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by- the
following findinas:
Continued Public Hearing
CUP 99-002(6)and SCE 99-001(B)
August 9,'i 999
Page 4
1. The proposed sign would be oriented for freeway identification for a
business that provides services to freeway motorists as defined by the
Tustin Sign Code. ,
2. The proposed sign would be consistent with the sign area and location
limitations for freeway signs as Established by the Tustin Sign Code.
3. The proposed freeway sign would not visually impact adjacent residential
properties in that light and glare associated with the illumination of the pole
sign would be directed away from nearby residential uses and would be
further screened by existing buildings and landscaping.
• Pursuant to Sign Code Section 9405c, the installation of a freestanding freeway
sign forty-five (45) feet in height with a fifty (50) square foot sign cabinet, as
recommended-by staff, can be supported by the following findings:
1. Sign size and placement restrictions of the Sign Code shall be closely
followed as practicable.
The area of the freeway sign, if modified, would comply with the maximum
area allowed by Tustin City Code Section 9404(B)(3)(c), which is fifty (50) •
square feet of area. The Increased height of forty-five (45) feet is the
minimum height to allow for visibility above the adjacent elevated freeway
improvements and sound walls at a sufficient distance for drivers on the 1-5
Freeway to make a decision to exit the freeway at Red Hill Avenue. The
sign would be installed along the eastern edge of the property, adjacent to
freeway right-of-way, and would not obstruct the visibility of drivers on
adjacent roadways.
2. The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use zone in which
the sign is to be located shall be followed as closely as practicable.
The Sign Code provides for freeway pole signs for freeway oriented
businesses such as fast food restaurants. Given the proximity of the site to
an elevated portion of the 1-5 Freeway, the pole sign height is consistent
'with the intent to provide freeway visibility in that forty-five (45) feet is the
minimum height necessary to provide visibility to drivers on the freeway. If
modified, a fifty (50) square foot sign area would be consistent with the
intent of Section 9404(B)(3)(c).
3. There are special circumstances unique to the property to justify the
exception.
The project site is roughly triangular in shape, and is bounded on two sides
by public streets and on the third side by an elevated section of the 1-5
Freeway. A forty-five (45) foot tall sign would provide visibility given the •
property's proximity to elevated portions of the 1-5 Freeway and soundwalls.
There are no special circumstances related to the property that would justify
a deviation from the maximum sign area of fifty (50) square feet allowed by
the Tustin Sign Code. A cabinet fifty (50) square feet in area would be
visible above the elevated freeway and soundwalls at a sufficient distance
for a driver to make a decision to exit onto Red Hill Avenue.
Continued Public Hearing
CUP 99-002(B)and SCE 99-001(6)
August 9' 1999
Page 5
4. Granting of the sign exception will not have a negative impact on
surrounding properties.
If modified, the proposed sign would not be detrimental to, or have a
negative effect on, surrounding properties in that the sign is compatible with
uses in 'the surrounding area in location, size, and fabrication. The
proposed freeway sign would complemerit,the architecture of the restaurant
and would be directed away from adjacent residential properties.
5. The sign application promotes the ..public health, safety, welfare and
aesthetics of the community and that the granting of the exception meets
the findings and intent of the Sign Code.
If modified, the proposed sign would provide adequate-visibility to motorists
on the 1-5 Santa Ana freeway to allow for safe movement for potential
customers, yet not contribute to excessive signage'in the area.
v son Karen Peterson
• Assist t P nner Acting Senior Planner
BB:cup99oa2{B}port
Attachments: A Location Map
B -Submitted Plans
C "Flag Test' Photographs
D - Photograph Locations
` E -Modified Sign Plans
F - Resolution No. 3686
I - LOCATION, MAP . ----
_
S I �
r
--7i
I
,
r
r- O
u: JO2iE VEEH I
SAN JUAN
i3"z 13867
� I Iaeaz `
4 1 TUS{JN WOODS
! 1
L cl I
ku
I a I _�
-
cl
uj
1
"�. - I• f:lJflfY �r:�i IJ�1�l�i
--` 13921
1922 '�
• ^PL CAMINO REAL
(1-51 SANTA ANA FREEWAY
i
f.
r
ATTACHMENT B_
SUBMITTED PLANS
' 1
l..uenrp r>vlQ �N eeeees.aeNa°n aavaa
pnnuoeu pu� m o eu Ibdl 6p61-66 Y NDI53O a[Co0B8 le6el:kYd icerl
meq uani�wneu%a i oilo'avbeve66-LZ-L'66-OC'C z'/`W f 6661'C�^7a1 :31tlO iBL tB VINUQAIIVO'OIUV1NO'133N15 NLM 193M COC
'�iui�a�awa�n�Qair p "in
.o�no.�epntno.uo (1310N SV :3:lv15 9bO °NI99NOIs w111Nanp9 W°19no ■,.
$,5u�3�i( (� 'o e
.npup.i emer.�l V,�'NI19LL'M3L IXJMNJ l31110i O31I Nl4,= NO3N oiLit11N0 V
U
St101OJ 03f3O33S Yi003/LtlAAVM V013N9 p�e�°�e.cveenivnd�nn��eq�e r�eiii�l �1'J3fOtld
31pN
45'.(r
Id-3'
� T
5 'v
°
rn Ri
MUM r.
-
d �' 6
� � Z
oa m
a c�
Z i
o �
m
8
ri
WENDrS
BESTII6BI(MTS
TUSTIN
1 , ,
Jill
WE
41
E i::�k 1t e/ OQ �ir'N•v
�i R'`. m1ho ori o..rr.la.�a eYn l.�
�I` tl �T ►' � r �I
i
..._.® L-aoct-,-n u N
.r�r •� f Iar vrw nnlnr 8R Am4a "M b Iel AM"
- nw Of - -- -
vnrf "mQ C-7("YCVRI raw
• maw<lwroaoume mrllnmfowi
PROJECT SUMMARY
817E AREA GROSS AREA J9,325 SF
$nEVIly wan NET AREA J2.07J SF
BLW.DM10 A11EA GROSS AREA J.J22,SF
LANDSCAPE AREA GROSS AREA 12,985 SF .f33x
�
U (MW NOW Of 21r NEF AREA 6,978 SF(221.8A)
-
m -
PARKING REQUIRED. 32 STALLS
L (1VAS1JSA11-WffAMj PROHDED. 36 STALLS
C3 A
ATTACHMENT C
"FLAG TEST PHOTOGRAPHS
PA---
+ !. . R
17642 MITCHELL NORTH,STE.100
July 26, 1999 IRVINE CALIFORNIA 92714-6004
(714)474-7004
Mr. Brad Evanson
City of Tustin, Planning
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re : Sign Code Exemption 99-001 (B) , Wendy' s freeway sign application
Dear Mr. Evanson:
Please review this letter and its enclosures in support of the variance
application by Consolidated Restaurants of California, Inc . for a
freeway oriented sign for a proposed Wendy' s Restaurant at 13922 Red
Hill Avenue, Tustin.
As was discussed earlier, an investigation and demonstration of sign
visibility and legibility was made at the site on Friday July 23
utilizing a truck mounted crane and a 120 square foot (10' high by 12'
long) Wendy' s sign can. All height measurements were to the top of the
sign from ground surface in the south east corner of the property where
the sign is proposed for installation. The decision point is that poin
on the freeway when one can no longer legally enter the Red Hill Avenue
exit ramp.
The investigation was run as follows :
1 The Wendy' s sign was raised to an elevation of fifty feet (50' )
above ground in the south easterly corner of the property where the
sign is expected to be located. Photographs� and� video were shot
from vehicles traveling on Interstate 5 both northbound and
southbound. The sign was clearly visible in both directions in
ample time to enable a driver to maneuver to a safe exit .
2 The Wendy' s sign was lowered to an elevation of forty feet. (40' )
above ground. Photographs and video were shot from vehicles
traveling on Interstate 5 both northbound and southbound. :- While
the sign was visible in the northbound direction once the sound
wall had been passed, it was covered to roughly two thirds of its
face in the southbound direction.
3 The Wendy' s sign was raised to an elevation of forty five feet
(45' ) above ground. Photographs and video were shot from vehicles
traveling on Interstate 5 both northbound and southbound. The sign
was visible in the northbound direction above the sound wall and it
was visible just above the center abutment in the sou-Lhbound
direction.
4 The Wendy' s sign was lowered to an elevation of twenty-five feet
Mr. Brad Evanson
City of Tustin, Planning
July 26, 1999
Page 2
(25' ) above ground. Photographs and video were shot from vehicles
traveling on Interstate 5 both northbound and southbound. The sign
was not visible in the north bound direction unless one was on the
exit ramp or was northbound well past the decision point for the
northbound exit ramp. None of the sign was visible southbound.
- 5
CONCLUSION
5 . In every instance the photographs and video show a sign face of one
hundred twenty (1.20) square feet . While this size does not allow
the sign copy to be clearly legible -until one passes the decision
point, the applicant believes that its logo is sufficiently
recognizable to be identified by consumers even if when it is not
clearly legible. Therefore, applicant respectfully revises
downward its request for sign size to One Hundred Twenty (120)
square feet . Likewise, applicant respectfully acknowledges that a
sign height of forty-five (45) feet to the top of the sign will be
adequate for general visibility from both directions with adequate
time for a driver to move safely to the Red Hill exit ramp.
A brief review of other freeway oriented signs in the vicinity of the
subject was made utilizing Tustin city records . Those findings are set
forth on an exhibit which is .based on a 1985 aerial photograph of this
section of the city. The photograph has been laminated and enhanced to
delineate the present extent of the sound walls, the current freeway
sign locations and with photographs that show visibility of the proposed
sign at various points along the path of travel in each direction.
Also provided is an enlargement of various of the photographs showing
the size and height of the other freeway oriented signs in the
photograph.
In closing, the applicant respectfully requests a study session with
members of the planning staff or planning commission either as a group
or individually to review this information and respond to any questions
that may be posed. Likewise, given the interest expressed by the City
Council in this matter, I would be pleased to meet with the various
council members to discuss this matter also.
