Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-08-08SPECIAL MEETING -WORKSHOP: THE BROWN ACT BEGAN AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CHAMBER CONFERENCE ROOM MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2008 7:04 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Chair Nielsen Chair Pro Tem Puckett Commissioners Kozak, Murray, and Thompson Staff present Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director David Kendig, Deputy City Attorney Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Alice Tieu, Associate Planner Reina Kapadia, Assistant Planner Brad Steen, Code Enforcement Officer Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary Linda Jennings, PUBLIC CONCERNS 350 South B Street, Tustin Indicated she was speaking as President of the Tustin Preservation Conservancy; presented copies of Carol Jordan's latest book to the Planning Commissioners; asked the Commission to consider signage for Old Town, which will not look like signage in other areas of Tustin, sometime this year and also provide commercial regulations and design guidelines for Old Town. Approved CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 11, 2007, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Murray, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued to the 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL January 22, 2008, USE PERMIT 07-020, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A Planning Commission DENTAL OFFICE WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING meeting FRONTING ONTO EL CAMINO REAL. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 740 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2), WITH COMBINING PARKING DISTRICT (P) ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4079 denying Conditional Use Permit CUP 07-020. 7:07 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Kapadia Presented the staff report. Director Added that the correspondence received January 4th from the applicant's representative was provided the day the agenda packet was sent to the Commission; staff provided copies in the briefcases to the Commissioners. Thompson Asked for clarification for the C-2P zoning designation. Kapadia Replied that the P designates a Parking Overlay District which allows relaxation of some parking standards for certain uses in that district. Thompson Requested clarification as to how the 2006 ordinance was less restrictive than the 1983 resolution. Willkom Stated that, prior to the 2006 code amendment, the provision for office use applied to all C-2 zoning districts; in 2006, the area use was reduced for those properties fronting onto EI Camino Real and Main Street located within the Old Town Commercial land use designation; criteria were included allowing the Zoning Administrator to consider conditional use permit applications for office uses in that district. Thompson Asked if the 12-month lapse rule referred to in the staff report is a provision also within the ordinance, a continued use versus another category. Kendig Responded that the 12-month rule draws from the City's non- conforming use ordinance, which is not the same as the 2006 ordinance related to office uses. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 2 Thompson Requested further clarification regarding the orientation of the property and how that determination is applied. Kendig Stated the ordinance states as follows: "Professional and general offices fronting onto Main Street or EI Camino Real and located within the Old Town Commercial Land Use designation are subject to the rules in this provision." The key language would be "fronting onto Main Street or EI Camino Real"; one of the decisions the Commission is required to make is whether or not the building fronts onto EI Camino Real. Nielsen Asked for the general definition of the City's views as fronting onto a particular street-the entryway to the building, the front-facing part, the largest portion of the building, or what. Director Indicated that a front yard is a different definition from fronting; this property has frontage on both EI Camino Real and EI Camino Way; a front yard is the narrowest portion of the lot fronting on the street; this is not always clear for a corner iot, and a judgment call may be required. Kendig Clarified that the ordinance does not contain a definition of fronting onto; it was necessary for staff to interpret the ordinance by determining what construction of the language would advance the purpose of the ordinance. Thompson Noted the references to feasibility of cost; and, asked if any estimate had been prepared by a licensed professional that substantiates the feasibility issue. Director Replied that staff has not prepared or received any such estimate. Puckett Referred to the letter received from the attorneys dated January 4; and, asked if there was anything substantially different from earlier letters that would require further study by staff. Kendig Indicated there was additional information in the more recent letter; one of the items referenced that the C-2 zone incorporates by reference all of the uses allowed in the C-1 zone and that the C-1 zone permits dental uses; Section 9233, which sets forth the C-2 uses, contains a general incorporation by reference of the C- 1uses and the specific criteria that must be applied to office and business uses in the C-2 zone; the more specific provisions prevail over the general incorporation of other uses. Nielsen Asked for an explanation of the different addresses 705 EI Camino Real and opposed to 740 EI Camino Real. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 3 Willkom Responded that, at the time of the request was presented to the City, there was confusion regarding the address of the property; when staff performed research, the Assessor's parcel number was used to indicate the two addresses were the same property. Nielsen Indicated that the information received from staff suggests the property fronts both on EI Camino Real and EI Camino Way; and, asked if that would be an accurate interpretation. Director Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked how many dental facilities exist in the surrounding retail centers. Director Replied that staff does not have that information; staff can run a Business License check to determine that number. Nielsen Queried whether or not the City has had any recent discussions regarding condemnation of this property. Director Answered in the negative. Nielsen Asked if the City has a strategy to purposely drive down the value of the property so as to acquire it via eminent domain. Director Answered in the negative. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Dr. Mirrafati, property Stated he has practiced in Tustin since 1999; he purchased the owner property three years ago with the intention of moving his practice to this location; after 12 months of discussion, he and City staff were unable to arrive at a workable proposal; he determined it would be necessary to sell the property; after receiving multiple offers that were all rejected by the City; when he purchased the property the address was EI Camino Way; the City requested the change to EI Camino Real; Dr. Mehta made a proposal to purchase the property to relocate his dental office from Larwin Square; there are more than 10 dental offices in the vicinity; Thompson Suggested that the Anderson family, the owners of the engineering firm who sold to Dr. Mirrafati, did not practice in that building. Dr. Mirrafati Responded that Mark Anderson rented back from Dr. Mirrafati for six months after the purchase; his engineering office was there during that time. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 4 Thompson Referred to the letter of August 2, 2004, describing the type of uses the City would look for in that building; and, asked if that letter occurred before or after Dr. Mirrafati purchased the building and what his response was to that letter. Dr. Mirrafati Stated the letter was received after he purchased the building; at that time he was told the building would need to be 50 percent retail; as a cosmetic surgeon, most of his practice is retail; when he and his architect met with City staff, nothing they suggested met with the City requirements; after 12 months of trying to reach an agreement as to what he could do with the building, he realized nothing was going to work and he would need to sell the building. Kozak Asked for clarification regarding his attempt to work with staff on a development proposal for the site as a two story building with office use and retail. Dr. Mirrafati Responded that was his plan, but the City indicated his practice did not involve 50 percent retail; staff suggested a coffee shop or hair stylist for the first floor; those types of use do not fit well with cosmetic surgery. Kendig Asked Dr. Mirrafati if he recalled the exact date he purchased the '~ ~ building in August 2004. Dr. Mirrafati Answered he did not but could get the date. Thompson Asked for clarification regarding the exact Tutorwhiz use. Director Indicated that the City approved a school use, a conditionally permitted use within the C-2 District, with ancillary offices and a minor retail portion; a Zoning Administration Action was approved which is very similar to a Planning Commission resolution that sets forth the conditions of approval; there was also a site plan that articulated the particular uses within the building (Exhibit D attached to the staff report); the use was not to commence until after October 18~' which was when Ordinance No. 1317 was approved. Dr. Mirrafati Stated that Tutorwhiz has offices with a couple of classrooms, a part-time business that is open two nights of the week; a dental office would generate more traffic than Tutorwhiz. Murray Asked for confirmation that the school use was granted based upon a school being a conditionally permitted use. Director Answered in the affirmative. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 5 Puckett Asked Dr. Mirrafati if he currently practices in Tustin. Dr. Mirrafati Answered in the affirmative. Puckett Asked Dr. Mirrafati his reasons for wanting to relocate. Dr. Mirrafati Indicated he wanted a larger space to perhaps add spa amenities to the practice which is not possible in a tucked-away medical office. Puckett Questioned whether Dr. Mirrafati has been willing to move to the building for three years but not been able to reach an agreement with the City. Dr. Mirrafati Stated he had presented multiple plans to the City, spent close to $15,000 in architectural fees, and could not come up with a plan that the City found acceptable. Murray Asked for confirmation that the doctor's discussions with the City began in 2004. Dr. Mirrafati Answered in the affirmative, excepting the six months that Mark leased back from him; he also spent quite a lot to improve the look of the building. Nielsen Asked for clarification regarding the cost factor in changing the use to a dental office. Dr. Mirrafati Replied that the doctor who wants to buy the building was available to answer that question. Nielsen Indicated that his question related to cost and functionality and Dr. Mirrafati's reference to $250,000 for a salon and $600,000 to retrofit the building for retail and relating those figures to a dental office use. Dr. Mirrafati Answered that he assumed it would be about the same; however, as a property owner, he knew he would have to spend approxi- mately $500-600,000 for remodeling; it made no sense for him to spend that sort of money for a possible five-year lease and have the lessee leave at the end of five years. Nielsen Asked if the cost burden would have been on Dr. Mirrafati rather than the salon or coffee house applicants. Dr. Mirrafati Answered in the affirmative; for example, a contractor indicated that it would cost $450,000 to make the improvements requested by Dietrich's. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 6 Nielsen Verified with Dr. Mirrafati that the projects were lease-based. Dr. Mirrafati Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked if there were any retail proposals that were strictly for purchase of the building. Dr. Mirrafati Answered that the offers have been from two dentists and a real estate agent; all fell out of escrow. Nielsen Asked if Dr. Mirrafati had additional documentation that the dental office project would be a more compatible use with the surrounding uses than a retail project would be. Dr. Mirrafati Indicated there are more than 10 dental offices in that vicinity. Murray Referred to the lease-based opportunities mentioned; and, asked if those had been explored. Dr. Mirrafati Answered in the affirmative. Murray Asked for confirmation that the reason for not pursuing those was that it was not financially feasible. Dr. Murrifatti Reiterated that the problem with lease-based tenants would be time; spending $450,000 for improvements and having the tenant leave after five years would not be cost effective. Thompson Referred to the doctor's comment earlier that he wished to move in order to be closer to a retail area. as compared to his comments that retail does not work well with his cosmetic practice. Dr. Mirrafati Clarified that he wanted to relocate to expand his practice from constructive and cosmetic surgery into more cosmetic and add other services to his practice such as massage, facial, Botox, and similar services; adding spa amenities to his present location is not practical because there is no exposure; a spa component requires retail. Thompson Stated that the spa features mentioned would qualify for the retail component. Dr. Mirrafati Reiterated that adding spa amenities did not meet the City's retail requirements. Kozak Asked if any earlier proposals included demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new building on the site. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 7 Dr. Mirrafati Answered there were two different plans; one was to extend the existing building but the parking requirement would not allow that; a second story was proposed but all medical would have to be on the second floor with retail only on the first floor; adding a second story would require demolishing the existing building. Jigar Shah, Century Stated he has been in the real estate business since 1992; 21 Discovery presented data to the Commissioners and staff relating to the goal for the buyer and seller being the same; this property has been on the market since 2005 and has not yet had an escrow close; there have been many inquiries and potential buyers; only two involved retail use; the site is appropriate for a dental use. Rick Crane, the Stated he was hired by Dr. Mehta to develop the site plan, floor applicant's architect plan, and elevations before the Commission this evening; many modifications would be required to convert the building from one use to another such as accessibility, parking, entry access, restroom renovations, etc.; construction modifications converting the structure to a retail building would involve the bearing wall location and the windows would create a shear wall problem; the cost to convert the building just for those items would be a minimum of $175,000; the tenant improvements for retail would be another $175,000; architect fees, engineering fees, permit fees, etc. would be another $50,000; those are rough estimates for minimal conversion to a retail structure. Nielsen Asked what the cost would be for the current building to a dental practice. Mr. Crane Indicated that the conversion costs would be similar to a conversion to retail; the return on the investment is the issue. Thompson Suggested the site plan does not seem to include any exterior improvements. Mr. Crane Responded that his client did not want to spend $15,000 as the previous owner did; additional improvements are planned but Dr. Mehta would like to have the use approved first. Thompson Stated it was unclear to him how it would still be possible to expand the retail use within the existing building to achieve the City's goals. Mr. Crane Replied that question would need to be answered by Dr. Mehta. Thompson Suggested that it would be feasible and practical to do so whether or not Dr. Mehta requests such improvements. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 8 Mr. Crane Responded that Dr. Mehta is committed to some portion of retail as indicated on the plan and in the staff report. Thompson Stated that he understood that but also wondered about a potential additional use outside that adds more functionality to the building. Mr. Crane Asked if Commissioner Thompson was suggesting enlarging the building. Thompson Answered in the affirmative. Mr. Crane Indicated no such discussion has taken place in that regard; his client may not wish to be put in the position Dr. Mirrafati was. Kozak Suggested that it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to make a decision on a conditional use permit that does not work if the Planning Commission cannot know the applicant's plan. Mr. Crane Stated that it is the applicant's intention is to have exam rooms, small retail, and office space similar to what is shown on the submitted plan. Thompson Asked, if the building were torn down and rebuilt with the same footprint, what the cost might be fora 1,700 square foot building. Mr. Crane Answered the cost would be between $300-400 per square foot. Thompson Suggested that would be between $500-650,000. Mr. Crane Answered in the affirmative. Dr. Ashok Mehta, Indicated that to convert the existing building into a dental office applicant could vary from $60-70 per square foot up to $150 per square foot; he has four other dental offices; the latest one in Diamond Bar cost about $200,000 for 2,700 square feet; orthodontia patients come in every two weeks and always have someone with them; Tutorwhiz does not seem like a retail use to him; a dental use would far exceed the traffic generated by Tutorwhiz; his present location is in a retail complex and the owner seems to feel his practice is contributing to the business; he will work with the City to improve this building where he plans to be for a long time. Puckett Asked if Dr. Mehta currently as an office in Tustin Plaza. Dr. Mehta Answered in the affirmative. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 9 Puckett Asked if Dr. Mehta plans to move that practice to the new location. Dr. Mehta Answered in the affirmative. Elizabeth Martyn, Indicated the January 4, 2008, letter was updated from the McCormick, Kidman & December 11, 2007, letter; the January letter is based upon the Behrens, attorneys research from their public records request to better understand the City's ordinances; this application is an exception to the City's requirements; there is a question whether or not the location fronts onto EI Camino Real; the building was placed on the site in 1972 with an office use oriented away from the street for a reason; even if it isn't fronting in the sense defined in the ordinance, that is a factor that needs to be weighed into this equation; the 2006 ordinance was put in place to provide the exception for a building like this; this building is going to sit vacant and create code enforcement problems; it seems better to accept the exception, look at the conditions, and understand that Dr. Mehta is willing to work with staff to find a solution. Linda Jennings, 350 Encouraged the Planning Commission to consider this proposal South B Street, under the 2006 ordinance that restricted the frontage of Main and EI Camino Real to retail; there is a cost associated with rehabilitating Old Town property; the overriding reason the ordinance was passed was to strengthen the financial condition of Old Town Tustin. Nielsen Asked the City Attorney to clarify whether fronting onto EI Camino Way versus EI Camino Real would require a conditional use permit for a dental clinic. Kendig Stated that a professional or general office not fronting on EI Camino Real in the land use designation as a permitted use would not require a conditional use permit. 8:35 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Thompson Indicated he appreciated the background history that has been provided by the property owner and applicant; development is a tough business; the orientation requires more discussion; the application appears to be incomplete regarding what will be happening to the exterior of the building, which is very important; the ordinance was not intended to be used to cause an applicant to rebuild but does intend to stimulate an enhancement; there should be more time put into this application; there must be something feasible that can achieve the applicant's goal without the high dollar amounts mentioned above and appropriate to the ordinances the City has in place. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 10 Kozak Noted that he thought he had reached a point of clarity after reading all the documents; given the presentation by the property owner and applicant regarding the history of this site and other considerations such as the frontage and number of dentists already in that area, it seems the Commission does not have the information necessary to approve or deny this application; the codes and policies are present in order to move forward a vision for Old Town and are very important; even though promises are being made to enhance the site, the Planning Commission does not have that information, which is necessary to make a reasoned judgment for the long term regarding the best interests of Old Town, the community, and the properly owners. Murray Concurred with Commissioners Thompson and Kozak; he has similar concerns; the Planning Commission analyzes the information and tries to come up with the best overall opinion as to how to more forward; one of the important things to consider is remaining business-friendly, to promote financial prosperity within the confines of the rules and regulations; based upon the merits of this proposal and information available, he would have a difficult time making a decision in the applicant's favor; the exterior elements are very important and have not been provided; it is also important to consider whether or not this approval would be an exception. Puckett Stated that he has never been so conflicted; this is a very tough decision and does not seem to be what City staff wants for Old Town; however, considering what the property owner has gone through trying to make this work, he would be in favor of going along with the applicant to give this proposal a try and see how it works out; chances are a dental office would enhance that area. Nielsen Indicated he also spent more hours on this item than any other item during the past five years and thanked the property owner for standing at the podium for so long; this is a unique property and location; he had never noticed this building in his 21 years in Tustin; the facing orientation of the building at this time is towards the parking lot which is closest to EI Camino Way; the staff report indicated that the building fronts onto both streets; depending upon which one is correct, the use is either permitted or not permitted; the applicant provided plenty of information, but it is clear through the use that the intent of the City to have retail in that establishment