Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 Z.C. 92-004 APPL 01-04-93�;3ainrlmnA PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1 1-4-93 .A TE. JANUARY 4, 1993 Inter -Com .)A TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ZONE CHANGE 92-004 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action and deny Zone Change 92-004 by adopting Resolution No. 93-2, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval to change the current zoning. designation at 14122 Red Hill Avenue from CG (Commercial General District) to C-1 (Retail Commercial District). The subject property is currently developed with a 2,448 square -foot office building on a 11,780 square -foot lot that includes landscaping and seven parking spaces. The applicant is not proposing any additional improvements at this time. The office building had originally been used as a single-family residence. The property owner converted the structure for use as an office for his legal practice in November of 1977. Since that time, the property has also been used as a real estate office and is currently vacant. Surrounding properties to the north and west are designated as C-1 (Retail Commercial District) and are developed with a service station and shopping center, respectively. Apartment projects immediately surround the subject property to the east and south, and have an R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential District) designation. On December 14, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 3104-D denying the subject request. A copy of the draft minutes of that meeting is included in Attachment B. On December 17, 1992, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action (Attachment Q. In conjunction with the Zone Change request, the applicant originally concurrently processed a conditional Use Permit (CUP) to authorize the establishment of a fortune-telling business at the subject location. This request was tabled by the Planning Commission at the December 14, 1992 meeting. In the event that the City Council approves the subject Zone Change, the CUP would be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission. City Council Report ZC 92-004 January 4, 1993 Page 2 A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin News for the December 21, 1992 City Council meeting and was continued to the January 4, 1992 meeting. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site and the Police Department. The applicant and property owner were informed of the availability of a staff report on the matter. DISCUSSION The project site maintains a General Land Use Plan designation of Commercial (C). According to the City's current Land Use Element, this designation is characterized by a variety of miscellaneous retail and commercial service uses. Land uses include the professional office building, private recreation facilities, individual stores and shops, shopping centers, and facilities providing sales and services, including automobile sales and service. Actual permitted and conditionally permitted uses are determined and specifically governed by the Tustin Zoning Code and Map. While the proposed change from CG to C-1 might be considered a more restrictive zoning classification since many of the conditionally permitted uses listed in the GG District are not listed as conditionally permitted uses in the C-1 District, (i.e. amusement and recreation facilities, arcades, vehicle sales, billiard parlors and pool halls, dry-cleaning establishments, fast food restaurants, an animal hospital and outdoor markets), the Planning Commission felt that the proposed Zone Change would also allow on the subject property a number of uses subject to the conditional use permit process which are not presently authorized in the CG District, (i.e. as fortune telling uses, massage establishments, large recycling facilities, convenience stores and commercial parking lots). The Planning Commission would, in any event, maintain discretionary review authority over specific proposals requiring approval of a conditional use permit. In reviewing commercial zoning patterns throughout the City, as identified on the City Zoning Map, it appears that these zoning patterns where put in place to reflect existing and proposed uses defined by the restrictions of the Zoning Code text rather than a logical pattern in all cases. This can be demonstrated best by a number of examples: • In the vicinity of Red Hill and the I-5 freeway, commercial zoning designations include C-1, C-2 and CG (Attachment A-1). City Council Report ZC 92-004 January 4, 1993 Page 3 • In the vicinity of Newport Avenue and the I-5 freeway, commercial zoning designations include C-1, C-2, CG and Planned Community Commercial (Attachment A-2). • Newport Avenue, north of the I-5 Freeway exhibits numerous small commercial properties with differing commercial zoning designations of C-1, C-2, CG and Planned Community Commercial in close proximity of each other and also adjacent to a variety of residential zoning designations (Attachment A-3). • The applicant is currently located at the northwest corner of Newport Avenue and McFadden Street. The commercial zoning designations within this vicinity include C-1 and CG (Attachment A-4). Even with the illogical patterns, however, City Council reports on the fortune telling issue prepared in 1985 indicate that proposed fortune telling uses were restricted to the C-1 and C-2 District with the intent that such businesses would then be more likely located in a commercial center and not necessarily a free-standing building since most commercial centers were located within the C-1 and C-2 Districts. As the City Council may be aware, preliminary progress documents prepared as a part of the City's General Plan Revision Program which is underway have identified issues such as the fragmented land use pattern and lack of design continuity of the City's commercial corridors and the need to focus on "Centers" which provide a greater variety of goods and services and amenities rather than "strip developments". In response to these issues, the proposed land use element will be recommending consolidation of a number of the City's Commercial General Plan land use designations and revision of the City's Zone Map to establish consistency with the proposed land use plan and comprehensive review and revisions by the current development standards in the City's Commercial Zoning Districts. Any review of development standards would particularly concentrate on determining