Please 4P. Wi
ai�desire additional information or documentation.
tr
M rs alnson
CC : Consolidated Restaurants
I
•.�-may � ,. �I,.
..!
�'�Y��f
`�.'`-a,�✓r T,�� r rt,-} a J c r �n 1-�' l ra � - �'C+?� "�tn's��`- ��'.s�� ��ro ii�`1 {�i'.
s'=-�. �y C !.''a`� r• _ a- - t r '� .� �; x-• �r s-cl' a +
z^I yt -4 _ •i.� -
�•s T - t..�'i r S -� r!s,�' �,- -t't --.v �,,..��Y.+i � r L �y I ,�
r� Y� ».+ -' r -tr x, � � ���.a �.` '.i. i s' '4(���iih y,•.t�-a•4`�t-„-�'2.L,,,�j_1�,'F inti ..��..T '�''•�.
-
S'_k.�� - ✓{-� rf�.�s -w }r tY �t 'F- r,r i.{ I ��-f �r r df rk'4 xn ,•� r���
jv)r�.Frr ystiS � W� �kT..
�a
NORTH BOUND
3
P 11
-
r
s
�s
_
- - - s •o an 5 Y.+ � r .i• :r��
SOUTHBOUND
FLAG TEST @ 251
Tn,$isan Onp.nal unpublished or
PROJECT: RED HILL withileex is [I nottrad..arlis,
ONTARIO NEON CO.,INC. HILL/ CAM(NO REAL. tdryoui personal liSairsCennemon
CUSTOM 6 QUANTITY SIGNS SINCE 1045 �S�N!G`A' Paotec[oelnp Planned lar you by Ontario
Neon Oo_tnI Il is not to be shown to any
SCALE' AS NOTED one durside your orpanixatlon:nor Vs ti to be
STATE L,='S'NSE MB22SB0 26 19� ussysed.reproduced.copied or exhibited in
DATE JOY atashlonthou[writtenpermissiontrom
903 WEST MAIN STR.ET,pNTAR10,CALIFORNIA 87782 an Othcwl
ea+ib Ontario Neon co.,Ind.
(D09)086-4632 FAX:(909)GMW76 DESIGN# 99-7949 (P•7) 0w1";P of trio design is held by Ontario
Neon Co..Inc.
4;.. n '
"7r -R' -MM,
x��S-Z $• r •s '' u' Y' '� �;.
rw• (h �7 �,µt .'}•� x•,RE„ e�.•,, s.t y c}'� y; t,�+#�fir• �ah-x 5:..
.�✓��,_w Ly`vr'�' '. � �°C'J ,S L�': �Yf`�'t 3
, � n��'- at '.?. a� tr�r.N•i.PY �I.y- +-, u-y, t-h�-,,kL^ � �Fn. }4d- �e'x
a
ao
RA Bili Ave r
".7mtln
r `F
r�
Y
� —,qIV-
.rc�� �3 .� ��t � ti�io-•-,,.. �_. i.. �+C>i� ,,.:s"a;x,'."-N ao'ti:�.r•J s•;r
k't `3�"¢rl '-'i.•. `+t 't ram T+':.s�,r "r " - ' F. 'P x-hti�f�J.`�'
✓-t"SS,r � �5.-.. � r .� � GL ��e �,� �� �-i.x"���j�Yey��'r ��'3,� Fa,� ��. is
�t.. * r-t4,.����ii�s�w-��'3i����"e'+ _ ? :, Y i r nt.. •�s-,4 �j'r. :�-Z'�Y,T� ra��� 4�P:�;�'�,���c r�•3tw x4_
'.�=� ,Y '�Ny.':YY err �� ; -m+ ' � ' .s r'�� zf'k-� "�!' F•,.�� �g,
s- -• s
s
�]s r•s rC� `'?]"� t-v' 4Fy 7P µms`
Tr r r Ss axe e� ti s
`\. "r,..y-� '.,ss.- ''•iF w �•.- t r= S',F'x..c.•,� ..c r :a t`a �`.$3-i5�r _ y .:�- a
F���-++ya.3..c' rte, +5�'-'�i�w�•S7r"`'.- 4 C ' S y 'r .
�. ?'R<'�T./f ,:. _��"'•'c::'':a"S� ..�+W� ..n s t'i F } •.' r''ti Y � � _
' FRPIAii?:.•Avg.? _- { s
r
. A
e — Me Me ON PRD.JECT-. �'+;Illi • •REAL
- 1
TUSTIN,CA
SCALE: AS • ZD
WDrltl - -
Sign _ DATE,
Assotiffies _
,��,, � a-a �`''a ��� � - ��� t-'fir �. ,�'p-z"•'r� v���<°.,�v'�,.
rlrS� ? �1 e, rr� 1, �`Ctp � 1}�;K .� ,�, � ''-.�Y S-§ ,-rx..i y, x t•
3,i. -A
'h
r r r e d, `` s 'Fr. 3'.a ,,.',c. }�"'' �'.�' m w�F- 'S � "�`" '•r";'yS'�.r } �-, '� �-� ^a��
�-
'
.1 ✓ _ '6 a.-j G
r 1.r A
NORTH BOUND
- - .ys'l...zi•'"s,$-- 'r*�.?�rrr""r--�y3}any"" ^r��s"y��+�x`'�'°;a.��,fir? ..`
I `
SOUTH BOUND
FLAG TEST @ 50'
Thisiaenonginalunpublisneeare 5
A
ONTARIO NEON CC.,INC. PROJECT: may, wi'h�8cephonol tratle aarks.cr
CUSTOM 6 GUANTITY SIGNS SINCE'IB for ur ngplaIso neincannec[iOm
Rroleel be ngplenne l toryou bypnlano
Noon Co.,knelt Is not t9 ha aft 12 any-
SCALE AS NOTED oneoutaide yyoo urorgarnialion:nOnaittobe
used,reproduced,copied or exhitlned in
303 WEST MAIN STREET,ONTARIO,CALIFORNIA 91762 N'Rl� DATE: JAY 26•T 999 anytasluonwitnranpar nhom
an Officer of Onranoaiii Neatib Neon co., c-
t Inis
(909)886-4532 FAX'(al)g)988.6378' DESIGN# "-1949 (p3) O�orrs Dlnll the Oesign is hold by OnMAO
K V
r
'�.p � �� tri ��.��" �. _ � y >•
Tru ¢•Y' *'t F
nt,•
�r�
v -
`'%' � er�n�, '� Y.,S� 1�7 r,,. K•`"..a,t`-'c.. Ff �F 3' �� Yr t mss. r
p.
� ..?hq� � +��w"°`s7i�ftFv.�f •F 4 ,y���•�IT`F LSrc.�.<.�i '� r^rj n �- � h tk,s'�'�j a..r *•
,�-�'$,[k�„�� �,s hv5w"{•u-r'M ,�`•• �,� v� l�3 � .a� �x ,� �;�� ��.�y`,r�.`��,-
`�.r � lS h"`:rr, .ts r -A�. "•,.Y .0 ^' -'�'4 �n]I/� K xy ti h'•1 �`��" 1�'c n" v '°: F"3–�` +�
''S�.a .. �':^ �c�" i�`-tr --. ;c -ice _ ? ,�s ,} f��•r 1� t � � 5.:_-?
�~i� �-.I..�ti '4v �,. � - � S- ;} 4•_ s f k5 ti���F t{ - �� * t p 4�t �
4
0rs36 pts•��� - �,-+
mgg-
o
• �, 1wS �.`f�
y r l4 73'� f 5i� •r r -A":c -;;4
:Jhw. .f -_
1 Z
• r � � �, j{�i [ � +tet °'`• y'+1 7.4 e y ^� �
tis„I[y.s5'k rY►� iti -,fes -IS t _ s i S i_ - i ix
U.
�c'#R►.ies {.a x�'{� � e: -. -1 sy,L,�Ss:i�i�ry5�5.n�',� .
SN i F J e` \ r Y`sR A.k (sifi
{
a... .�
4.
y � 4
SIGN USED FOR-FLAG TEST ON JULY 23, 1999
ONTARIO NEON CO.,INC. I ryourp rhgtnal,sei n onad oion with
PROJECT• .ran the maeptionol tiademat".created
Ioryour pmsoneluseinconnacy O an 6
protect bev.g planned Fm you b{Omerm
I
Neo
nl,-,I—.11isnpStoboehorvnloarry-
SCALE: AS NOTED I onaoIts id.yo prargan'zasion:noorsit ra be
Tried,teproduced•copied Or exhibited in
'i DATE* JuY26,1999 i onytashron minoetwrilten parmrsawnhom
309 WEST MAIN STREET,ONTARIO,CALIFORNIA 97782 Mioor of Ontario Neon co..Inc.
(9O9)95154W2 FAX (eO%9eae37e - DESIGN# 99-1949 (p-4) I' D[tnel=hipc:the design isheldeyOntario
Neon Co.,lnr
' �rV��Ys Tz.�.�-���'�•r��r�
�o�r+T oTd�ftFGwAy ysNER�- ScU�
v a p
ua
L't��N F�vFo c0
fat, W tr�oYs
���Q"E'✓ I 5 ted N--�� .
w1 �5 c �a-25� - 2� —�• —�
�1 4L� I •
wtxro FEFV
A/,
0PHOTO LOCATION
utJocc�L- • AT 25' HEIGHT
CAFE AUTO SPA `
�jL�IE W 5�_ QSILL6�w40
PHOTO LOCATION
AT 45' HEIGHT
PHOTO LOCATION
AT 50' HEIGHT.
ATTACHMENT E
MODIFIED SIGN PLANS
1
S
o a
z
9-ft 1 Igo k
r ``
IMcupn[iepinNuolv°b�emmYs��w�ae N07F.
