HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 CODE AMEND 95-001 02-21-95NO. 2
2-21-95
DATE:
FEBRUARY 21, 1995
Inter-Com
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CODE AMENDMENT 95-001 (CITY OF TUSTIN)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
i .
Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by
adopting Resolution No. 95-23; and
,
Have first reading by title only and intrOduce Ordinance No.
1146, as submitted or revised.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this proj.ect as this is
a Cify initiated project.
BACKGROUND
On January 23, 1995, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
3327 recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment
95-001 which would amend Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9293.
T.C.C. Section 9293 makes provisions related to the effective date
length and revocation procedures of discretionary land use
approvals. However, this Section does not. address the length of
time before a reapplication can be made of a similar project which
has either been conditionally approved or denied.
According to the City Attorney, once a land use approval is final
(either because no appeal is taken or because the City Council acts
on an appeal), a property owner has the right to seek court review
of the City's action within specified time periods. However, since
there are no restrictions on seeking modifications to final project
approvals in the Tustin Zoning Code, owners of land use
entitlements such as conditional use permits and design review
approvals can, in essence, reapply for the same project and renew
their objections to conditions imposed by the City Council or
Planning Commission (Attachment A). While a modification procedure
is desirable to address changed projects, it should not be used to
take "a second bite at the apple" on the same project.
City Council Report
Code Amendment 95-001
February 21, 1995
Page 2
The intent of the proposed amendments are to identify that the
approval, denial or revocation of a discretionary land use permit
could not be reapplied for on the same property for a period of one
year unless the project has been substantially altered. The
proposed amendments would also prohibit a request to modify any
condition of approval related to any fee, exaction or dedication
imposed by a discretionary land use permit unless the request is
accompanied by a significant change in the size or intensity of the
proposed project. Such provisions would ensure that once a
decision on a project has been rendered, and the appeal period has
ended, the decision would be final, unless significant revisions to
a project are proposed which would warrant reconsideration.
A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of
the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin News
and posted at the Tustin City Hall and Police Department. Since
this project effects over 1,000 parcels, notices were not required
to be mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project
site.°
DISCUSSION
In recent months, the Community Development Department has received
several requests for modifications of final conditions of approval
relating to requirements for dedications of property, and payment
of fees and exactions. In most cases, these requests were not
accompanied by any change in the project that would justify
modification of the conditions, but simply represented an attempt
to avoid compliance with a final condition of approval that the
property owner opposed.
A copy of City Code Section 9293 related to the effective date,
length and revocation procedures of discretionary land use
approvals is included in Attachment B. New Subsections (e) and (f)
are proposed to read as follows:
"e Subsequent Applications
For a period of one year following the approval, denial
or revocation of a discretionary land use permit, no
application for the same or substantially similar
discretionary permit for the same site shall be filed.
city Council Report
Code Amendment 95-001
February 21, 1995
Page 3
Modification of Conditions of Approval
No request fOr modifications of any condition of approval
relating to any fee, exaction or dedication of real
property imposed on any land use permit or approval shall
be accepted after the final decision on the land use
permit or approval unless accompanied by a significant
change in the size or intensity of the proposed project."
According to the City Attorney, the proposed amendments places
restrictions on the process for modifying final conditions of
approval. The amendments provide that a property owner may not
seek modification of a condition of approval requiring dedication
of property or the payment of fees or exactions unless the property
owner also seeks approval of a significant modification in the size
or intensity of the approved project.
CONCLUSION
According to the City Attorney, the proposed amendments would
insure that any legal challenge to a final condition of approval
would be filed within the time limits established by state law.
The proposed amendments would not affect a property owner's right
to challenge a condition in a court, and all legal appeal rights
are preserved. Based upon the advise of the City Attorney, it is
recommended that the City Council approve Code Amendment 95-001 by
having first reading by title only and introduce Ordinance No.
1146, as submitted or revised.
Daniel'Fo~, AICP
Senior Planner
Christine ~ont
Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
Attachment A - City Attorney Correspondence
Attachment B - City Code Section 9293
Initial Study/Neg.ative Declaration
Resolution No. 95-23
Ordinance No. 1146
DF :br; mp\CA95001 .df
01-I6-95 03'0!?!',4 FRO~4 t~'.OURK~ 2DF.'.1JFF, SPRA TO '5733113 ?002/002
Proposed Amendments to Zoning Code Regarding Permit Applications and
Modification of Conditions of Approval
Once a land use approval is final (either because no appeal is taken or because the City
Council acts on an appeal) a property owner has the right to seek court review of the City's
action within specified time periocls. However, under the Tustin Zoning Code, because
them are no restrictions on seeking modifications to final project approvals, owners of land
use entitlements such as conditional use permits and design review approvals can, in
essence, reapply for the same project and renew their objections to conditions imposed by
the City Council or Planning Commission. While a modification procedure is desirable to
aclclress changed projects, it should not be used to take "a second bite at the apple" on the
same project.