permitted, conditionally permitted uses in any restructured zoning district. The Planning Commission agreed with this approach. Some members of the Commission believed that there was no compelling reason to change the zoning at this time and rezoning should not simply be a response to a specific proposal. Once a revised land use element of the General Plan is adopted sometime in early 1993, a work program will be undertaken to implement specific recommendations contained in the element. The 1992-1993 fiscal budget includes approximately $50,000 for initiation of any necessary zoning map and code updates. - City Council Report ZC 92-004 January 4, 1993 Page 4 Environmental Analysis A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act which would need to be considered should the Council desire to take a positive action on the project. The mitigation measures identified throughout the Initial Study have either been incorporated into the plans or would be imposed as conditions of approval mitigating the potential impacts that this project could have to a level of insignificance. Any changes or elimination of the measures identified and imposed on the project would require re-evaluation of the Initial Study. CONCLUSION Based upon the information in this report and the action of the Planning Commission, it is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action to deny Zone Change 92-004 by adopting Resolution No. 93-2, as submitted or revised. Daniel Fox Senior Planner • r hristine A. Shingleton Assistant City Manager Community Development Department CAS:DF:\zc92004 Attachments: Resolution, No. 93-2 Site Plan Attachments A-1, A-21, A-3 and A-4 Attachment B. Draft PC Minutes, 12-14-92 Attachment C, Applicant's Appeal Initial Study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10l 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 93-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY ZONE CHANGE 92-004 A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14122 RED HILL AVENUE FROM CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT) TO C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That Zone Change 92-004 was submitted to the Planning Commission by Ronnie & Dina Lee for consideration. B. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held on said application by the Planning Commission on December 14, 1992 at which time. the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3104-D, denying .the subject request. C. That the applicant has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action to the City Council related to the subject project. D. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held on said appeal by the City Council on December 21, 1992 and continued to January 4, 1993. E. The proposed Zone Change to C-1 (Retail Commercial District) would allow for a number of uses which are not presently authorized in the CG District under the current designation such as fortune telling uses, massage establishments, large recycling facilities and parking lots. The CG District serves as a buffer between the C-1 District to the north and the R-3 (Multi -family residential) property to the south from these types of uses. F. Illogical zoning patterns have been put into place throughout the City to reflect existing and proposed uses defined by the restrictions of the Zoning Code text rather than by a logical pattern. This can be demonstrated best by several examples in the vicinity of Red Hill Avenue/I-5 freeway, Newport Avenue/I-5 freeway and Newport Avenue, north if the I-5 freeway where the commercial zoning designations include C-1, C-2 and CG Districts. Planned Community Commercial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 93-2 Page 2 designations are also included in these.. areas along Newport Avenue. This type of zoning practice would continue to be perpetuated with the subject zoning request to accommodate a specific use not authorized under the current zoning designation on the property. G. That the General Plan Revision Program which is underway has identified issues such as fragmented land use patterns and lack of design continuity of the City's commercial corridors. The need to focus on "centers" which provide a greater variety of goods, services and amenities rather than "strip" development has been identified in the Revision Program. The Revision Program will be recommending a number of revisions to the City's Zoning Map to establish consistency with the proposed land use plan and comprehensive review and revisions of the current development standards in the City's commercial districts. The proposed zoning request would continue to perpetuate the fragmented land use patterns if not addressed with comprehensive review of the current development standards in the City's Commercial zoning Districts. II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's action and denies Zone Change 92-004, a request to change the zoning designation on the property located at 14122 Red Hill Avenue from CG (Commercial General District) to C-1 (Retail Commercial District) as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of January, 1993. MARY WYNN City Clerk LESLIE ANNE PONTIOUS Mayor EXHIBIT A ZONE CHANGE 92-004 r v MITCHELL � � 14122 RED HILL AVENUE A.P. # 432-031-21 EXISTING ZONING - CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) PROPOSED ZONING - C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) NO TH NO SCALE I Q . z rTiff tt ;. A LLJL lit t ; 1 FL.OT PLAN - ''r"`►cwn s"`wi wwr`. 14122 "now t � � � F11�T11f= GALTfOF�NIA 1 � _ ZONE CHANGE 92-004 • Orp r it �►I NORTH NO SCALE City of Tustin Zoning Map ATTACHMENT A-1 �Q co ZONE C LA NGE 92-004 S 1 R3 CG _C 1 I GAM_INO_ _J - o �� c 3 I - J VIT �ilk D I CG 4000 NORTH NO SCALE City of Tustin Zoning Map ATTACHMENT A-2 C 1000, 1 n 1002 -G� PD CL R3 R3. ST 0 4 ■ R 2 CD cc � N ST wN ROINY I Tf ST 0 + rb R3 4Q CG I Cl co .JOU CAMINO O `L a` V �CJ a C 1 Q 3 �PC-C � wa, - v NORTH NO SCALE ZONE CHANGE 92-004 City of Tustin Zoning Map ATTACHMENT A-3 ZONE CHANGE 92-04 v:xt5nvAcq 015 Loc:ATtog City of Tustin Zoning Map ATTACHMENT A-4 Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT December 14, 1992 Page 2 REPRESENTATIVE/ AGENT: GREER ENGINEERINWVCO. 