PROJECT: • Puu - • SNflCJNMY VARYFROM6PEDFIF.T1fa W6
1:1
SO ONTARIO Nr=CN co.,INC. �°, WEnoy�S'REolou/E1c0.tu6NOREAL,R6TPI.CA
SCALE: AS NOSED ured ie�oi�wwmiNae.��:eene
303WEST.—IN SREET.ONTARID�MIFORWA 91762 ®• DATE:
49 996..632 FfeduvyJ.19991 Re+.:13699.-7.'17.99.8.2.99 °uoiir ralW I� on m. m
681 ac:19661 eae e3:e DESIGN N 99.1949 1p 121 a.n�.+:nnoiiwar•:.�;°`kine n�nmm
,.in•�i ua oast n„r i,nr3 N°on Co.,lue
•�•FNl
-
_
a
��� e R �` ss'y+ Y• ?res+s„C rr/y {r,`; Y ^s
ni•
Ng?:
gu
_�..:�S-.i-�h�-f., �s.��"�T".`-•l+i�'y ti\� "i r Y�'x. r •1MM.
.
+YYSS- p 4 r C fi4a�4 t j i �'
4r
��.�i�.�-�s� r r i�•�`+-.s��r,>_tdr �r �`'
' :fF .�' 'li....t.-,�ct'_'.`•_�r' rttrn'Hi''? `..+.L r3'�;�.,.r w.�,+'J= l.r.:.l-`f-,�'�,-,' 3` °'+-•1
t S..t.rtta�y;
S S.,., .-T� *..jam:a����r, _�•h��� �-Y�, �x. � �� 1� _ +�
['R*x'^" _ ,R3` :7'r' �� _ r r tea} "r. •� }{ --:;:.�¢�?
p}� ��r �' �nky�i'ysr^'': i .x..xkryY° � � �� k •`�,. ��
°'R,
.'7.l Y'��Sry}F•'"'h �y�F'SG_c._ .+�w J� r� } _��`•Lrr
i �i-x,x�lw�r'A�Jtr�•s•'f F-ti Sx�� -.7 '' 3rs �, y �` ..c-nom, 'k
',r"34'.(i'�2,. rL'��..�d.:�+' 5^ ~ d's�F.�`��Y..� �_.',y.�.1...�,�." ..�..._. qs -•`"•` .a,��'a�:
i
World ■
. ��i►'
Sign
_ � dS50Ci1SC5 ■
ATTACHMENT:. F
RESOLUTION NO. 31686
ii .
1
RESOLUTION NO. 3686
z
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE .CITY OF
3 TUSTIN APPROVING CONDITIONAL.USE PERMIT 99-002(B)AND SIGN
4 CODE EXCEPTION 99-001(6) TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A FREESTANDING FREEWAY SIGN,- FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET IN
5 HEIGHT, WITH A FIFTY (50) SQUARE FOOT SIGN CABINET FOR A
FUTURE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 13922. RED HILL
6 AVENUE. .
7 The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
8 1. The Planning,Commission ftnds and determines as follows:
9
A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 99-002(B) and Sign
10 Code Exception 99-001(B) was filed by Kent Bickell of Consolidated
Restaurants of California on behalf of the property owners to request
11 authorization for construction of a freestanding freeway pole sign, forty-five
12 .(45) feet.in height, with a 180 square foot sign cabinet on a vacant parcel
located • at 13922 Red Hill Avenue, more specifically described as
13 Assessor's Parcel Nos. 500-021-02 and 500-021-04.
14
B. That freestanding freeway signs are allowed for certain types of businesses
15 with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit(TCC Section 9404(8)(3))and
a Sign.Code Exception(TCC Section 9405(C))....
16
17 C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said application
on July 12 and August 9, 1.999 by the Planning Commission.
1s
D. That the.establishment, maintenance and operation of a freeway pole sign
19 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health,
20 safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons. residing or
working in the _neighborhood of such proposed-use, nor be injurious or
21 detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the
subject property, or to the general welfare of the City, of Tustin, as
zz evidenced by the following findings;
23 1. The proposed sign would be oriented for freeway identification for a
business that provides services to freeway motorists as defined by
24 the Tustin Sign Code.
zs
. 2..- The proposed sign would be consistent with the sign area and
26 location limitations for freeway signs as established by the Tustin
.
27
Sign Code.
28 3. The proposed freeway sign would not visually .impact adjacent
residential properties in that light and glare associated with the
29 illumination of the pole sign would be directed away from nearby •
residential uses and would be further screened by existing buildings
and landscaping.
1E
Resolution No. 3686
.2 Page 2
3 E. ` Pursuant to_Sign Code Section 9405c, the, installation of a freestanding
4 freeway sign forty-five,(45) feet in height with a fifty (50) square foot sign
cabinet can be supported by the following findings:
s
1. Sign size and placement restrictions of the Sign Code shall be
6 closely followed as,practicable.
7 The area of the freeway sign would comply with the maximum area
allowed by Tustin City Code Section 9404(B)(3)(c),which is fifty (50)
8 square feet of area. The increased height of forty-,five(45) feet is the
minimum height to allow for visibility above the adjacent elevated
9 freeway improvements and sound walls at a sufficient distance for
drivers on the 1-5 Freeway to make a decision to exit.at Red Hill
10 Avenue. The sign would be installed along the eastern edge of the
11 property, adjacent to freeway right-of-way and outside of a visual
clearance area.
12 2. The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use
13 zone -in which the sign is .to be. located shall. be followed as
closely as practicable.
14
The Sign Code provides for freeway pole signs for freeway oriented
• 15 businesses such as fast food restaurants. Given the proximity of the
site to an elevated portion of the 1-5 Freeway, the pole sign height is
16 consistent with the intent to provide freeway►►isibility in that forty-five
17 (45) feet is the minimum height necessary to provide visibility. to
drivers on the freeway. If modified, a fifty-(50) square foot sign area
1s would be consistent with the intent of Section 94014(B)(3)(c).
19 3. There are special circumstances unique to- the property to
justify the exception.
20
The project site is roughly triangular in shape, and is bounded on two
21 sides by public streets and on the third side by an elevated section of
the 1-5 Freeway. A forty-five(45)foot tall sign would provide visibility
22 given the property's proximity to elevated portions of the 1-5 Freeway
and soundwalls. There are no special circumstances related to the
23 property that would justify a deviation from the maximum sign area of
fifty(50) square.feet-allowed by the Tustin Sign Code. A cabinetfifty
za (50) square feet in area would be visible above the elevated freeway
25 and soundwalls at a sufficient distance for driver on the 1-5 Feeway
to make a decision to exit onto Red Hill Avenue.
26 - 4. Granting of the sign exception will. not have a negative impact
27 on surrounding properties.
21 The proposed°sign would not be detrimental to, or have a negative
effect on, surrounding properties in that the sign,is compatible with
i 29 uses in the surrounding area in' location, size, and .fabrication. The
proposed freeway sign would complement the architecture of the
restaurant and is directed away from adjacent residential properties.
Ef.
1iResolution No. 3886
2 Page 3
3 5. The sign application promotes the public health, safety,-welfare
4 and aesthetics of the community acid that the granting of the
exception meets the findings and intent of the Sign Code.
5 The, proposed sign would provide adequate visibility'to motorists on
6 the 1-5 Santa Ana freeway to allow for safe movement for potential
customers,yet not contribute to excessive signage in the area.
7 r
F. That this project is categorically exempt pursuant to ;Class 11, Section
g 15311 of the California Environmental,QualityAct.
9
ll.• The Planning Commission hereby approves CUP 99-002(6), and Sign Code-
10 Exception 99-001(B) to authorize the construction of a freestanding freeway pole
sign forty-five (45) feet in height with a fifty (50) square cabinet,for a future fast
11 food restaurant to be located at 13922 Red Hill Avenue, subject to the conditions
12 containedin Exhibit A, attached hereto.
13 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular
14 meeting on the 9th day of August, 1999.
16 LESLIE PONTIOUS
17 ChairPerson
19
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
20 Planning Commission Secretary
21
22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
23 CITY OF TUSTIN )
24
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the- undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
25 Commission Secretary.of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that
Resolution No. 3686 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of 'the Tustin
26 .Planning Commission,held on the 9th day of August, 1999.
27
2s
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
29 Planning Commission Secretary
i
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-002(B)EXHIBIT
IAND SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 99-001(B)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 3686
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 The-proposed signs shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for .
the project date stamped-August 9, 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 during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with,the
provisions of the Tustin City Code and other applicable codes.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise"specified,the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be
complied with as specified or prior to the issuance of any building permits
for- the project, subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Department.
(1) 1.3 ' The.subject projectapproval shall become null and void unless permits.are
issued within twelve.(12) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial
• construction is underway. Time extensions may be granted if a written
request is .received by the Community Development Department within
thirty(30) days prior to expiration.
(1) 1.4 Approval of Conditional Use Permit 99-002(6)and Sign Code Exception 99-
001(13) is. contingent upon the applicant and .property owner signing and
returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed"form as established by the
Director of CommunityDevelopment.
(1) 1.5 The applicant shall 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.
1.6 All signage shall be maintained in proper operating order at all times. If the
City becomes aware of any lighting or signage that is not operable, the'
applicant shall be responsible for making appropriate repairs within 72
hours of being notified by the City. In ',the event a sign is partially
inoperable, the entire sign, shall not be illuminated until such repairs are
completed.
SOURCE CODES .
i (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
(2) CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODEIS (6) LANDSCAPING
POKY GUIDELINES
"(4) DESIGN REVIEW (7)
*** EXCEPTIONS '
j"
l
Exhibit A-Conditions of Approval
Cup 99-002(B) and SC,E 99-001(13)
Page 2
"** 1.7 Authorization for the freestanding freeway sign is.contingent upon the use
of the subject property remaining a fast food restaurant. Should this use be
changed or discontinued, the property owner shall obtain approval -of an
amendment to Conditional Use Permit 99-002(B)for a new use of the sign.
SIGNS
(1) 2.1 All signs shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building
Code and the National Electrical Code-as adopted by-the City (including UL
approvals).
(1) 2.2 All signs, including any change of copy, require review and approval by the.
Community Development Department prior to installation. Permits shall be
required for all signs.
(4) 2.3 The existing sixty-five (65) foot tali dual pylon .structures shall be removed
from the site.