In recent months, the Community Development Department has received several requests
for modification of final conditions of approval relating to requirements for dedication of
property, and payment of fees and exactions. In most cases, these requests were not
accompanied by any change in the project that would justify modification of the conditions,
Dut simply represented an attempt to avoid compliance with a final condition of approval
that the property owner opposed.
The Code amendment recommended by staff and the City Attorney places restrictions on
the process for modifying final conditions of approval. The amendment provides that a
property owner may not seek modification of a final condition of approval requiring
dedication of property or the payment of fees or exactions unless the property owner also
seeks approval of a significant modification in the size or intensity of the approved project.
This proposed amendment will not affect a property owner's right to challenge a condition
in a final condition in court, and all legal appeal rights are preserved. The amendment will,
however, insure that any legal challenge to a final condition of approval will be filed within
the time limits established by state law.
1100430013
~184_1
ATTACHMENT A
TUSTIN CITY CODE
ZONING
9~92e
e Decision of the Planning Commission
After the conclusion of the public hearing or continuations thereof the Planning
Commission shall grant or deny a permit to modify the application of the re-
strictions established by this Chapter. The Commission, if the applicant for the
variance consents thereto, may change or modify the extent of the variance re-
quested but only if such change or modification constitutes a more restrictive
variance than that requested by the applicant. The granting of a variance ap-
plied for by the plaintiff in an action in eminent domain to acquire the proper-
ty shall be conditioned upon ultimate vesting of title of the property to the
plaintiff. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.34)
RMITS
I a Effective Date of a Permit
No use permit or permit granting a variance shall have any force or effect until
the applicant thereof actually receives such permit designating the conditions
of its issue thereon and signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission. No
permit shall be issued by the City until the time for filing an appeal from de-
cisions of the Planning Commission as provided in Section 9194 hereof has ex-
pired, or, in the event of such appeal, after the final determination thereof by
the City Council. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.35)
b Length of Permits
Any -use permit or variance granted in accordance with the terms of this. Chapter
shall be null'and void if not used within one (1) year from the date of the
approval thereof or within any-longer period of time if so designated by the
Planning Commission or the City Council. (Ord.'No'. 157, Sec. 7.4)
c Revocation of Permits
Any use permit or variance granted in accordance with the terms of this Chapter
may be revoked by the City Council in the manner hereinafter set forth if any of
the conditions or terms of such permits are violated or if the following find-
ings are made:
(1) In connection with use permits: The continuance of the use would be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or would be injuri-
ous or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the
general welfare of the City.
(2) In connection with variances: Continued relief from the strict appli-
cation of the terms of this Chapter would be contrary to the public interest,
safety, health and welfare. (Ord.' ~o. 157, Sec. 7.5)
d Hearing for Revocation of Permits
Before the Council considers revocation of any permit, the Planning Commission
shall hold a hearing thereon after giving written notice thereof to the permit-
tee at least ten (10) days in advance of such hearing. Within five (5) days
REV: 1-83 LU-2-77
ATTACHMENT B
TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 9293d
thereafter, the Commission shall transmit a report of its findings and it~
recommendations on the revocation to the City Council. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.6)
9294 APPEALS
a Appeal of Decisions
Any person may appeal any order, requirement, decision or determination of the
Planning Commission to the City Council in the manner set forth in this section
unless the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission is otherwise specifically de-
clared by ordinance to be final and conclusive. Appeals shall be made in writing
and filed with the City Clerk prior to 5:00 p.m. of the day of the first regular
meeting of the City Council following the Planning Commission action to be
appealed, together with a filing fee in an amount as prescribed from time to
time by the City Council by resolution.
b Finality of Planning Commission Actions
A record of each action of the Planning Commission shall be placed on the agenda
of the City Council at its first regular meeting following the action of the
Planning Commission, together with a copy of the staff report thereon. The ac-
tion of the Planning Commission shall become final unless at said meeting of the
City Council an appeal is requested by the City Council and/or unless an appeal
has been filed by any other person prior to said meeting, as prescribed in para-
graph a above.