2323 W. LINCO AVENUE #119 ANAHEIM, CA 801 OWNER: CHEVRON P UCTS INC. P.O. BO 2833 LA , CA 90632 LOCATION: 14 RED HILL AVENUE ZONING: ERCIAL RETAIL (C-1) DISTRICT REQUEST: O MODIFY THE SIGN CABINET OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING POLE SIGN Recomme tion - It is recommended that the Planning Commission appign Code Exception 92-008 by adopting Resolution No. 3108, 21711tted as or revised. issioner Weil moved, Butler seconded to approve the Consent PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Zone Chancre 92-004 & Conditional Use Permit 92-039 APPLICANT: RONNIE & DINA LEE 12262 NEWPORT AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA. 92705 OWNER: JOSEPH A. & NELL E. GENOVESE MICHAEL GENOVESE, ATTORNEY 2123 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660 LOCATION: 14122 RED HILL AVENUE ZONING: CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: 1. CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT) TO C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT); AND 2. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A FORTUNE-TELLING BUSINESS. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Dan Fox, Senior Planner ATTACHMENT B Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1992 Page 3 Commissioner Butler asked if the correct procedure was to split the vote into two sections. Staff replied affirmatively. Commissioner Kasalek asked the anticipated date of finalizing the General Plan. The Director replied that the General Plan should be completed in Spring of 1993, but may fluctuate with Public Hearing involvement; and that $50,000 would be appropriated upon adoption of the plan for a consultant team. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. James Spivey, 1442 Irvine Blvd, #111, Tustin, broker representing the applicants, stated that the owner is not the applicant; that the applicants have a lease with option to purchase; and the owner has agreed to a zoning change with a Conditional Use Permit to comply with the option to purchase; and that the staff recommended a zone change rather than amend the ordinance. Ryan Patch, representing owner of Pinewood Apartments, stated that the apartment owner is opposed to the zone change; that the apart- ments are maintained in above average condition where couples with children reside; that the zone has kept this type of business out of the area; that to change the zone to accommodate the economy defeats its purpose; asked the Commission to delay the CUP if the zone change is approved; and to argue the item at this level may limit the burden on the City Council. The Director responded that any action to approve the project this evening would be recommended to the City Council; and that any decision to deny the project would be final unless appealed to the City Council. Marcie Mayer, 14160 Red Hill Avenue, #113, Tustin, stated that she was concerned with the changes occurring in her neighborhood; that there has been vandalism and robberies at the apartments; that they have multi -faceted residents; that she was opposed to this type of business and the type of character it might attract; and that students pass directly in front of the business. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Weil stated that there was no compelling reason to change the zone; that Red Hill would probably become a commercial Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1992 Page 4 area, but that the CG district is a better buffer for the resi- dents; that a C-1 permitted business would be an inappropriate use for the area; that to change the zoning to accommodate a real estate sale would not be responsible on the part of the Commission; that children pass this on the way to school; and that any permitted uses in the C-1 district would not be appropriate. Commissioner Stracker stated that they needed a compelling reason to make a zone change; that this is a buffer area between the C-1 and residential area; that there are significant controversial uses in the C-1 district; and was opposed to the zone change. Commissioner Butler asked if it was common to deny a request for down -zoning. Staff replied that they did not consider this down -zoning; that each.case is reviewed on its own merits on a case-by-case basis. The Director stated that Tustin is not technically organized in a hierarchial manner, unlike other cities; that there are illogical ways where the Commercial District is applied; that there have been incremental changes made. Commissioner Butler asked when the CG zone was placed on this property; if adjacent properties were C-1 at the time; and if it was zoned CG due to being a freestanding building. Staff replied that it was rezoned from unclassified in approxi- mately 1977; and was unaware of the classification of other buildings at the time. The Director responded that the information was reviewed in 1985 indicating that certain types of buildings should be located in .commercial shopping centers, other than free-standing buildings. Commissioner Butler stated that freestanding buildings may be being restricted from certain businesses; and asked why area was designed for C-1 and C-2 districts. The Director stated that incremental changes had been made to the district boundaries; and that the pattern remains from the 1960's when the area was annexed to the City. Commercial Weil stated that this building was a house in the early 19801s; that the Nisson house was zoned to CG to have compatibility with adjacent homes and that it may be the same for this house. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1992 Page 5 Commissioner Butler asked if changing from CG zone to a C-1 zone would affect single-family homes and apartments; and was not convinced that it would be used commercially. Commissioner Weil stated that it was possible that the usage would not change, but that the Commission needed to be careful; that once the new zone was in place there are new uses allowed with a CUP; that the only way to turn down a CUP is if the applicant has had trouble with the law; and that once changed the Commission would have less discretion. John Shaw, City Attorney, stated that parking, noise, and other usage issues may be reason to deny a CUP; and agreed that discretion would be more limited. Commissioner Butler stated that as the General Plan is consol- idated, the area will be rezoned as C-1; that denying the zone change is sending the message that the City does not want to consolidate to C-1; and that the property is already being used commercially, and will not differentiate much with C-1 change. Commissioner Stracker stated that there is no compelling reason to change; and that they need to look at the overall use until the General Plan is updated. Commissioner Baker asked what was being done about