( } g5 . 2.4 All signs and their supporting structures shall be enclosed,structurally safe,
and maintained in good condition and shall comply with the most current
Uniform Building Codes,..as:localIy amended.
(5) 2.5 Aerial signs, animated signs, audible signs, beacons, festoons, flashing, or,
moving signs, light bulb.strings, roof mounted signs, and projecting•signs
shall be prohibited pursuant to Tustin City Sign Code.
PLAN SUBMITTAL
3.1 The sign plan shall be modified to illustrate a.freestanding freeway pole sign
forty-five (45) feet in height with a maximum sign cabinet area of fifty (50)
square feet..
(5) 3.2 Three (3) sets of construction level plans with necessary specifications,and
details prepared in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, and other
related Codes, City Ordinances,and state and federal laws and regulations
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development
Department. Compliance with approved plans shall be inspected by the
Community Development Department during construction and prior to_final
inspection.
Exhibit A-Conditions of Approval
Cup 99-002(B)and SCE 99-001(13)
Page 3
FEES
(1) 4.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits; all payments shall be made of all .
applicable fees including the building division and sign permit fees,
including but not limited to the following. Payment shall�be required based
upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change.
A) Building plan check and permit fees to the Community
Development Department based on the most current schedule.
(1) 4.2 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 Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.
i
,eteort to the
p .
Planning Commission
DATE: AUGUST 9, 1999
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF'USE DETERMINATION 99-002
APPELLANT: A.G. KAWAMURA
ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCE
6951 TRABUCO ROAD
IRVINE, CA 92620
PROPERTY
OWNER: AAE PACIFIC'PARKASSOCIATES, LLC
129 WEST WILSON STREET,.SUITE#100
COSTA MESA,' CA 92627
ATTN: MR. IRVING M. CHASE
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF VALENCIA AVENUE AND SR-55
• (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.430-251-0'1102103106107108109110)
ZONING: PLANNED 'COMMU.NiTY (PC) SUBJECT TO THE PACIFIC
CENTER EAST SPECIFIC-PLAN (PCESP)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270 OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHICH'
STATES THAT CEQA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS
REJECTED OR DISAPPROVED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY.
REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH AGRICULTURAL USES
WITHIN THE 'REGIONAL CENTER AND THE -OFFICE CENTER
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST
SPECIFIC PLAN (PCESP).
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3685 denying,'the appeal of Use
Determination 99-002 and determining that agricultural uses are prohibited within the
"Regional Center' and "Office Center" land -use designations of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan.
I
i
Planning Commission Report
Appeal of UD 99-002
August 9, 1999
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On June 15, 1999, the applicant requested that the Community Development Director
approve a request to establish agricultural operations for a two to three year duration with
a number of planting and harvesting cycles on undeveloped land at the northeast corner
of Valencia Avenue and SR-55 (see Attachment A - Location Map). The area totals
approximately thirty-four (34) acres. The property is bounded on the west and north by
freeway right-of-way and to the south and east by industrial uses.
The property is designated "Regional Center" and "Office Center" by the Pacific Center
East Specific Plan (PCESP), which provides for a variety of commercial and office uses.
The property is also located within the South Central Redevelopment Agency Project
Area. Agricultural Operations are not listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses
within the PCESP. Section 4.3.E and 4.4.E of the Specific Plan state that unlisted uses
are subject to a Use Determination by the Community Development Director as
permitted,conditionally permitted or prohibited.
On June 24, 1999, the Director denied,without prejudice,the request(see Attachment B), •
determining that agricultural uses were prohibited within the PCESP and established
findings in support of the decision, including the following:
• That an agricultural use in the proposed location is inconsistent with the purpose
of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan which is designed to encourage
development of necessary support services, facilities, and infrastructure to
provide for ultimate buildout of the area.
• That establishment of an agricultural use in the proposed location is inconsistent
with the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" planning areas in that it does not
implement the development concept which encourages a .variety of office,
commercial, and technology uses.
• That establishment of an agricultural use in the proposed location is an
impediment to the implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan
Circulation Plan and conflicts with the dedication of required right-of-way for the
extension of Newport Avenue south of Edinger Avenue, the realignment of Del
Amo, and the realignment of the northbound State Route (SR)-55 on and off-
ramps serving Edinger Avenue.
• That a similar request, Use Determination 98-002, was denied without prejudice
on January 13, 1999. No new information has been submitted that would affect •
the decision on Use Determination 99-002.
Planning Commission Report
Appeal of UD 99-002
August 9, 1999 '
Page 3
DISCUSSION
Through appeal of Use Determination 99002, the applicant is requestingthat the Planning
Commission make a, determination that the establishment-of agricultural operations is an
appropriate use within the PCESP. In the letter of appeal, the appellant cited the following
considerations to support the request(see Attachment C):
1. . The farming operations could occur on a four to six month timeline.
2. The presence of farming operations could assist future developers with,problems
of ground conditions,weed abatement,ground leveling and drainage.
3. The appellant is an experienced agricultural operator and currently has a number
of short-term leases with:-various developers and property owners throughout
Orange County.
4. The presence of agricultural operations can be aesthetically pleasing.
Staffs response to the points-raised by the appellant are discussed below:
1. Although the appellant has indicated that operations could occur during a four to
six month cycle, a series of four to six month planting and harvesting operational
cycles would establish a permanent use which is inconsistent with the purpose and
land use designations of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In-particular, the'
"Regional Center' designation allows for uses such as offices, accessory retail
uses, hotels, and other support commercial uses and the "Office Center'
designation allows for uses such as offices and accessory retail/service commercial
uses (see Attachment D)., In addition, agricuitural'operations are inconsistent with
the General Plan Land Use Element Goals and Policies which state, "The future
image of the Pacific Center East.area will consist of a more intensive and integrated
business park environment. The area's distinct location adjacent to SR-55 creates
a significant opportunity to capitalize on its freeway orientation toachieve regional
recognition." Further, establishment of a series of planting_and harvesting cycles
would be a permanent use that,would be defined as a "project"°under California
Public Resources Code Section 21065 and subject to the development standards
and prerequisites contained within the Specific Plan. These include infrastructure
improvements, including the dedication of land for the reconfiguration of the on and
off-ramp system for the SR-55 freeway.
Planning Commission Report •
Appeal of UD 99-002
August 9, 1999
Page 4
2. Implementation of the Specific Plan, as intended,would ensure.that proper grading
and drainage would occur on the project site. In particular, new construction
associated the planned buildout of the area would be required to comply with the
Uniform Building Code and the City of Tustin Grading Manual. This would mitigate
soils and drainage concerns. In addition, the owner of the property is responsible
for maintaining the property in compliance with the City of Tustin Property
Maintenance Ordinance.
3. The presence of other similar uses in various locations may not mean that the use
is appropriate use within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan .area, due to the
reasons cited in the findings below and Exhibit A of the letter dated June 24, 1999,
denying Use Determination 99-002.
4. While agricultural operations can be aesthetically pleasing, they are not consistent
with the intent of the Specific Plan. Additionally, agricultural operations could lead
to the introduction of chemicals to the soil, which is difficult to monitor and could
require soil remediation procedures prior to future development.
Although staff recommends denial of the applicants request, the property owner is not
precluded from developing the site with any of the uses permitted by the Specific Plan.
During the past year, staff has been contacted by numerous development companies
interested in working with the property owner in developing the site. The Specific Plan
provides for a wide range of uses that may be established.
FINDINGS
A-decision to deny this request for the establishment of agricultural operations within the
"Regional Center" and "Office Center" land use designations can be supported by the
following findings:
1) Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent with General Plan Land Use
Element Goals and Policies which state, "The future image of the Pacific Center
East area will consist of a more intensive and integrated business park
environment. The area's distinct location adjacent to SR-55 creates a significant
opportunity to capitalize on its freeway orientation to achieve regional recognition."
2) Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent with the overall concept for
the Pacific Center East Specific Plan is to provide a planned community,
development which encourages a variety of office, commercial, regional and
technology uses within an integrated environment(PCESP Sections 3.1 and 3.2).
Planning Commission Report 4
Appeal of UD 99-002
August 9, 1999
Page 5
3) Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent with the overall intent of the
Pacific Center East Specific Plan "Regional.Center" and "Office Center" land use
designations which encourage a variety of office and commercial uses (PCESP
Sections 4.3.A and 4.4.A).
4) Although the appellant indicated that operations could be on a four to six month
cycle, on-going operations could act to preclude.development. A series of four.to
six month operational cycles would become an establishment of a permanent use
that is inconsistent with the overall intent of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
Further, establishment of a permanent use would be defined as a "project" under
California Public Resources .Code Section :21065 and be subject to the
development standards and prerequisites contained within the Specific Plan.
5) The proposed use is not compatible with permitted office and commercial uses.
The presence of agricultural operations in close proximity to highly developed
areas and major infrastructure(SR-55 Freeway)would have a negative impact and
could be disruptive in terms of dust and odors. Further, agricultural operations
• could lead to the introduction of chemicals to the soil which is difficult.to monitor
and mitigate and could require soil remediation procedures prior to future
development..
6) Denial of the Use Determination will not prevent the property owner from
developing the site with any of the uses permitted by the Specific Plan.