c Appeal Procedures
Upon any appeal being duly filed by any person as herein provided or by the City
Council as herein provided, the City Clerk shall set a time for hearing by the
City Council which shall be a date within twenty (20) days of the filing of the
appeal. Notice of such hearing shall be given as set forth in Section 9296 of
this Code. The City Clerk shall also notify the Planning Commission of the
appeal.
d City Council Decision on Appeal
At the close of the hearing on an appeal, the City Council may reverse or modify
the decision of the Planning Commission and/or remand the matter to the Planning
Commission for further proceedings in accordance with directions of the City
Council. If the City Council does not take any action of reversal, modification
and/or remand of the decision of the Planning Commission within sixty (60) days
after the filing of appeal thereon, the Planning Commission's action on the
matter shall be final. (Ord. No. 157, Secs. 8.1, 8.3; Ord. No. 201; Ord. No.
451, Sec. 10; Ord. No. 874, Sec. 2, 11-1-82).
REV: 1-83 LU-2-78
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustit~, CA 92680
(714) 573-3105
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Code Amendment 95-001
Project Location:
City of Tustin, Orange County
Project Description: Add provisions to City Code Section 9293 realted to reapplication
of projects and certain conditions of approval.
Project Proponent: City of. Tustin
Lead Agency Contact Person: Daniel Fox Telephone: 714-573-3115
The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in
accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds:
That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment.
That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project
plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in
Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the
Co.~unity Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the
appropriateness of this Nega0ve Declaration during the re,dew period, which begins with the public
notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. U. pon review by the
Community Development' Director, this review period may be extended i~ deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON ./-~uarw 23., 1995
Date January 3, 1995
NEGDEC. PM5
3704.A
Christine A. Shingleton
Community Development Director
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92680
(714) 573-3105
INITIAL STUDY
BACKGROUND
Name of Proponent ~IT~ C~' '~lJ~-Bd
Address and Phone Number of Proponent
i
Date Check List Submitted
Agency Requiring Check List
Name of Proposal, if applicable C.Z~, c~c5 - ~ ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
ao
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?
15. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
d.
Tile 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?
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 bay, inlet or lake?
YES
I
MAYBE
NO
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mUd slides, ground failure, or similar hazards7
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?
YES
MAYBE
NO -~
bo
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?
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
go
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves?
4. Plm~t Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
o
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?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animal.s .
(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?
YES
MAYBE
N
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate or use of any natural resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewab!e natural resource?
-,
16. 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?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of an area?
$ 2. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for
additional housing?
13. 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?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or ak traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
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:
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. Wi!l 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?
YES
MAYBE
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal remit in:
YES
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (exCluding
mental health)? ~']
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ['--1
18. Solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste requiring
disposal by the City? [---I
19. Aesthetics. W'fll 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? [----I
20. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
21.
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
..
fi. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site? [---]
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object? I [
c. The potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values? I I
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? [--I
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?
bo
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-t6rm impacts will endure well into the
future).
C.
Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (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 effects which will cause
substantial adVerse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.?
YES
MAYBE
me
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SEE ATTACHMENT A
IV. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described in Attachment A attached hereto 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
I~' ~2:2]. (2]4_- Signature
Name (Prim)
Title
INITSTUD. PM 5
3702.A
PART III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES
FOR
CODE AMENDMENT 95-001
BACKGROUND
Tustin City Code Section 9293 makes provisions related, to the
effective date, length and revocation procedures of discretionary
land use approvals. However, this SeCtion does not-address the
length of time before a reapplication can be made of a similar
project which has been either'conditionally approved or denied.
The intent of the proposed amendment is to identify that the
approval, denial or revocation of a discretionary land use permit
could not be reapplied for on the same property for a period of one
year unless the project has been substantially changed. The
proposed amendment would also prohibit a request to modify any
condition of. approval related'to any fee, extraction or dedication
imposed by a discretionary land use permit unless the reqUest is
accompanied by a significant change in the size or intensity of the
proposed project.
The proposed amendments would apply throughout the City. Ail
discretionary land use permits applied for under the provisions of
the proposed amendments would be subject to separate environmental
review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and would be reviewed against the specific merits of that project.
1. EARTH
Items A through G - "No": The proposed code amendment would
not result in changes to existing earth conditions, topography
or ground features. The proposed amendment would clarify and
update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to
reapplication and changes to conditions of discretionary land
use permits. No development would be associated with the
proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
·
AIR
Items A through C - "No": Based on review of AQMD standards
for preparing Environmental Impact Reports, this project would
not result in any degradation to the existing air quality.