the General Plan in the area. The Director stated that the property is proposed to be designated commercial under the General Plan; that any zoning actions would have to match the patterns in the General Plan; that there are specific recommendations of buffering uses in this category and by Zoning Ordinance amendments would have to show which uses should be outright permitted, prohibited, or temporary; that the Planning Commission could also determine that certain uses are not permitted within certain districts or a certain distance from specific types of uses. Commissioner Baker stated that it is their responsibility to respond to any 'request for a zone change; that there are other free-standing C-1 properties; that buffering is a good idea. Commissioner Butler noted a free-standing building at the corner of Red Hill and San Juan; that the CG property next to C-1 property backs up to residential property; that he feels this will be part of the C-1 zone after the General Plan is approved; that it may be important for the owner to have the zone change now; that he is for Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 1992 Page 6 the zone change; and that there are enough compelling reasons at this time. Commissioner Kasalek stated that there are a lot of fragmented land uses; not convinced the area will become C-1; that she wants time to review the issue; and that she would rather deny the zone change and review at a later date. Staff passed out a draft resolution for the Planning Commission to review prior to taking action. Commissioner Butler stated that he would also like not to restrict property owners use of land; and that he hoped they were not setting a precedent and sending a message that the community could not have free-standing buildings for offices and certain businesses. Commissioner Weil stated that this is why the Commission has discretion; that they weigh each project on its merits; that they are not sending a blanket message. Commissioner Stracker noted a typographical error which was corrected, as moved. Staff recommended tabling so that the applicant has the ability to appeal to the City Council; then the CUP could be brought back. Commissioner Weil moved, Stracker seconded to deny Zone Change 92- 004 by adopting Resolution No. 3104-D revised as follows: Page 2, E, line that reads "would continue to be perpetuated the fragmented" should read "would continue to perpetuate the fragmented" Motion carried 3-2. Commissioners Baker and Butler were opposed. Commissioner Weil moved, Stracker seconded to table Conditional Use Permit 92-039 as it cannot be acted upon without the required Zone Change. Motion carried 5-0. APPLI GROUNDWATER TECHNOLOGY, INC. 000/200 MARINER AVENUE T CALIFORNIA 90503-1670 OWNER: EDGAR E. TRUST 320 WEST MAIN 1 Ise_ 17, 06 RECEIVED DEC 17 X92 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY ATTACHMENT C Y CITY OF TUSTIN. �S Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM I. Background 1. Name of Proponent RnVMA fc. W-0 DiN 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent V 22 b2 _S ms- AA -k#4 g2Zoc� 3. Date of Checklist Submitted `o ct2. 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 'CvSM N CX*-kN4\,)1A l 1 N Dya.X) h � 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable 00-A z GUR 92---"3g II. Environmental Impacts 4 1 (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in Y11 changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion. of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any ban, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emission or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperatures, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C, Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in_any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Yes Maybe No 06, x f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity,of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public v water supplies? I� 4. 5. I-V 7. Yes M_ be No i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants* C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?. d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? --- 14M 9. 10. 11. iWa 13. Yes Maybe No Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 1� Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 7� b. 'Substantial depletion of any �( nonrenewable natural resource? J\ Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand x for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 1� Yes Maybe No e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor v vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? l� 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: x a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Y b. communications systems? Y- C. Water_? d. Sewer or septic tanks? p e. Storm water drainage? . f. Solid waste and disposal? r 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Yes Maybe No Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of.any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity --of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. Does the proposal.have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ---- d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the t t' 1 im act area po en is p • X x X Yes Maybe No 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on -the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental which will cause substantial adverse on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Iv. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: effects effects I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measure described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date ture SECTION 3 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUPPLEMENT - The proposed project is a zone Change to modify the zoning designation from the General Commercial (CG) District to the Retail Commercial (C-1) District for a developed site located at 14122 Red Hill Avenue. The proposed change in designation would allow for the consideration by the Planning Commission of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Fortune Telling business also located at 14122 Red Hill Avenue which is subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in the C-1 District. A Fortune Telling business is not a listed use, either outright permitted or conditionally permitted in the CG District. The change in. designation would not include any new development proposal as the site has been developed with a 2,448 square foot office building and a 7 stall parking lot. The applicant's proposal does not include any further modifications to the property. The project site is situated in an urban setting. Surrounding development to the north and west is commercial and includes a service station and shopping center, respectively. An apartment project immediately surrounds the subject property to the east and south. 