7) The Use Determination process is intended to provide a mechanism for permitting
uses that are similar to permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the Specific
Plan. As noted above, agricultural operations are not consistent with, and
dissimilar to, the permitted office and commercial uses and are not appropriate in
the context o e Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
r dley . Ev n Karen Peterson
Assists r Acting Senior Planner
BEUD99002final.doc
Attachments: A.' Location,Map
B. Use Determination 99-002
C. Letter of"Appeal dated July 1, 1999
D. Pacific Center East Excerpts
E. Resolution 3685
ATTACHMENT`A ,
LOCATION MAP
r
LOCATION MAP ,�_
_ I I 1111 Fjl - r'
OGC.c.a.a/r(Sr,'r.µl SIA O`e/4A!t�
1
r
r
- / r EGINGER AVENUE
� 1
i
i
. 1
W r r
7 13571
N
Y
r
£ I� i
r
r
I i k
1
I
. I
l
I
z
n
�I j VALENCIA
ATTACHMENT B
USE DETERMINATION 99-002
L
•
r
1
• �y44`14•.1 ,,,yyy,
'0111:MU.-;�y ❑e�InlO i(?�'r:t Dr��2rir , i;i
z-xvs.r ti+�msr,�vaxzcva��r�raYiv�...si¢r�.nm.�-ez�rar.--•— _•v_��= fs-e � • •••_•• r=
June 24, 1999 300 Cen,e =
Irving M. Chase
AAE Pacific Park Associates, LLC
129 West Wilson Street, Suite 100
Cosia Mesa, �,"-; 92627
SUBJECT: USE DETERMINATION 99-002
Deer Mr. Chase:
Than': you for your applications, received June 15, 1999, for a Use Determination to
determine whether an agricultural use is permitted within the "Regional Center- & Office
Center" land use planning area of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and a
Temporary Use Permit to establish farming of row crops on a 34 acre parcel located to
the northeast of the intersection of the SR-55 Freeway and Valencia Avenue. On
• January 13, 1999, a similar request was considered by-the Director of Community
Developme,__: and was denied.
Agricultural uses are not permitted at the subject location based upon the findings
contained in Exhibit A, attached. This determination may be appealed to the Planning
Commission by any person provided that a petition indicating why the action is being
appealed and an appeal fee is submitted. The Community Development Deparment
action will become final unless an appeal and fee', as noted above, is received by the
Department within seven (7) calendar days from the date of this letter.
Should you have any questions about the Department's action, please call me at (714)
573-3031 or Karen Peterson, Acting Senior Planner, at (714) 57373123.
Sincerely,
,z
Eiizabeth A. Binsack
Director of Community Development
Attachments: Exhibit A
SKP.kbmluse determinaGonslud99-002
EXHIBIT A
USE DETERMINATION 99-002 •
JUNE 243 1999
[. The Community Development Department finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, Use Determination 99-002, was filed on June
15, 1999 by AAE Pacific Park Associates, LLC, requesting 'authorization to
establish agricultural operations on vacant properties located to the
northeast of the intersection of the SR-55 Freeway and Valencia Avenue
and more specifically identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 430-251-01,
02, and 03 and 430-251-06, 07, 08, 09, and 10.
B. That th.e subject properties are located within the."Regional Center" and
"Office Center" land use planning areas ofthe Pacific Center East Specific-
Plan.
C. That the "Regional Center" is intended for the development of a mixed use
commercial and office center, with opportunities for both office and
commercial uses whose focus is beyond services for the immediate
project area and the "Office Center" is intended for the development of
corporate, professional and general offices with limited supporting
commercial uses.
D. That agricultural uses are not listed as permitted or conditionally permitted
in the "Regional Center" or"Office Center" land use planning areas.
E.
That pursuant to Section 4.3(E) and 4.4(E) of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, the Director of Community Development is authorized to
determine whether unlisted uses are permitted or permitted subject to
approval of a Conditional use Permit.
F. Tho{ an agricultural use in the proposed location is inconsistent with the
purpose of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan which is designed to
encourage development of necessary support services, facilities, and
infrastructure to provide for ultimate buildout of the area.
G. That establishment of an agricultural use in the proposed location is
inconsistent with the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" planning areas
in that it does not implement the development concept which encourages
a variety of office and commercial uses.
H. That establishment of an agricultural use in the proposed location is an
impediment to the implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan
Circulation Plan and conflicts with the dedication of required right-of-way
for the extension of Newport Avenue south of Edinger Avenue, the •
realignment of Del Amo, and the realignment of the northbound State
Route (SR)-55 on and off-ramps serving Edinger Avenue.
Exhibit A
Pace 2 {
I. That a similar request, Use Determination 98-002, was denied on January
13, 1999. No new information has been submitted that would affect the
decision on Use Determination 99-002.
J. That'projects that are denied are statutorily exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section
15270 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
11. Th.e Community Development Department hereby determines that anagricultural
use in the proposed location is a prohibited use and denies without prejudice Use
Determination 99-002, a request to establish an agricultural use-on vacant
property located at northeast of the intersection of.-the SR-55 Freeway and
Valencia Avenue within the "Regional Center" and "Office Center" land use
planning areas of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
ATTACHMENT C
LETTER OF APPEAL
JULY 15 1999
E)�COUN7Y ja,�04
` G
July 1, 1999
Ms. Elizabeth A. Binsack
Director of Community Development
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re: USE-DETERMINATION 99-002 '
Dear Ms. Binsack,
This is an appeal to petition the Community Development Department for a
reconsideration of their findings and determination of Use Determination 99-002.
In your denial of our temporary-use application I have studied Exhibit A of your response
and am concerned that you may have thought that our agricultural cultivation of the parcel
might have long term implications to the "Regional Center" and"Office Center". I would
like to clarify to you and your staff that our farming operations are nothing more than an
interim use activity prior to development. We have a 50 year record of working within
this very urban county. As the oldest active agricultural tenant of The Irvine Company we
have become more than accustomed to the demands of their development schedule. We
are not a nursery or orchard operation which take a great deal of infrastructure and time
commitment. We have the ability to farm on a 4-6 month timeline and can easily vacate the
premises given short notice. Our current short term leases with the Diocese of Orange,
Sakioka Properties, Shea Homes, BRE/South Coast, LLC, Southern Calif. Edison,
Orange County Water District and The Irvine Company should provide evidence that our
operations are compatible with future development plans.
It can be further demonstrated that our presence can actually assist the future developer
with problems of ground conditions, weed abatement, poor level and drainage, rodent and
insect predation/infestation,.dumping and trash removal. It also builds a solid soil base for
all future landscaping activities. I believe that you may have interpreted our agricultural
presence-as a hindrance to development. The present landlord understands our intent to
i farm and does not feel it is in any way an impediment to their development plans. I am
5951 Trahuco Road Irvine, EA 92620 (949) 651-9106 FAX (949) 651-9165
concerned that your decision is based on an incorrect assumption about the duration and
nature of our vegetable operations. Please be assured that our presence on the AAE .
Pacific Park Associates, LLC property would not impede in the implementation plans for
the Pacific Center East Specific Plan etc.
The aesthetic value ofaariculture within a community is yet another issue that this kind of
determination does not encompass. I am convinced that agriculture in any of its many
forms can be compatible with the interests of all communities. Those of us in agriculture
have a lot of work to do to remind the public that we are an asset and resource to any
community. I hope the Community Development Department will reconsider their
.decision of USE DETERMINATION 99-•002. 1 look forward to meeting with you and
the planning staff to pursue this appeal.
Sincerely,
A.G. Kawamura
Principal
ATTACHMENT D
EXCERPTS
PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
d. Minimum space between buildings - 10. feet
4. Landscape setbacks'
a. Newport Avenue - 30 feet
b. Edinger Avenue ; 20 feet
C. Red-Hill Avenue - 30 feet
5. Maximum floor area ratio - Planning Area 2 - 0.35, Planning Area 4 = 0.13
6. Landscaping - compliance with City of Tustin landscaping and irrigation
requirements and Section 3.5 of this specific plan.
7. Parking - compliance with off-street parking standards contained in Section
4.6.
8. Loading - compliance with loading standards contained in Section 4.7.
9. General regulations - refer to Section 4.8, for oth_er compliance general
regulations. S
4.3 Regional Center
A. Purpose and Intent
This land use designation is intended for the development of a mixed use commercial and
office center,with opportunities for both office and commercial uses whose focus is beyond
services for the immediate project area. Regulations integrate properly a mixture of hotel,
office and commercial uses. Principal land uses for the Regional Center are limited to
office, hotel and commercial uses with certain limitations noted in this Section and in
Section 4.8.
B. Location
Planning areas designated in the Land Use Plan as Regional Center are Planning Areas 5,
6, 7, 11 and 14.
C• Permitted Uses and Conditionally Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol"P" occurs or by conditional
use permit where the symbol "C" appears, subject to any identified limitations contained
herein or in Section 4.8.
43
f
City of Tustin
7.
Parking'—compliance with off-street parking standards contained in Section
4.6.
8. Loading - compliance with loading standards contained in Section 4.7.
9. General regulations - refer to Section 4.8 for .other compliance general
regulations.
4.4 Office Center
A. Purpose and Intent
This land use designation is intended £or the development of corporate, professional and
general offices with limited supporting commercial_uses (see Table 6). Regulations provide
an appropriate character which complements surrounding, existing and planned uses.
-Principal land uses for the office center are primarily corporate and professional offices with
certain limitations noted in this Section and in Section 4.8. It is intended that commercial
retail and service uses shall be well-integrated components of office uses and serve as
complementary support services.
B. Location
Planning areas designated in the Land Use Plan as Office Center are Planning Areas 8, 10,
3 13.
C. Permitted Uses and Conditionally Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P" occurs or by conditional
use permit where the symbol "C" appears, subject.to any identified limitations contained
herein or in Section.4.8, Table 6.
1. Offices permitted or conditionally. permitted in the Commercial Center
designation plus corporate. offices P
2. Retail and service uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the Commer-
cial Center-designation P/C
3. Restaurants, family or specialty, only in Planning Area 8 and 10 P
D. Temporary Uses
Temporary uses shall be regulated pursuant to the applicable section of the Tustin City
.Code. _
46 E}
I- .
ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION NO. 3685
1 ,
RESOLUTION NO. 3685
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
3 THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE
APPEAL OF USE DETERMINATION 99-002 AND
4 DETERMINING THAT AGRICULTURAL USES ARE
PROHIBITED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER AND
5 OFFICE CENTER LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE
6 PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
8 follows:
9
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
10
A. That a proper application, Use Determination 99-002, was
11 filed on June 15, 1999 by AAE Pacific Park Associates, LLC,
12 requesting authorization to establish agricultural operations
on vacant properties located to the northeast of the
13 intersection of the SR-55 Freeway and Valencia Avenue and
14 more specifically identified as Assessor-Parcel Numbers
430-251-01, 02, and 03 and 430-251-06, 07, 08, 09, and 10.
is
B. That the subject properties are located within the "Regional
16 Center" and "Office Center" land use planning areas of the
17 Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
18 C. That agricultural uses are not listed as permitted or
conditionally permitted uses in the "Regional Center" or
1� "Office Center" land use planning areas of the Pacific Center
20 East Specific Plan (PCESP Sections 4.3(E) and 4.4(E)).
21 D. That pursuant to Section 4.3(E) and 4.4(E) of the Pacific
22 Center East Specific Plan, the Director of Community
Development is authorized to determine whether unlisted
23 uses are permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited.
za E. That pursuant to Section 4.3(E) -and 4.4(E) of the Pacific
25 Center East Specific Plan, the appellant filed an application
for Use Determination 99-002 on June 15, 1999. The
26 Director of Community Development determined on June 24,
27 1999, that agricultural uses were prohibited within the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan.
0211
F. That pursuant to Section 4.3(E). and 4.4(E) of the Pacific
29 Center East Specific Plan, Orange County Produce filed an
appeal of the Director's decision on July 1,, 1.999.
Resolution No. 3685
1 Page 2 •
2 G. That a decision to deny the establishment of agricultural
3 operations at the subject site can be supported by the
following findings;
4
5 1) Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent
with General Plan Land Use Element Goals and
6 Policies which state, "The future image of the Pacific
Center East area will consist of a more intensive and
7 integrated business park environment. The area's
8 distinct location adjacent to SR-55 creates a significant
opportunity to capitalize on its freeway orientation to
9 achieve regional recognition."
10 2) Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent
11 with the overall concept for the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan is to provide a planned community
12 development which encourages a variety of office,
13 commercial, regional and technology uses. within an
integrated environment(PCESP Sections 3.1 and 3.2).
14
15 3) Establishment of agricultural operations is inconsistent
with the overall intent of the Pacific Center East
16 Specific Plan "Regional Center" and "Office Center'
land use designations which encourage a variety of
17 office and commercial uses (PCESP Sections 4.3.A
18 and 4.4.A).
19 4) Although the appellant indicated that operations could
20 occur on a four to six month cycle, on-going operations
could act to preclude development. Further, a series of
21 four to six month operational cycles would become an
establishment of a permanent use that is inconsistent
22 with the overall intent of the Pacific Center East
23 Specific Plan. Further, establishment of a permanent..
use would be defined as a "project" under California
24 Public Resources Code Section 21065 and be subject
to the. development standards and prerequisites
2s contained within the Specific Plan.
26
5) The proposed use is not compatible with permitted
27 office and commercial uses. The presence of
28 agricultural operations in close proximity to highly
developed areas and major infrastructure (SR-55
29 Freeway) would have a negative impact and could be
disruptive in terms of dust and odors. Further,
agricultural operations could lead to the introduction of
chemicals to the soil which is difficult to monitor and
mitigate and could require future soil remediation
procedures prior to future development occurring.
Resolution No. 36.85 ,
I Page 3
2 6) Denial of the Use"Determination will not prevent the
3 property owner from developing the'site with.any of the
uses permitted by the Specific Plan:
4
7) The Use Determination process is intended to provide
s a mechanism. for permitting uses that are similar to
6 permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the Specific
Plan. As noted above, agricultural operations are not
7 consistent with, and dissimilar to, the permitted office
and commercial uses and are not appropriate in the
context of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
9
H. That projects that are denied are statutorily exempt from the
10 requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
11 (CEQA), pursuant to* Section 15270 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
12
13 Il. The Planning Commission hereby denies the appeal of Use
Determination 99-002 and determines that agricultural uses are
14 prohibited uses in the "Regional Center" and "Office Centel" land
use planning areas of the Pacific Center East and.
Plan.
16 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 9th day of August, 1999.
17
I8 '
19 LESLIE A. PONTIOUS
Chairperson
20
21 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
22 Planning Commission Secretary
23 STATE-OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
24 CITY OF TUSTIN )
25
I, ELIZABETH.A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the
26 Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that
Resolution No. 3685 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting rof
27 the Tustin.Planning Commission, held on the 9th day of August, 1999.
28
29
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
ITEM#6
Oeportto the
Planning Commission
DATE: AUGUST 9, 1999
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL.ACTION AGENDAS,
JULY 19, 1999 AND AUGUST 2, 1999
PRESENTATION: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, DIRECTOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
• ATTACHMENT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDAS-JULY 19, 1999
AND AUGUST 2, 1999
i
ACTION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
JULY 19, 1999 •
7:07 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
GIVEN INVOCATION - Mr. Bill Stevens, Salvation Army Church
GIVEN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
THOMAS ABSENT ROLL CALL
PRESENTED PROCLAMATION - Former Planning Commissioner Scott
Browne (absent), and former Parks and Recreation
Commissioners Don Biery, Michael Bova (absent), and
Elaine Dove
PUBLIC INPUT
MARGARETE.THOMPSON: INVITED-THE PUBLIC.TO ATTEND THE SENIOR.CENTER
1OTa ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION AND OPEN HOUSE ON •
.JULY 28TH
PUBLIC HEARING ( ITEMS 1 THROUGH 3 )
APPROVED STAFF 1. • LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK-GRANT PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
The Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998
authorizes the Director 'of the Bureau of ' Justice
Assistance to make funds available to local government
under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants
programs for. reducing crime and improving public
safety_. The Police Department proposes to expend
these funds for the purchase of a Mobile Command
Post/Substation.
Recommendation by the Police Department:
1. Open and close the Public Hearing.
2. Authorize usage of funds.
Action Agenda —City Council July 19, 1999— Page 1 .
ADOPTED 2. RESOLUTION NO. 99.54 ADOPTING THE CITY BUDGET
RESOLUTION AND WATER ENTERPRISE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
NO. 99-54 YEAR-1999/2000
•
Staff is requesting City Council adopt the budgets for the
City and the Water Enterprise for. Fiscal Year,
1999/2000.
Recommendation: Adopt the following Resolution No.
99-54 appropriating the City's governmental Funds of
$36,853,567; Special Revenue Funds, $14,447,937;
and the City's Water Enterprise Budget of $17,751,371
as recommended by the Finance Director:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-54 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING THE CITY BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING
FROM THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES OF THE CITY FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000
ADOPTED . 3. NEWSRACK PERMIT FEE
RESOLUTION
NO. 99-53 The City's fee schedule does not include a fee for issuing
(3-1 JP'OP) a newsrack permit:� City Council approval is required to
establish-a newsrack permit fee.
Recommendation: Adopt the.following Resolution No.
99-53 approving a newsrack permit fee as
recommended by the Community Development
Department:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-53 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
ESTABLISHING A REVISED SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING
FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES WITHIN THE PLANNING
DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
CONSENT CALENDAR ( ITEMS 4 THROUGH 15 )
APPROVED 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- JULY" 6, 1999 REGULAR
MEETING
Recommendation: Approve the City Council Minutes of
July 6, 1999.
APPROVED . 5. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF
PAYROLL
Action Agenda —City Council July 19, 1999— Page 2
Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of
$1,333,470.27 and ratify Payroll in the amount of
$392,473.39.
APPROVED 6. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES
FROM JULY 1, 1999, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2000, WITH
THE OPTION OP THREE, ONE-YEAR EXTENSIONS .
Recommendation: Award this Custodial Services
Contract, for the Fiscal Year 1999/2000 to Pacific
Building Care, Inc., in the amount of $173,594.52, and
authorize .the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the
contract documents on behalf of the City as
recommended by the Public Works Department/Field
Services Division.
APPROVED 7. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WELL
SITE FACILITIES UPGRADES (CITY PROJECT NO.
600077)
Recommendation: Award the contract for.the subject
project to Norman A. Olsson Construction of Orange,
California, in the amount of $560,294 as recommended
-by the Public Works Department/Water Division.
APPROVED 8.- RELEASE-OF .MONUMENTATION BOND FOR TRACT NO.
14784 (VALENCIA) •
Recommendation: Authorize release of Monumentation
Bond No. 13-40.38 in the amount of $5,000.00 for-Tract
No. 14784 as recommended 'by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
APPROVED 9. RELEASE OF MONUMENTATION BOND FOR TRACT NO.
14837 (VALENCIA)
Recommendation: Authorize the release of the following
bonds for Tract No. 14837: Faithful Performance Bond
No. 13-40-36 in the amount of $35,806.00; Labor and
Materials Bond No. 13-40-36 in the amount of
$17,903.00; and Monumentation Bond No. 13-40-37 in
the amount of $4,600.00 as recommended by the Public
Works Department/Engineering Division.
ADOPTED 10. RESOLUTION NO. 99-51 —A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
NO. 99-53. ACCEPTING THE WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND
AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE ANNUAL ASPHALT CONCRETE
REHABILITATION AND- SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, 1998.
99 FY (CIP 700001)
Action Agenda —City Council July 19, 1999 —.Page 3
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-51
.accepting the works of improvement and authorizing
recordation of a Notice of Completion for the annual-
asphalt concrete rehabilitation and slurry seal project,
FY 1998-99; release the Labor and Materials Bond not
sooner than thirty-five (35) days after the date of
recordation of the Notice of Completion; release the
Faithful Performance Bond not sooner than one year
after the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion;
and assuming no claims or stop notices are filed, it is
further recommended that thirty-five (35) days after the
date of recordation of the Notice of Completion the
Council authorize payment of the final 10% retention in
the amount of $59,1.06.18 as recommended by the
Public Works Department/Engineering Division.
ADOPTED 11. RESOLUTION NO. 99-57 --A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
RESOLUTION - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
NO. 99-57 ACCEPTING THE WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND
AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR ANNUAL SIDEWALK AND CURB AND
GUTTER REPAIR PROJECT, FY 1998-99 (PROJECT NO.
4020-6235)
Recorni-nendation: -.Adopt , Resolution No. 99-57
. accepting the "works of improvement and authorizing
recordation of Notice of Completion for annual sidewalk
and curb and gutter repair project, FY. 1998-99 (Project
No. 4020-6235); release the Labor and Materials Bond
not sooner than thirty-five (35) days after the date of
recordation of the Notice of Completion; release the
Faithful Performance Bond not sooner than on year after
the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion; and
assuming no claims or Stop Notices are filed, it is
further recommended that 35 days after the date of
recordation of the Notice of Completion the City Council
authorize payment of the final 10,70 retention in the
amount of $27,369.90 to Kovac, Inc. as recommended
by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division.