The proposed amendment w~]~ ~]~rifv and ,~t~ ~,,~nt
provisions of the Tustin C15y coae related %o reapp±lcan~on
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 95-001
December 29, 1994
Page 2
and changes to conditions of discretionary land use permits.
No development would be associated with the proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
AQMD Standards
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
¸3.
WATER
Items A through I - "No": The proposed code amendment would
not result in any changes to existing water conditions. The
proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions
of the Tustin City Code related to reapplication and changes
to conditions of discretionary land use permits. No
development would be associated with the proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City 'Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
·
·
PLANT LIFE
Items A through D - "No": The proposed code amendment would
not result in any changes to existing plant life. The
proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions
of the Tustin City Code related to reapplication and changes
to conditions of discretionary land use permits. No
development would be associated with the proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
~itiqation/Monitoring Required: None required.
·
ANIMAL LIFE
Items A throuqh D - "No": The proposed amendment would not
result in any changes to existing animal life. The proposed
amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the
Tustin_ City Code related to reapplication and changes to
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 95-001
December 29, 1994
Page 3
conditions of discretionary land use permits~. No development
would be associated with the proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin city Code
Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: None required.
6. NOISE
Items A and B - "No": The proposed code amendment would not
result in any changes to existing noise levels. The proposed
amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the
Tustin City Code related to reapplication and changes 'to
conditions of discretionary land use permits.. No development
would be associated with the proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required.
.
·
LIGHT AND GLARE
"No": The code amendment would not produce new light or
glare. The proposed amendment would clarify and update
current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to
reapplication and changes to conditions of discretionary land
use permits. No development would be associated with the
proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required.
LAND USE
"No": The code amendment would not result in a substantial
alteration of present or planned land uses. The proposed
amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the
Tustin City Code related to reapplication and changes to
conditions of discretionary land use permits. No development
would be associated with the proposal.
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 95-001
December 29, 1994
Page 4
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
Items A and B - "No": The code amendment would not result in
any changes to natural resources. The proposed amendment
would clarify and update current provisions'of the Tustin City
Code related to reapplication and changes to conditions of
discretionary land use permits. No development would be
associated with the proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required.
10. RISK OF UPSET
Items A and B - "No": The code amendment would not increase
risk of upset. The proposed amendment would' clarifY and
update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to
reapplication and changes to conditions of discretionary land
use permits. No development would be associated with the
proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: None required.
11. POPULATION
"No": The proposed code amendment would not increase or
decrease the population of the City. The proposed amendment
would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City
Code related to reapplication and changes to conditions of
discretionary land use permits. No development would be
associated with the proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required:
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 95-001
December 29, 1994
Page 5
12. HOUSING
"No": The proposed code amendment would not create a need for
additional housing. The proposed amendment would clarify and
update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to
reapplication and changes to conditions of discretionary land
use permits. No development would be associated with the
proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Items A throuqh F - "No": The code amendment would not result
in additional vehicular movement or demand for new parking and
no impacts on existing transportation systems or present
circulation patterns are expected. The proposed amendment
would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City
Code related to ~eapplication and changes to conditions of
discretionary land use permits. No development would be
associated with the proposal.
Sources' Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Items A thr ~ :~. ]- - "~i:": The code amendment would not have
an impact on or result in an increased demand for or alter any
public service. The proposed 'amendment would clarify and
update curry-hr provisions of the Tustin City Code related to
reapplicati ...... ~u c~,~,,~,=s to conditions of discretionary land
use permits. No development would be associated with the
proposal.
Sources' PraFcsei Amendment
Tustin City Code
MitiGation".' ~ '~,,r'ir~,, Pe~uired: None required.
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 95-001
December 29, 1994
Page 6
15. ENERGY
Items A and B - "No": The code amendment would not increase
the demand for or consumption of energy. The proposed
amendment would clarify and.update current provisions of the
Tustin City Code related to reapplication and changes to
conditions of discretionary land use permits. No development
would be associated with the proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
16. UTILITIES
Items A through F - "No": The code amendment would not
increase the demand for traditional public utilities, such as
water, natural gas, storm drains or sewers. The proposed
amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the
Tustin City Code related to reapplication and changes to
conditions of discretionary land use permits. No development
would be 'associated with the propOsal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
17. HUMAN HEALTH
Items A and B - "No": The proposed code amendment would not
create new health hazards to those living or working in the
vicinity. The proposed amendment wOuld clarify and update
current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to
reapplication and changes to conditions of discretionary land
use permits. No development would be associated with the
proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required.