1. EARTH - The project would not result in any significant disruption, displacement, compaction or overcrowding of the soil. The site is presently developed and the proposal -does not include any new improvements. Sources: Tustin City Code Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 2. AIR - The project would not result in any degradation of existing air quality based upon SCAQMD guidelines for preparation of EIRs. Should new development occur in the future, or should a future use create impacts, further environmental analysis would be prepared and corresponding mitigation measures implemented. Sources: SCAQMD standards for preparing EIR documents. Tustin City Code Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 3. WATER - The project would not result in any additional change to absorption rates, water movement, flood waters, discharge into surface waters, flow of groundwater, quantity of ground water, water consumption. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: City of Tustin Building Division City of Tustin Public Work's Department Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses ZC 92-004 November 13, 1992 Page 2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 4. PLANT LIFE - The project would not result in any additional change to plant life. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Application Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 5. ANIMAL LIFE - The project would not result in any additional change to animal life. The site is presently developed.and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Application Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 6. NOISE - The project (CUP for a fortune telling business) may result in degradation of existing noise standards. Hours of_ operation would be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. which would be compatible with the adjacent residential uses. In addition, the applicant would need to comply with the City's Noise*Ordinance which. would mitigate this potential impact to a .level of insignificance. Sources: City of Tustin Zoning Code Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required for CUP: a. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. b. The use of the property shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance for commercially zoned property of 60 db(A) at any time (City Code Section 4614(a)). 7. LIGHT AND GLARE - The project (CUP for a fortune telling business) may result in additional change to light and glare since the hour of operation for the business could have a different "peak demand" for the site's previous real estate office use. The site is presently developed and has been previously used for office/commercial activity. In order to ensure that any potential impact is reduced to a level of insignificance, mitigation measures would be required. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses ZC 92-004 November 13, 1992 Page 3 Sources! City of Tustin Security Ordinance Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required for CUP: a. No additional exterior site lighting shall be installed without completion of a photometric study and its submittal to and approval by the Community Development Department. Any lighting shall be designed to confine direct light rays to the subject property and not produce glare on adjacent properties. b. All exterior light fixtures shall be decorative in design, compatible with the architecture of the building and subject to approval of the Community Development Department. 8. LAND USE - The proposal would not result in any substantial alterations to the land use category shown on the City's adopted General Plan Land Use Element. The subject site is developed with at 2,448 square foot free standing building which is setback from residential property approximately 20 feet on the south side yard and 50 feet on the east rear yard. While the proposed change from CG to C-1 might be considered a more restrictive zoning classification since many of the conditionally permitted uses listed in the GG District are not listed as conditionally permitted uses in the C-1 District, (i.e. amusement and recreation facilities, arcades, vehicle sales, billiard parlors and pool halls, dry-cleaning establishments (plant on premises), fast food restaurants, an animal hospital and outdoor markets), the proposed Zone Change would also allow on the subject property a number of uses subject to the conditional use permit process which are not presently authorized in the CG District, (i.e. as fortune telling uses, massage establishments, large recycling facilities, convenience stores and commercial parking lots). In reviewing commercial zoning patterns throughout the City, as identified on the City Zoning Map, it appears that these zoning patterns where put in place to reflect existing and proposed uses defined by the restrictions of the Zoning Code text rather than a logical pattern in all cases. This can be demonstrated best by a number of examples: In the vicinity of Red Hill and the I-5 freeway, commercial zoning designations include C-1, C-2 and CG In the vicinity of Newport Avenue and the I-5 freeway, commercial zoning designations include C-1, C-2, CG and Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses ZC 92-004 November 13, 1992 Page 4 Planned Community Commercial. Newport Avenue, north of the I-5 Freeway exhibits numerous small commercial properties with differing commercial zoning designations of C-1, C-2, CG and Planned Community Commercial in close proximity of each other and also adjacent to a variety of residential zoning designations. The applicant is currently located at the northwest corner of Newport Avenue and McFadden Street. The commercial zoning designations within this vicinity include C-1 and CG. Even with. the illogical patterns, however, City Council reports on the fortune telling issue prepared in 1985 indicate that proposed fortune telling uses were restricted to the C-1 and C-2 District with the intent that such businesses would then be more likely located in a commercial centers and not necessarily a free-standing building since most commercial centers were located within the C-1 and C-2 Districts. Preliminary progress documents prepared as a part of the City's General Plan Revision Program which is underway have identified issues such as the fragmented land use pattern and lack of design continuity of the City's commercial corridors and the need to focus on "Centers" which provide a greater variety of goods and services and amenities rather than "strip developments". In response to these issues, the proposed land use element will be recommending consolidation of a number of the City's Commercial General Plan land use designations and revision of the City's Zone Map to establish- consistency with the proposed land use plan and comprehensive review and revisions by the current development standards in the City's Commercial Zoning Districts. Any review of development standards would particularly concentrate on determining permitted, conditionally permitted uses in any restructured zoning district. Once a revised Land Use Element of the General Plan is adopted sometime in early 1993, a work program will be undertaken to implement specific recommendations contained in the element. Pursuant to City Code Section 3812(b)(1), No.fortune telling business shall be granted a permit unless the property upon which such business is located in the C-1 or C-2 zoning Districts. Should the Zone Change not be approved, the proposed fortune telling business would not be able to be considered on the property as it is presently within the CG Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses ZC 92-004 November 13, 1992 Page 5 District as previously discussed. City Code Sections 3812(b)(2-5) establish minimum distance requirements between fortune telling businesses and certain land uses. The existing building on the subject property satisfies the requirements to be separated by 500 feet from public parks or playgrounds, church or educational institution, adult business, adult hotel/motel, adult theater, massage parlor, figure model studio, adult bookstore, arcade, tatoo parlor or any other fortune-telling business. However, the building is located within 500 feet of properties zoned and occupied for residential use. Pursuant to Section 3812 (b) (2) , the Planning Commission may exercise its discretion to allow the location of a fortune- telling business within 500 feet of residential property if the location will not be detrimental to the public health and welfare. As discussed previously in this report, the 1985 Code Amendment which established fortune telling businesses as conditionally permitted uses within the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts, limited the use to these districts to ensure that such a business would be located within a commercial center and not necessarily in a free standing building. Most major centers are located within the.0-1 and C-2 Districts. The Newport Avenue location was found to be within 500 feet of properties zoned and occupied for residential use. However, it was located within a commercial center. Given the orientation of the applicants current store -front on Newport and McFadden, the proximity of other commercial properties and that the applicant agreed to a limitation on the hours of operation, the Planning Commission previously determined that the proposed business would not be detrimental to the public health and welfare at it's current location. The residential units were also oriented toward "B" Street and did not share access to Newport Avenue with the fortune telling business. The site layout on the subject property is different from the commercial store front location currently occupied. The subject property is a free standing building with parking at the rear of the site immediately adjacent to residential property. Entrances into the building are not exclusively from the Red Hill Avenue frontage as there are building entrances on the south side yard elevation and the east rear yard elevation. The building does not act as a physical barrier between the business and residential property as was the case at the Newport Avenue location. The residential property to the south and east also take access to Red Hill Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses ZC 92-004 November 13, 1992 Page 6 Avenue. The driveway for the residential use is approximately ten feet from the driveway of the proposed. fortune telling business. However, the site is surrounded on the side and rear yards by a solid masonry or combination wood and masonry wall prohibiting access to the site except from Red Hill Avenue. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Sources: Community Development Department Tustin City Zoning Code and Map Tustin General Plan Land Use Element Tustin General Plan Work Program Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required for CUP: a. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. b. Customer access to the building shall be limited to the entrance facing Red Hill Avenue. Informational/directional signs shall be posted in the parking lot providing direction to the front entrance. All such signs shall be in accordance with the Tustin Sign Code and be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. C. All requirements of Tustin City Code Section 3810 et seg.shall be complied with at all times. Any violations thereof will be grounds for initiation of proceedings to consider revocation of the subject Conditional Use Permit. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES - The project would not result in any additional use of natural resources. The site is presently developed and. the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 10. RISK OF UPSET - The project would not result in any additional risk of upset. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: City of Tustin Building Division Orange County Fire Department Exhibit A - Initial Study -Responses ZC 92-004 November 13, 1992 Page 7 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 11. POPULATION - The project would not result in any additional population. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. No residential units would be added or displaced. Sources: Submitted Application Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 12. HOUSING - The project would not result in any additional or reduction in housing. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: Submitted Application Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION - The project would not result in any impacts to the transportation and circulation system within the area. The site is presently developed and .the proposal does not include any new improvements. Commercial trips rates vary significantly by use. A convenience market, which is considered a more traffic intense use, would generate approximately 738 trips per 1,000 square feet. Given the size of the existing building of 2, 448 square feet, this equates to a potential of 1,806 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The proposed fortune. telling, which is considered a specialty retail business, is estimated to generate 50 trips per 1,000 square feet equating to approximately 122 ADT. This is significantly less than other commercial retail uses and would therefore not have an impact on traffic and circulation. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES - The project may require additional public services. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. The Tustin Police Department has indicated that there have been no calls for service at the applicant's existing location 14311 Newport Avenue. However, pursuant to City code Section 3818(c)(2), a $10,000 surety bond is required to be posted with the City which would reduce this potential impact to a level of insignificance. -. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses ZC 92-004 November 13, 1992 Page 8 Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin Public Works Department City of Tustin Police Department Orange County Fire Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required for CUP: The applicant shall post with the City, a surety bond in the amount of $10,000 pursuant to City. Code Section 3818(c)(2). 15. ENERGY - The project would not require any additional energy. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 16. UTILITIES - The project would not require any additional utilities services. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 17. HUMAN HEALTH - The project would negatively effect human health. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: City of Tustin Building. Division Orange County Fire Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 18. SOLID WASTE - The project would not create additional solid waste. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department Submitted Application Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 19. AESTHETICS - The project (CUP for fortune telling business) may impact aesthetics of the area. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Any changes to existing development or a proposal for new development of the site would be subject to Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses ZC 92-004 November 13, 1992 Page 9 the. City's Design Review process which takes into consideration site layout, architecture, landscaping and other project amenities which relate to the physical appearance of the site, including all signs and window coverings, which would reduce this potential impact to a level- of insignificance. Sources: City of Tustin Design Review Ordinance Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: a. All signs, including business identification, window and informational/directional shall comply with the City's Sign Code and subject to Design Review. b. Any improvements which require the issuance of a building permits, including new construction, major exterior alteration, or enlargement of existing structures, shall be subject to the City's Design Review Ordinance pursuant to City code Section 9272 et sect. C. Any exterior alterations of any kind, including painting, shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development prior to commencement of such work. 20. RECREATION - The project would not impact recreation needs of the area. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Application Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 21. CULTURAL RESOURCES - The project would not effect cultural resources of the area. The site is presently developed and the proposal does not include any new improvements. The property is not listed in the City's Historical Survey. Sources: Submitted Application Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required. 22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the environment or habitat of significant animals or periods in California History as the subject site is Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses ZC 92-004 November 13, 1992 Page 10 a developed site. b. The proposed project may have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals in those impact categories checked "Maybe" above (noise, light and glare, land use, public services and aesthetics). The proposed mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study would reduce those potential impacts to a level of insignificance. C. The proposed proj ect may result in cumulative impacts in those impact categories checked "Maybe" above (noise, light and glare, land use, public services and aesthetics). The proposed mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study would reduce those potential impacts to a level of insignificance. d. The proposed project would not result in any adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly based upon the analysis conducted in the preparation of this Initial Study. Sources: Items 1 through 21 of this Initial.Study Submitted Application Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: stated. ZC92004.ENV As previously ROBERT G. BERKE ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICES OF JAMES L ROSENBERG 150 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 1000 LOS ANGELES CA 90010 (213) 385-1307 December 30, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Ronnie Lee 12262 Newport Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 JAMES L. ROSENBER ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICES OF JAMES ROSENBERG 3250 WIISIAIRE BLVD STF 1000 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 We bought our home in North Tustin in 1985 and have lived there ever since My wife opened her business in Tustin in 1986 and we are making Tustin our home We like our city very much and we feel that we are a part of this community Our dream has been to own our own office building I have been searching for several years and it has been very difficult to find anything When this building became available, the first thing I did was to contact the city Community Development