was very clear from the 2004 letter to the present; the intent of the ordinance is clear in that the City wants to encourage traffic and retail development in Old Town; when staff says this property has two fronting situations, his view goes toward the orientation of the building which is EI Camino Way; on this item, he would be inclined toward the applicant; if the building Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 11 fronts onto EI Camino Way, it should be a permitted use without a conditional use permit; dental clinics do bring in traffic and quasi meet the intent of the ordinance even though the ordinance does not apply in this case. Asked the City Attorney for a decision on how the motion should be presented if the Commission were to approve the use based on the frontage question. Kendig Stated his job was to advise the Commission what is legally required and defer to the Commission to make and decide upon a motion; legally, Commissioner Nielsen would be correct that, if the building fronts onto EI Camino Way, no conditional use permit would be required. Nielsen Indicated that what he was asking was for clarification on a resolution; if a conditional use permit is not necessary, the Commission could vote to decline and proceed to the next step. Kendig Indicated a Commissioner could make a motion to determine the property fronts onto EI Camino Way which could dispose of the issue of the conditional use permit; another Commissioner could make a motion that the application should be continued for more information. Nielsen Suggested that the motion segment the conditional use permit to a design review. Kozak Indicated that his interest was in a design review to accompany the conditional use permit; if the Commission determines that the structure fronts onto EI Camino Way which would dispose of the conditional use permit, the property owner, the City, and the General Plan goals and objections would be in a better position for other opportunities in the future; he would support a motion for a determination of the frontage and recommend that a design review require the applicant to work with City staff for external, structural, or aesthetic improvements to the building and the site which would be brought back for the Planning Commission's consideration. Thompson Asked for clarification regarding the parts of the motion. Nielsen Stated there could be a motion to reclassify that the building fronts onto EI Camino Way and as such the conditional use permit would not be necessary; the other option would be the design review process in order for the Commission to consider the external modifications. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 12 Thompson Indicated he would be in favor of the second option with a timeline that would be acceptable to the applicant; he has concerns regarding EI Camino Plaza which is across the street from this building; half the frontage is EI Camino Real and half is EI Camino Way which would suggest that the shopping center can now become half office space and half retail; the bakery that just completed improvements and invested significantly at the corner of Sixth and EI Camino Real does not front onto EI Camino Real; the frontage question is complex. Murray Agreed that this is a complicated issue; Commissioner Thompson's comment regarding the first part of the motion certainly requires consideration; it is important that more research be completed and the Planning Commission not jump to any conclusions regarding the fronting issue. Nielsen Concurred that Commissioner Thompson's comments opened questions regarding setting a precedent that the Commission needs to consider; there are also questions regarding the vague wording of the ordinance. Asked the City Attorney if this item could be continued to another meeting in order for more fact-finding to occur. Kendig Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked if the Commissioners had further comments. Murray Suggested a continuance might provide the opportunity to fill this loophole in order to avoid this situation in the future. Puckett Asked if issue of the address needs further consideration. Nielsen Stated it was necessary to have a consensus whether or not to continue the item for fact-finding. Commissioners Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Noted that more information could be provided regarding the fronting situation, what precedent might be set for the rest of Old Town, and the applicant's intent for the property. Kozak Suggested that additional information from the applicant could allow consideration of a recommendation or alternative recommendations based on the fact-finding. Ms. Martyn Returned to the podium to state there is some urgency in closing escrow which has been open since September; if the Planning Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 13 Commission could continue the item to the next meeting, that would be appreciated. Nielsen Noted the Planning Commission is concerned with setting a precedent that could perhaps be costly to other merchants and to the City; that must be taken into advisement. It was moved by Murray, seconded by Thompson, to continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting, January 22, 2008. Motion carried 5-0. Continued to the 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-014 AND DESIGN January 22, 2008, REVIEW 07-015, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 7,650 Planning Commission SQUARE FOOT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE meeting AND RESIDENTIAL). THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 170 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2), WITH COMBINING PARKING DISTRICT (P) AND CULTURAL RESOURCES (CR) OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4080, recommending that the City Council approve Design Review 07-015, Conditional Use Permit 07-014, and a waiver of in-lieu parking fees to authorize the construction of a mixed-use development. Director Noted that the applicant requested that the item be continued to the next meeting due to correspondence received today from an adjacent property owner. Nielsen Invited anyone wishing to speak come forward to provide testimony. No one came forward. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Murray, to continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5- 0. REGULAR BUSINESS: Received and filed 4. SIGN CODE UPDATE Since adoption of the new Sign Code in April 2007, the City's education and enforcement efforts have been able to bring most signs into compliance. Code Enforcement staff has seen about an 80 percent decrease in citizen complaints regarding real estate signs. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 14 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file this report. Steen Presented the staff report. Director Explained the reasons for the update and how the enforcement has been working. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Thompson, to receive and file the report. Motion carried 5-0. Received and filed 5. 2007 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANNUAL REPORT The Annual Report summarizes the City's historic preservation efforts and describes how the City met all of the minimum requirements of the Certified Local Government program during the 2006/2007 report period. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file this report. Reekstin Explained the reasons for providing the report to the State. Murray Asked if the report is updated annually. Reekstin Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked if there had been any response by the State. Reekstin Indicated that the State does not typically respond. Thompson Noted that his years spent on the Historic Resource Committee were not included. Reekstin Stated that staff can forward that information as an amendment; that information was included on Commissioner Thompson's resume. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Thompson, to receive and file the report. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 6. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE JANUARY 2, 2008, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 15 Director reported The City Council considered the General Plan Amendment related to the reorganization of the property in Pacific Center East that was brought before the Planning Commission in December related to the Caltrans parcel sandwiched between the City of Tustin and the City of Santa Ana; that Amendment will be forwarded to LAFCO. The City Council considered the Zone Change related to 15571 Red Hill where Panattoni is proposing to locate its operations within our City. The City Council considered the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to amend the conditional use permit related to the Orange County Rescue Mission's proposed medical and dental clinic; that decision was approved to allow the use; the Council amended one of the conditions of approval to allow the City to consider the overall conditional use permit related to the original entitlement and amended conditional use permits regarding any potential traffic or parking impacts related to the operation. COMMISSION CONCERNS Thompson Indicated that this Friday, January 11, marks the 22~d wedding anniversary of he and his wife, Cherie, and wished her a happy anniversary. Kozak Thanked the Deputy City Attorney for the Brown Act workshop. Thanked Linda Jennings for the Carol Jordan book. Thanked staff for their hard work on the first public hearing item this evening, a very challenging item; the process is working and it looks as though things will move in the right direction. Mentioned the location on First Street that does not seem to be within the Tustin Sign Ordinance; and, asked that staff take another look at that situation. Murray Wished everyone a Happy New Year. Thanked Linda Jennings for the book. Thanked staff for their hard work. Noted that traffic at The District has improved; and, asked when the exterior improvements affecting The District (Barranca and Jamboree) are expected to be completed. Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 16 Director Indicated that staff will check with Public Works and bring the information back to the Planning Commission. Murray Indicated that Vestar's efforts in educating the public as to other exits and entrances have been very helpful. Asked if the fish restaurant is still planned at The District. Director Stated that the Blue Water Grill is still proposed. Puckett Thanked Carol Jordan and congratulated her on the book, a tremendous history of Tustin. Thanked Linda Jennings for presenting copies of the Jordan book to the Commissioners. Congratulated his son on his 39th birthday. Noted the Mayor's Inaugural is scheduled for Thursday, February 7, at the Tustin Ranch Golf Club; this is wonderful event and should be attended by all. Nielsen Wished everyone Happy New year. Thanked staff for their hard work on the first public hearing this evening; this was a lot of work but things are moving in the right direction. Thanked Linda Jennings and Carol Jordan for The lllusfrated History of Tustin. Requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of George Stewart, a former Tustin News reporter. 9:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT In Memory of George Stewart The next regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Ja~~ Council Chamber at ~~ fLer r' Charles i . E abet A. Binsack Planning Commission Secretary of the Plan ~ng Commission is ary 22, 2008 7:00 p.m. in the City te-1,~a1 W~ kett, Chairperson Pro Tem Minutes -Planning Commission January 8, 2008 -Page 17