RATIFIED 12. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA — JULY 12,
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 July 12, 1999.
i
Action Agenda —City Council July 19, 1999— Page 4
APPROVED 13. REQUEST BY SYCAMORE GLEN CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PERMIT FEES
Recommendation: -Deny the request as recommended •
by the City Attorney's Office.
ADOPTED 14. APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000
RESOLUTION Recommendation: Select the change in the California
NO. 99-55 per Capita Personal Income as the price factor for
adjusting the 1999/2000 appropriation limit; and adopt
the following Resolution No. 99-55, setting the
appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 1999/2000 at
$35,112,465 as recommended by the Finance Director:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-55 -- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
DETERMINING AND ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATION
LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF -THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND
SECTION 7910 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE
RECEIVED 15. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
AND FILED In compliance with Government Code Section 53646,
the Investment Report for the quarter ending June 30,
1999, 'is submitted for City Council review.
Recommendation: Receive and file subject report as
recommended by the City Treasurer. '
REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 16 THROUGH 17 )
RECEIVED 16. STATUS OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND POLICE
AND FILED ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ' ON PROSPECT AVENUE
NORTH - OF IRVINE BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF
SEVENTEENTH STREET
Based upon review of the traffic conditions and police
enforcement activities on Prospect Avenue north of
Irvine Boulevard and south of Seventeenth Street, there
is no dangerous condition and a normal level of public
safety is being provided on this roadway at this time.
Recommendation: Receive and file as recommended by
the Public Works Department/Engineering Division.
Action Agenda —City Council July 19, 1999" Page 5
• i
DIRECTED 17. LIBRARY iSU,RVEY RESULTS
LIBRARY SUBS
• COMMITTEE The firm of Godbe Research and Analysis will be making
TO MEET WITH a presentation on the. recently completed public opinion
COUNTY survey for an expanded library to serve the Tustin
Community. ;
Recommendation: Direction of the City Council.'
PUBLIC INPUT •
BERKLEE MAUGHAN: SUGGESTED' LIBRARY LAND ACQUISITION
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE: MCAS TUSTIN LAND
ALLOCATION, .REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDING, AND
DEVELOPER FEES. STAFF RESPONDED THAT .THE
PERIOD FOR ACQUIRING MCAS LAND FOR PUBLIC USE
HAS BEEN CLOSED -AND EARLIER SURVEYS HAD
INDICATED THE PUBLIC'S DESIRE FOR ;A CENTRALLY
LOCATED LIBRARY.
OTHER BUSINESS / COMMITTEE REPORTS
DOYLE: COMMENDED POLICE DEPARTMENT'S BICYCLE PATROL
AND GANG UNITS'
COMMENDED PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR
CONDITION OF CITY STREETS
SENT PERSONAL MESSAGES TO FRIENDS
POTTS: THANKED JACK GRACE FOR BRINGING TUSTIN
GARDENS' PROBLEMS TO THE, ATTENTION OF STAFF
AND COUNCIL
REQUESTED STATUS REPORT ON BRYAN AVENUE AND-
POTENTIAL INSTALLATION OF LEFT TURN LANE
SALTARELL_ L• NOTED THE 'INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF SWING SETS
AND ACTIVE EQUIPMENT AT CITY PARKS AND
REQUESTED THE MATTER BE RESOLVED EXPEDITIOUSLY
REPORTED THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
WAS PROCEEDING WITH THE EIR PROCESS TO INSTALL A
GROUND WATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM, EXPLAINED
HOW THE SYSTEM OPERATED, AND THE SYSTEM WOULD
PROVIDE THE LEAST EXPENSIVE SOURCE-OF.WATER
Action Agenda —City Council July 19, 1999— Page6 I,
WORLEY: INVITED THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND THE CONCERTS IN THE
PARK SERIES HELD ON WEDNESDAY EVENINGS
REQUESTED STATUS ON THE CITY-OWNED VACANT LOT •
ON EL CAMINO REAL AND THE PROPOSED GARDEN.USE
REQUESTED STATUS ON OLD TOWN'S NEW STREET
SCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. STAT:F-RESPONDED PROPOSALS
WOULD BE AVAILABLE WITHIN- 30 DAYS AND COUNCIL
WOULD BEPROVIDED A TIMELINE SCHEDULE
REPORTED THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
BOARD WOULD BE CONSIDERING A PROPOSAL TO
MAINTAIN ALL CITY FIRE CONTRACTS FOR A 10 YEAR
-PERIOD BEGINNING AT-A 3.5% RATE
ANNOUNCED CLOSED SESSION - The City Council shall convene in closed
session to-confer with the City Attorney regarding pending
litigation to which the City is a party, namely: -ETRPA, et. al
vs. Orange County Board of Supervisors, Case No. D030810
in the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District.
8:38 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The next regular meeting of the City
Council is scheduled- for Monday,. August 2, 1999, at 7:00..
: m
pm. in.the Council Chaber at 300 Centenniai Way.
Action Agenda —City Council July 19, 1999— Page 7
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELORMENT.AGENCY
JULY 19, 1999
8:38 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
THOMAS ABSENT ROLL CALL
REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 1 THROUGH 3 )
APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF- MINUTES — JULY 6, 1999 REGULAR
MEET[NG
Recommendation: Approve the Redevelopment Agency
Minutes of July 6, 1999.
APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS
Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of
$30,997.70.
ADOPTED 3. RESOLUTION RDA NO. 99-1 ADOPTING THE AGENCY
RESOLUTION BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING REVENUE OF THE
NO. RDA 99-1 AGENCY FOR.FISCAL YEAR -1999/2000
Staff is requesting the: Agency adopt the budget for the
Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency for Fiscal
Year 1999/2000.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution RDA No: 99-1, a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Tustin
Community Redevelopment Agency,, adopting the
Agency's 1999/2000 Budget of $9,534,308.
RESOLUTION RDA NO. 99-1 — A RESOLUTION OF THE
TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE
AGENCY BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FROM
ANTICIPATED REVENUE OF THE AGENCY FOR .THE
FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000
OTHER BUSINESS
POTTS: COMMENDED CITY MANAGER AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 'FOR 'EFFORTS TO SAVE
INSECT.INFESTED EUCALYPTUS TREES
h
i
Action Agenda—Redevelopment Agency:Juiy 19;1999—Page 1
POTTS: SUGGESTED `USING EXCESS PARK CONTINGENCY FEES
FOR PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL SWING SETS AND PLAY
EQUIPMENT
NONE CLOSED SESSION - None
8.4O_P.M. ADJOURNMENT • - The. next regular meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency is scheduled for Monday, August 2, r
1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300
Centennial Way.
' 4
Action Agenda—Redevelopment Agency July 19, 1999—Page 2
ACTION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING s
AUGUST 2, 1999
7:05 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
r
GIVEN INVOCATION - Coundilmember Potts
PRESENTED PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE YMCA Indian .Maidens
COLORS
ALL PRESENT ROLL CALL
PRESENTED PRESENTATION - MADD Awards to Police Officers Kilgore,
Sauerwein and Wright
PUBLIC INPUT
RON 'BEAULAC: THANKED COUNCIL FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF PILOT ._- -,
AFTER=SCHOOL PROGRAM AT HEIDEMAN,SCHOOL
CLARENCE MCCOLLUM EXPRESSED OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED
AND MICHELE MEYER: DRUG/ALCOHOL REHABILITATION CENTER ON CARFAX
DRIVE AND REQUESTED CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE
SARA GRANIK: EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION WITH-CITY STAFF RESPONSE
AND, TREATMENT OF HER FAMILY ' REGARDING AN
INSECT 1NFESTED EUCALYPTUS TREE ADJACENT TO
THEIR PROPERTY
PUBLIC HEARING ( ITEMS 1 THROUGH 2 )
ADOPTED 1.. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 99-161 (APPLICANT:
RESOLUTION GREGORY BENNETT)
NO. 99-6x
Tentative Parcel Map 99-161 is a request to combine the
three .lots located .at 145, 155 and, 165 EI Camino Real
into one lot for the purpose of developing a 10,712
square foot building.
Recommendation by the Community _ Development
Department:
J
I
Action Agenda — City Council August 2, 1999— Page 1i•
1. Open and close the Public Hearing.
2. Adopt the following Resolution No. 99.61 approving
Tentative Parcel Map 99-161: 40
RESOLUTION NO. 99-61 -. A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,-
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
99-161 TO COMBINE THE THREE LOTS LOCATED AT
145, 155 AND 165 EL CAMINO REAL INTO ONE LOT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A 10,712
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
ADOPTED- 2. PLACING ASSESSMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE
RESOLUTION COLLECTION ON THE 1999-00 TAX ROLL
NO. 99-60
A public hearing is required to place the proposed trash
fees on the 1999.00 tax roll. ' The proposed rate for
residential units is $12.74 per month which is an
increase of 1.6%.,
Recommendation by the Finance Department:
1..Open and close the Public Hearing.
2.-Adopt -the following Resolution No. 99-60 placing
assessments for solid waste collection for residential
units only on the-tax roll for fiscal year 1999-00:
RESOLUTION NO. 99-60 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5473 ET ' SEQ. OF THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING A REPORT
RELATIVE TO PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY
RECEIVING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES,-
AND DETERMINING THE CHARGES FOR SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE
RESPECTIVE LOTS OR PARCELS OF LAND AS THEY
APPEAR ON THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT ROLL
CONSENT CALENDAR ( ITEMS 3 THROUGH 19 )
APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JULY 19, 1999 REGULAR
MEETING
Recommendation: Approve the City Council Minutes of
July 19, 1999.
Action Agenda —City Council August 2, 1999 -- Page 2
APPROVED 4. APPROVAL OF - DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF
V - PAYROLL
Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of
$3,454,919.70 and ratify Payroll ; in the amount of
.$406,843.20.
RECEIVED . 5. YEAR 2000 PLAN UPDATE REPORT=AUGUST
AND FILED Recommendation: . Receive and file subject report as
recommended by the Finance and Community
Development Departments.
RECEIVED 6. CENSUS 2000 UPDATE
AND FILED Recommendation: Receive and file subject report as
recommended by the Community Development
Department.
APPROVED 7. YEAR 2000 TELEPHONE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
Recommendation: Approve telephone system upgrades
with Pacific Bell and appropriate $23,000 from the
unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund as
recommended by the Finance Department.
RECEIVED 8. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT
AND FILED- QUARTERLY.REPORTS "=
Recommendation: Receive and file subject report as
S recommended by• , the Community -Development `
Department.
APPROVED 9. RELEASE OF BONDS FOR TRACT NO.. 144.10 - (EL
DORADO)
Recommendation: Authorize release the following bonds
for the indicated amounts: Faithful Performance Bond
No. 415828S, $86,500.00; Labor and Materials Bond
No. 415828S, $43,250.00; .and 'Monumentation Bond
No.- 415829S, $15,000.00 as recommended by the-
Public Works Department/Engineering Division.
APPROVED -10. RELEASE OF MONUMENTATION BOND. FOR TRACT NO.
15527 (VIDORRA)
Recommendation: Authorize .release of the following
Monumentation Bond for Tract .No. 15527 for the
indicated amount: . Monumentation Bond No. 24-003-
411, $3,000.00 as recommended. by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
APPROVED 11. RELEASE OF MONUMENTATION BOND FOR TRACT NO.
14797 (VIDORRA)
I
Action Agenda —City Council August 2, 1999— Page 3
Recommendation: Authorize release of the following
Monumentation Bond for Tract No. 14797 for the
indicated amount: Monumentation Bond No. 24-004-
482, $3,900.00 as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
APPROVED 12. RELEASE OF BONDS FOR TRACT NO. 15292 (LA-
MONTANA)
Recommendation: Authorize release of the following
bonds for the indicated amounts: Faithful Performance
Bond No. 3SM-887.357.00, $173,000.00; Labor and
Materials Bond No. 3SM-887.357-00, $86,500.00; and
Monumentation Bond No. 3SM-887.358-00, $11,594.00
as recommended by the Public Works Department/
Engineering Division.
ADOPTED 13. RESOLUTION NO. 99-62 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
NO. 99-62 ACCEPTING THE WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND
AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE -
TANK REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT PROJECT (CIP
100033)
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-62
acceptingsaid- work 'as complete and authorizing the
recordation of the Notice of Completion and direct the
City Clerk to: (1) Release the Labor and Materials Bond
not sooner than thirty-five (35) days after the date of
recordation of the Notice of Completion; and (2) Release
the Faithful Performance Bond not sooner than thirty-
five (35) days after the date of recordation of the Notice
of Completion as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Field Services Division.
APPROVED 14. JOINT USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
TUSTIN AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY
Recommendation: Approve Joint Use Agreement with
the Southern California Edison Company and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement on
behalf of the City-as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
ADOPTED 15. RESOLUTION NO. 99.58 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
NO. 99-58 APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 99-2
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution - No. 99-58+
Action Agenda —City Council August 2, 1999 — Page 4
tr -
approving Lot Line Adjustment No. 99-2 as
recommended by the Public Works Department/
Engineering Division.
APPROVED 16. ANIMAL CONTROL/SHELTER CONTRACT FOR `FISCAL
YEAR 1999-00 i
Recommendation- Authorize the Mayor to execute the-
Animal Control/Shelter agreement for fiscal year 1999-
00 in the amount of $131,773 and appropriate an
additional amount of $41,773 from the unappropriated
fund balance of the General Fund as recommended by
the,Finance Department.
APPROVED 17.-AMENDMENT TO THE SEVEN YEAR PARK CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Recommendation: Amend the Parks and Recreation
Capital Improvement Program to include improvements
to ,the tot lot at Laurel Glen Park and the development of
a master plan for Lemon Tree Park in fiscal year 1999-
00 as recommended by Parks and Recreation Services.
ADOPTED 18:RESOLUTION NO.. 99-59 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
RESOLUTION COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFTUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
NO. 99-59 AP.PROVI:NG PLANS AND . SPECIFICATIONS AND = Y
- - AUTHORIZING.. ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR
PEPPERTREE/MAGNOLIA TREE, PARK REHABILITATION
(PROJECT NO. 400039)
Recommendation: ' Adopt Resolution No: 99-59
approving plans and specifications for rehabilitation of
Peppertree and Magnolia Tree Parks,, and authorizing
the City Clerk to advertise for bids as recommended by
Parks and Recreation-Services. -
APPROVED 19.. DENIAL OF CLAIM NO. 99-12,' CLAIMANT: ALYCE
SKALLERUD
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:
REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 20 THROUGH 23 )
APPROVED 20. CITY ATTORNEY RETAINER AGREEMENT
INCREASED - _
RATES, Rates for the City Attorney have not increased since
1995. Proposed rates for all work are $135 per hour for
associate attorneys, $145 per 'hour for partners, and
Action Agenda —City Council August 2, 1999— Page 5"
$75 per hour for paralegals.
Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council.
TABLED 21. ORDINANCE N0. 1219 — REGULATION OF
ORDINANCE ROLLERSKATING AND SKATEBOARDING ACTIVITIES
NO. 1219
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends
adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 1219 to regulate
rollerskating and skateboarding activities on private and
public property.
Recommendation by the Parks and Recreation
Department:
1. Have first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1219.
2. Introduce the following Ordinance No. 1219:
ORDINANCE NO. 1219 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 6 OF THE TUSTIN
CITY CODE TO INCLUDE CHAPTER 8 WHICH
REGULATES ROLLERSKATING AND -SKATEBOARDING =="
ON PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PROPERTY OTHER THAN
STREETS
WAIVED ALL 22. FEE WAIVER — DINOSAUR DASH
COSTS/FEES
The Tustin Public Schools Foundation has requested
waiver of staff costs, and equipment and permit fees for
the 1999 Dinosaur Dash.
Recommendation: .Pleasure of the City Council.
RECEIVED 23. STATUS REPORT OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY
AND FILED FOUNDATION
The President and Executive Director of the Tustin
Community Foundation will make a ,presentation to the
City Council on the state of the Foundation and their
1998 achievements.
Recommendation:. Pleasure of the City Council.
Action Agenda —City Council August 2, 1999— Page 6
PUBLIC INPUT
RON BEAULAC: SPOKE IN SUPPORT.'OF THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S FUNDRAISING EFFORTS
OTHER BUSINESS / COMMITTEE REPORTS
DOYLE: COMMENDED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FOR ASSISTANCE RENDERED DURING AN IRATE CITIZEN
INCIDENT
COMMENDED PARKS AND- RECREATION DIRECTOR FOR
THE EXCELLENT, SPEECH HE WROTE FOR THE SENIOR .
CENTER ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION
SENT,PERSONAL MESSAGES TO.FRIENDS
POTTS: COMMENDED SENIOR CENTER STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS
FOR SUCCESSFUL SENIOR CENTER ANNIVERSARY EVENT
REPORTED CITIES OF TUSTIN AND IRVINE MAY JOINTLY
APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDING FOR PARTIAL COMPLETION.
"OF THE PETERS.CANYON-REGIONAL TRAIL
REPORTED HE HAD
MET WITH THE SOLID WASTE
CONSULTANT, SUBMITTED QUESTIONS TO THEM, AND
COMMENDED COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO 'HAD
SUPPORTED THE BALLOT. MEASURE
SALTARELLI: VERIFIED THAT THE AIR CONDITIONING WAS OPERATING
AT THE SENIOR CENTER.
THOMAS: NOTED THAT TO HIS DISMAY DURING HIS RECENT
VACATION, HE MET ORANGE COUNTY RESIDENTS WHO
WANTED TO DISCUSS THE EL TORO AIRPORT ISSUE
COMMENDED PARKS AND RECREATION- DIRECTOR FOR
'HIS SPEECH WRITING CAPABILITIES
WORLEY: REPORTED DOGGIE BAG'SUPPLY CONTAINERS NEEDED
TO BE REPLENISHED
COMMENDED MARGARETE THOMPSON FOR ' HER
EFFORTS TO INSURE A SUCCESSFUL SENIOR CENTER
ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION
Action Agenda--City Council August 2, 1999— Page 7, '
1
WORLEY: QUESTIONED WHEN THE LIBRARY TASK- FORCE WOULD
BE MEETING. STAFF RESPONDED MEETING WAS
TENTATIVELY' SCHEDULED, FOR LATE - AUGUST-EARLY
SEPTEMBER
REMINDED EVERYONE TO ATTEND THE CONCERTS IN
THE PARK ON-WEDNESDAY EVENINGS
ANNOUNCED CLOSED SESSION - The City Council shall convene in closed
session to confer with the City Attorney pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9 regarding pending
litigation to which the City is a party: Irvine Engineering
Corporation v. City of Tustin, OC Case No. 807812.
8:21 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - The City Council has scheduled a Solid
Waste Services Workshop on August 16, 1999, at 5:30. p.m.
in the Community Center; and the next regular meeting of
the City Council is scheduled for August 16, 1999, at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way.
Action Agenda'—City Council August 2, 1999-- Page 8
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
_ AUGUST 2, 1999
i.
8:21 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
ALL PRESENT ROLL CALL
REGULAR BUSINESS ( ITEMS 1 THROUGH 2 )
APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JULY 19, 1999 REGULAR
MEETING
Recommendation: Approve the Redevelopment Agency
Minutes of July 19,1999.
APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS
Recommendation: .Approve- Demands in the amount of
- $177,669:63.
NONE OTHER BUSINESS
NONE CLOSED SESSION - None
8:21'P.M. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency is scheduled for August 16, 1999, at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way.
- - I
Action Agenda—Redevelopment Agency August 2, 1999—Page 9