Department We received a very positive response from them I came to the city in good faith Our original intent with the city staff's input was to amend the ordinance removing Cl and adding CG When we started negotiations with the owner to purchase thepropertyin question, we stated in the Letter of Intent that we would be amending the ordinance; Letter of Intent dated September 21, 1992 (copies enclosed.) After securing our deal with the owner, we contacted the Community Development Department indicating that we were ready to submit our application. Personnel in the department recommended that we should apply for a Zone Variance rather than amending the ordinance They also indicated that they would give me a positive recommendation. We had positive comments from them all through the application process The original Planner we were working with had several phone conversations with us and walked through the subject property I must emphasize that I had only positive comments from City staff Four days before my Planning Commission hearing, I received a phone call from the Community Development Department that my report to the Planning Commission was ready On my way to pick up the report, I met Ann Bonner in the parking lot of City Hall She told me that she has been pulled off my project She also expressed that she would have liked to finish the project Ann also stated that I did not get a positive report When I questioned why not, she said that a Commissioner received an anonymous phone call She also said that she personally did not get any negative response from the community The Report has several mistakes in it Page 5, paragraph 2 Residential units have been sharing Newport Avenue, six- plex on one side, and a Signal family residence on the other side Photos enclosed (213) 365,1 W7 • • Page 5, paragraph 3 There are no entrances on the south side Section 3. Discussion of environmental evaluation Page 2, numbers 6 & 7 - Hours of operation If anyone would have contacted us, we would have explained that our business hours are 10 a m to 6 p m Monday through Friday, 10 a m till 4 p m Saturday, and closed on Sunday Going back to Page 5, nowhere is it stated that there has been a school near our Newport Avenue location since we first opened I must express that we operate a professional and respectable business I feel that nearly seven years in the city must indicate something positive Thank you for your consideration in reviewing this matter Sincerely, 001 - Ronnie Lee RL lvd • To Wham it May Concern • I wish to submit my letter of support to Mr & Mrs Lee of Tustin. Patricia J Schrenk 1192 Mitchell #83 Tustin, Ca 92680 (714) 730-2057 To Whom it May Concern December 28, 1992 On December 14, 1992 I attended a city planning commission meeting at the Tustin Senior Citizen building There were a number of issued to be settled. I was extremely appalled at the lack of fair representation on both sides The city planners monopolized the whole time alloted and none was given to the people who wanted to buy the property on 14122 Redhill Ave. They kept saying the distance of the boundaries from the apartments, fences, walkways, etc. No chance was given the people interested in the property to speak. This is not fair representation in my understanding of democracy I have been a resident of Tustin since 1973 I have known interested party for seven years They are both fine upstanding people who have served their community as well being very conscientious parents who care alot about the kids in their neighborhood. Mrs Lee has been a member of the Tustin Woman's Club and Mr Lee is still a member of the Tustin Lions Club. If the interested party paid a fee to be able to bring forth their intentions and goals in front of the city planning commission they should have at least equal time to speak! I would think that in order to be a good planning group all sides would have to have fair representation in order to make a fair and educated decision concerning business in their city Mrs Lee has proven to be a fair and good business woman in the services she provides She is honest with her clients and she does not just cater to the low and uneducated people. She has many fine professional people as clients who are lawyers, property managers, police officers, etc. She seeks to give people help spiritually as well as show then the way to prepare for the future. She has alot of insight to people's problems and their need to talk to someone. She even has been in instrumental in saving people from destroying themselves I see no reason she should be denied the opportunity to relocate her business in Tustin. She is in no way detrimental to the apartment complex or the kids that would be walking in front of the office. As I have stated before, she also is a model parent and if half the population would be as good a parent as then all the city would have a lot less juveniles to worry about roaming around in their cities. I strongly urge the city planners to reconsider their one sided decision and give the interested party a chance to have their say and really listen fairly to their propositions. I am sure if there were some reasonable concerns they would be more than happy to cooperate in any way they could so all would be satisfied. I hope this letter will show that I am a concerned city resident and would like to see that all of Tustin's residents can hope for a fair representation of the fine city that they have chosen to either live, work or play A Concerned Tustin Resident Pa icia J Schrenk To Whom It May Concern E 13444 NEWPORT AVE. TUSTIN, CA 92680 (714) 838-5200 December 29, 1992 Mrs Lee's Palm Reader has been a customer of mine approximately three years I would also like it to be known that Mrs Lee supports Tustin business I am aware that Mrs Lee is planning to relocate her business at 14122 Redhill Avenue In these tough economic times I hope that the city will support small business in any way possible pvc, /ley�e� 7470aWILLIAM d MOSES II r/��/ Editor and Publisher POST OFFICE BOX 486, SIX FORTY NINE SOUTH 'B' STREET TELEPHONE 5444110 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 December 23, 1992 TO WfiOM IT MAY CONCERN Mrs Lee, Palm Reader, has been a good customer of The Tustin News for many years In the early part of 1986 Mrs Lee placed her first ad with us and has been advertising consistently since that time The family is looking forward to moving their business to a new location in the Tustin area Sincerely, THE TUSTIN NEWS Judy can Advertising Coordinator