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 95-001
December 29, 1994
Page 7
18. SOLID WASTE
"No": The code amendment will not create additional solid
waste. The proposed amendment would clarify and update
current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to
reapplication and changes to conditions of discretionary land
use permits. No development would be associated with the
proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required.
19. AESTHETICS
"No": The code amendment would not impact any scenic vista~0r
view. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current
provisions of the Tustin City Code related to reapplication
and changes to conditions of discretionary land use permits.
No development would be aSsociated with the proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required.
20. RECREATION
"No": The proposal will not create a need for additional
recreational services or impact existing services. The
proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions
of the Tustin City Code related'to reapplication and changes
to conditions of discretionary land use permits. No
development would be associated with the proposal.
Sources: Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required.
Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses
Code Amendment 95-001
December 29, 1994
Page 8
21.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items A through D - "No": The code amendment would not result
in the alteration Or destruction of archaeological sites and
historic buildings, or cause a physical change which will
affect cultural values. The propoSed amendment would clarify
and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related
to reapplication and changes to conditions of discretionary
land use permits. No development would be associated with the
proposal.
Sources:
Proposed Amendment
Tustin City Code
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required.
22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items A throuqh D - "No": The proposed code amendment would
not result in the degradation of the environment. There is no
potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals. There are no cumulative impacts
and there would be no adverse effect to human beings for the
reasons stated above. The proposed amendment would clarify
and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related
to reapplication and changes to conditions of discretionary
land use permits. No development would be associated with the
proposal.
Sources: As Previously Stated
Mitiqation/Monitoring- None Required.
DF :CA95001.ENV
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 95-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT 95-
001 INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City CoUncil finds and determines as follows:
A,
The request to approve Code Amendment 95-001
is considered a "project" pursuant to the
terms of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project and has been distributed for
public review.
C o
Whereby, the Planning Commission and the City
Council of the City of Tustin have considered
evidence presented by the Community
Development Director and other interested
parties with respect to the subject Negative
Declaration.
The Planning Commission and City Council have
evaluated the proposed final Negative
Declaration and determined it to be adequate
and complete.
II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in
compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The
City Council, having final authority over Code
Amendment 95-001, has received and considered the
information contained in the Negative Declaration,
prior to recommending approval of the proposed
project, and found that it adequately discussed the
environmental effects of the proposed project. The
City Council has found that the project involves no
potential for an adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources
and makes a De' Minimis Impact Finding related to
AB3158, Chapter 1206, Statutes of 1990. On the
basis of the initial study and comments received
during the public review process, the City Council
has found that, the proposed project would not have
a significant effect on the environment.
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 'I
Resolution No. 95-23
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on the 21st day of February, 1995.
Mary E. Wynn, 'City Clerk
THOMAS R. SALTARELLI
W3%YOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify
that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing
Resolution No. 95-23 was duly passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of
February, 1995, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
1 ORDINANCE NO'. 1146
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CODE
AMENDMENT 95-001, ADDING SUBSECTION (e),
REGARDING REAPPLICATION FOR DISCRETIONARY LAND
USE APPROVALS, AND SUBSECTION (f), REGARDING
REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL, TO SECTION 9293 OF THE TUSTIN CITY
CODE
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain
as follows:
I .
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. It has been determined that there is a need to
improve processing efficiency for the
reapplication of projects and modifications to
certain conditions of approval; and
S .
The amendments would not have an adverse
affect on the public health, safety and
welfare on residents or businesses of .the
city; and
C.
The amendments would be consistent with the
General Plan in that they would not negatively
impact the orderly growth and development of
the City.
II. The City Council hereby approves Code Amendment 95-
001, adding Subsection (e), regarding reapplication
for discretionary land use approvals, and
Subsection (f), regarding requests for modification
of condition of approval, to Section 9293 of the
Tustin City Code which shall read as followsi
"e
Subsequent Applications
For a period of one year following the
approval, denial or revocation of a
discretionary land use permit, no application
for the same or substantially similar
discretionary permit for the same site shall
be filed.
Modificatibn of Conditions of Approval
No request for modifications of any condition
of. approval relating to any fee, exaction or
dedication of real property imposed on any
land use permit or approval shall be accepted
after the final decision on the land use
permit or approval unless accompanied by a
significant change in the size or intensity of
the proposed project."
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ordinance No. 1146
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
City Council, held on the 21st day of February, 1995.
THOMAS R. SALTARELLI
MAYOR
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1146
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify
that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing
Ordinance No. 1146 was duly and regularly introduced at a
regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of
February, 1995 and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the 21st day of February, 1995, by
the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk