The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 12-02-85 GENDA ACTION AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COI~IISSION REGULAR I~[ETING NOVEI~ER 25, 1985 REPORTS NO. 1 12-2-85 CALL TO ORDER: ~m~EET SPECIFIC PLAN WORKSHOP JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP All Present 7:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL: Present: Weil, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White PLEDGE OF ALLEGXANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. {Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENORR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting November 12, 1985. Approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued all public hearings to December 9th to allow staff to advertise for public hearing. S-O. 2. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-1 Applicant: Initiated by the Planning Commission Action: Recommend to the City Council to amend the City of Tustin Code as it relates to the Professional Office and Industrial Districts to allow school and instructional uses subject to conditional use permits. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Action Agenda November 25, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEJ)i~I~ 3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-2 Applicant: Initiated by the City Council Action: Recommend to the City Council to amend the City of Tustin Code as it relates to commercial parking standards. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-3 Applicant: Action: Initiated by the Planning Commission Recommend to the City Council to amend the City .Code prohibiting the construction and/or operation of toxic waste transfer stations within the city. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner AI)MINISTI~TIVE NAl~FERS Old Business None, New Business None, STAFF CO~ER#S 5. Oral Report on Council actions of November 18, 1985. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development CONNISSION CONCERNS Ron White requested study sessions for the East Tustin Specific Plan. The Commission agreed to meet on December 9th at 6:00 p.m. and December 23rd at 6:00 p.m. McCarthy requested clarification on low cost housing in East Tustin at the workshop. Chair Well welcomed Pat Buttress from South California Edison. ADJOURNMENT Adjgurned at 7:53 p.m. to the 6:00 p.m. December 9th for a study session on East Tustin Specific Plan. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will follow. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COPIPIISSION REGULAR I~E'T'I NG NOVEHBER 25, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN WORKSHOP JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP 7:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. C0NSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting November 12, 1985. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-1 Applicant: Action: Initiated by the Planning Commission Recommend to the City Council to amend the City of Tustin Code as it relates to the Professional Office and Industrial Districts to allow school and instructional uses subject to conditional use permits. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Agenda November 25, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-2 Applicant: Initiated by the City Council Action: Recommend to the City Council to amend the City of Tustin Code as it relates to commercial parking standards. Presentation: Jeff Davis, AssOciate Planner 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-3 Applicant: Action: Initiated by the Planning Commission Recommend to the City Council to amend the City Code prohibiting the construction and/or operation of toxic waste transfer stations within the city. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner AI)MI#ISTRATIVE MATTERS Old Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 5. Oral Report on Council actions of November 18, 1985. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COPlIXSSION CONCERNS ADJOURNFIENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: TH[ PLANNING COBllISSION ~o.~ ~. ~,., co..,, ~,~o..~ ,.,o~,~~' THE FZRST ~EET SPEC[F[C P~N ~RKSHOP Staff and the Planning Center will present its findings and proposed land use plan at the workshop session. The final specific plan text will be completed following results of your input at the workshop. DDL:em Pl nnin Commission SUBaECT: ZONIH& ORBi'HANCE J~EIIOMENT NO. 85-1 1. LOCATION OF PROFESSIONAL, IHSTRUCTIONAL, MOTIVATIONAL SEMINAR SCHOOLS IN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT. 2. LOCATION OF ATHLETIC INSTRUCTIONAL USES IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. RECO~qENDED ACTION: It ts recommended that the Planntng Commission recommend to the City Council the amendment of the Professional Office Olstrtct to allow professional, instructional motivational seminar school uses subject to a conditional use permit. It is also recommended the Commission recommend to the City Council that athletic instructional schools be allowed in the industrial zones subject to a conditional use permit. 8otb of these recommended actions will be forwarded to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. g283. BACKGROUND:' The issues before the Commission are being presented as a result of two separate requests from members of the business community. Each item wtll be discussed Individually. School Uses in the Professional Office District - Upon the request of Dr. Martt Malterre, director of the Professional School of Psychological Studies, staff reviewed the issue of whether or not professional, instructional and/or seminar- type school uses should be permitted, in the Professional Office (Pr) Otstrtct. After being presented with suggested development standards and a recommendation that such uses be allowed subject to a Conditional Use Permit, the Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing for the purposes of amending the Pr District regulations. Athletic Instructional Uses in Industrial Zones - In March 1984, Conditional Use Permit UP 84-7 was approved authorizing a gymnastics school for children at 15411 Redhill. The subject site is located with the Industrial (M) District. The use was at that time permitted in the industrial zone based upon the Euclidean nature of the code. To explain further, schools are (and were at that time) allowed subject to a use permit in commercial zones. At the time of approval, the M District stated that all uses tnthe C-1, C-g, and C-3 commercial districts were also allowed in the M District. Therefore, subject to conditions of approval contained in the use permit, a gymnastics school was authorized. eom munity Development Department Planning Commission Report Pr zone page t~o However, since the approval of the use permit, the M District has been amended removing the clause permitting all uses allowed in commercial districts. The proprietor of the gymnastics school has requested that her business be permitted to expand. Under current code, there is not a procedure available to process the request. Accordingly, the proprietor has requested that the M zone be amended to again allow such uses. ISSUE ANALYSIS: Since the general nature of the two requests instigating code amendments proceedings are clearly different, each district will be discussed separately. Professional Office District Two issues are of concern in considering amending this district: appropriateness of land uses and adequate development standards. In terms of land use, the professional district is a logical zone for instructional uses provided that proper development standards are imposed. Presently, schools are allowed by right in commercial zones creating the potential for parking problems due to conflicting uses. Additionally, such uses reduce available retail sales space in a primarily retail zone classification. However, parking standards in the professional district must be altered in order to accommodate the more intensive parking demand generated by school uses. Therefore, any amendment to the district should include the following standards: a. Professional, Instructional, Motivational and Seminar schools: One (1) space for each two (2) students at maximum enrollment and one (1) space for each instructor, or one (1) space for each 50 square feet which ever will be greater. The logic behind these proposed requirements is that_the Uniform Building Code has a maximum occupancy limit for students in a classroom of one {1) person for every 20 square feet. Thus mathematically at the highest allowed density, the proposed parking requirements would be sufficient to accommodate all students. In addition to increased parking standards, a conditional use permit should be required before any school use is authorized in the Professional Office District. Industrial District As in the case in the professional district, land use and proper development standards are at issue in considering school uses in the Industrial District. First, the industrial areas are appropriate for certain classes, particularly vocational training which requires the use of large equipment. In these instances, parking requirements suggested in the professional district should be imposed. Community Development Department Planntng Commission Report Pr zone page three Also, structures built in the industrial district, as a result of large unobstructed floor space, are appropriate for athletic, instructional schools (e.g., gymnastics, aerobic classes) However, with these type of uses, parking requirements will deviate according to the age of the client served. For example, a gymnastic class for children will not generate demand for long term parking needs. A drop-off or loading zone is more appropriate than requiring additional spaces.Therefore, for uses including instruction of children the following parking standards should be imposed: Off-street parking: one (1) space for each staff member plus one (1) loading space for each eight children. In any event, all school uses in the industrial zone must be approved by a Conditional Use Permit. COMCLUSIOMS: Based upon the information presented to the Commission on October 28, 1985, it is concluded the professional instructional and/or training schools are appropriate uses in the Professional Office District subject to a Conditional Use Permit and increased parking requirements. Further, it is concluded that similar uses, as well as athletic/instructional schools are appropriate in industrial zones subject to a Conditional Use Permit and increased parking requirements. This finding is based on previous approval of such uses under codes previously in force. Therefore, it is recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 85-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2283. c~aAVtIeS~lanner iD:do attach: Report to the Commission (10-28-85) Draft Resolution No. 2283 Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18, 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2283 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 85-1 AUTHORIZING SCHOOL USES, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, IN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (Pr), AND INDUSTRIAL (M) DISTRICTS The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That by the initiation of the Planning Commission a public hearing was scheduled to consider amending the municipal code (Zoning Ordinance Amendment 85-1) to' authorize school and instructional uses in the Professional Office (Pr) and Industrial (M) District. Be That the scheduled public hearing was held on the subject amendment. II, C, That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. D. That the amendment of the municipal code as proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The uses that will be authorized will be consistent with the Tusttn Area General Plan in that they are commercial uses, similar in nature to uses presently permitted by the General Plan and the Tustin Zoning Code. 2. That special parking standards shall be prescribed specifically for school and instructional tyPe uses. 3. That a Conditional Use Permit shall be required prior to the commencement of operation of any school or instructional use in the affected zoning district. E. That Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 85-1 should be approved. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 85-! as follows: A. That Section 9231 of the Tustin City Code be amended to add the following: 9231(3) Conditionally Permitted Uses. The following uses are authorized subject to a Conditional Use Permit: a) Professional, Instructional, Motivational and/or seminar schools. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28, Resolution No. 2283 page two Off-street parking requirements for these uses shall be as follows: One (1) space for each ~o (2) students at maximum enrollment and one (1) space for each Instructor; or, one (1) space for each 50 square feet of occupied area, whichever ts greater. That Section 9242 of the Tusttn City Code ts amended to add the following: 9242(d) Conditionally Permitted Uses. The followfng uses are authorized subject to a Conditional Use Permtt: a) Professional, Instructional, Motivational, Vocational and/or Seminar schools. Off-street parking for the uses shall be as follows: One (1) space for each two (2) students at maximum enrollment and one (1) space for each instructor; or one {1) space for each SO square feet of occupied area, whichever is greater. If, however, classes are limited to children under 16 years of age the parking requirements shall be as follows: One (1) space for each instructor plus one (1) loading space for each eight (8) children. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1985. KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: NOYE~BER 25, 1985 ZONING ORDINANCE ~END~NT NO. 85-2. REVISIONS TO COI~ERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS RECOI~ENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Planntng Commission adopt Resolution No. 2284 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 85-2. BACKGROUND: Based in part upon information presented in the attached report, the City Council has directed that the Planning Commission conduct a. public hearing for the purposes of amending the City Zoning Code as it pertains to commercial parking standards. Initially, the Council directive only addressed parking standards for office uses. However, staff considers this an appropriate time to upgrade parking standards in the industrial districts as well as the commercial/office zones. Current parking standards for office and industrial uses are illustrated in Table 1. DISCUSSION: As indicated in the report to the City Council dated October 21, 1985, it is recommended that the parking standards for office uses in commercial districts be changed to require one (1) parking space for every 250 gross square feet of building area in lieu of the 1:300 ratio currently in use. Additionally, it is recommended that in Industrial Districts, the parking standards be made consistent with the Planned Community Industrial District by adopting the following standards: Corn munity Development Department Planning Commission Report Parking page two TABLE 1 Existing Parking Standards by Use/Zone C-1/C-2 CG Industrial and Planned Planned Indus. Community Indus. Office 1 space: ! space: 1 space: I space: 300 sq.ft. 300 sq.ft. 2000 sq.ft, or 250 sq. ft. 2 spaces for ea.3 employees whichever is greater Manufacturing/ n/a I space: I space: ! space: Assembly/R&D 500 sq. ft. 2000 sq.ft, or) 500 sq.ft, or 2 spaces for 2 spaces for ea.3 employees ea. 3 employees whichever is whichever is ,greater greater Warehouse/ n/a n/a I1 space: Storage 2000 sq.ft, or 2 spaces for ea.3 employees whichever is greater Community Development Department Parking page three a. Office One (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. b. Manufacture, Research and Assembly Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than two (2) spaces for each t,O00 square feet of gross floor area. c. Warehouse Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than one (1) space for each 1,O00 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet; one (1) space for each 2,000 for the second 20,000 square feet of gross floor area; one (1) space for each 4,000 square feet of gross floor area for areas in excess of the initial 40,000 square feet of floor area of the building. If there is more than one (1) shift, the number of employees on the largest shift shall be used in determining parking requirements. CONCLUSZONS: By adopting the changes in parking standards as recommended in this report, a city-wide parking program will be in place providing consistent, uniform requirements by land use irrespective of zone district. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 2284 as drafted. JD:do attach: Memorandum to City Council (10/2~/85) Draft Resolution No. 2284 Community Development Department TO: FROM: SU BJ ECT: HONORABLE ~AYOR AND CITY COUNCIL C91~UNITY DEYELOPHENT DEPARTMENT CONHERCIAL OFFICE PARKING STANDARDS R£COI~ENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission has requested that the City Council advertise for a zone amendment to the parking standards for professional offices. BACKGROUND: Earlier this year, staff submitted a report to the City Council analyzing the commercial office standards and recommending applicable changes. Discussions from the Council raised the question if there should be a different parking standard for projects over lO,O00 square feet. Specifically, should the number of spaces per 1,000 square feet be less restrictive for larger office buildings. DISCUSSION: In evaluating the proposal of a split parking standard based on square footage, there should be some correlation between parking impact and larger office buildings to allow for an "economy of scale" with the larger buildings. Staff utilized a study done by Internation Parking Design {IPD) and another study by the City of Irvine to test this proposal. The IPD study draws a distinction between low density urban areas and high density urban areas. The report states that high density areas require less parking due to several factors, such as more walk-in and drop off, and less visitor parking due to more interaction from adjoining offices. Further, better public transportation in a higher density area would satisfy some of the parking demand. Conversely, a lower density area would require more parking because this area lacks the intense use qualities of the higher density area. Tustin can be considered a low density urban area, and 1980 census data supports some of the statements of the IPD study. Over 80% of workers drive their own vehicle alone to work, with 14% carpooltng to work with a total of two passengers in the car. That leaves 6% who carpool with three or more passengers. Further, public transportation does not make much of an impact, with only 1.9% of the total workers utilizing public transit as a means to travel to work. Countywide, the total percentage of workers utilizing public transit is 2.06%, slightly higher than Tustin. It would appear from these data, that there would be no "economy in scale", since Tustin does not have any of the features that could promote less parking spaces for mere square footage in a single project. .J City Council Report Commercial Parking Standards page two The City of Irvine recently prepared a comprehensive study regarding parking standards, of which office parking standards was one aspect. Their standard is one space per 250 square feet, with the parking standard changing to one per 500 square feet for on-site parking facilities containing 1,000 or more parking spaces. The report recommended that the parking split after 1,000 or more spaces be dropped since there was no "economy of scale" in parking demand for such uses. The report went on to say that although some large firms have extensive rideshare programs, large buildings do not always contain only large firms. A large building could conceivably house numerous small to medium sized firms, none of which have a rideshare program. The report recommended that all offices be parked at the one space per 250 square feet ratio, with any reductions pursued and Justified through the administrative relief provision. Other cities that include a split parking standard provide little direction to develop a consistent standard. The split in parking standards occurs along a range between 20,000 to 250,000 square feet. In most cases, the parking standard is less restrictive (from 1/250 to 1/500), but in two cases the standard becomes more restrictive after the split (from 1/300 to [/200). From these data, staff would recommend that the zone amendment to a [/250 square foot standard for all office buildings be considered and that it be applied regardless of size. Further, staff recognizes that under some cases a reduction could be considered, and that an applicant could apply for a use permit and pursue any reduction through this process. Senior Planner £K:do Communily Development Deparlment Piannir g C:orn mission OAT[: F'E:BRUARY 2S, lg8S SUBJECT: COI~RCZAL OFT[C[ PAR[IN~ STANDARDS BACXGROUND: The City Council at its meeting on December [8, 1984 directed staff to seek Planning Commission input and study present City parking requirements for commercial zones in the City. Specifically, MaYOr Kennedy wanted the Planning Commission to recommend changes as necessary to the required number of spaces for commercial office projects. Staff prepared a staff report for the January 28, 1985 Planning Commission, outlined the request of the Mayor and requesting input from the Commissioners. The Planning Commission agreed with the intent of study and requested staff to proceed. DISCUSSION: Currently, the City of Tustin Zoning Code has three separate parking standards for commercial offices, distributed over several different zones. The majority of the Citg, {PR, C-1, C-2, CG), has a standard of one space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area. This encompasses all floor area under an enclosed roof, and includes aisles, stairs, elevator shafts and restrooms. The second standard is the Ir¥ine Industrial Complex, Tustin located in the Myford and Walnut area, and has a requirement of one space for each 2S0 square feet of gross floor area. The third standard ts.a part of the Planned Community Regulations for the 1trine Industrial Complex west of Redhill Avenue, between Warner and Valencia, and has a requirement of three parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. In past years, the requirement of one space For each 300 gross square feet has been intrepreted as any area within walls and under a roof. Exterior staircases and walkways were not counted, although if they contained within the structure, they were accounted for as gross square footage. Consequently, developers planned their office buildings with open interior atriums, outside stairs, and aisleways to avoid having the area counted for as barking. Maybe not so coincidentally, this City is well known for open air atriums in its garden style office buildings. Even with this interpretation of what constitutes gross square footage and its subsequent application, the standard of 1/300 is usually adequate for most office uses, but not all. Any office use that is labor intensity, such as insurance agencies, personnel agencies, stockbrokers, title insurance, will usually exceed the city's requirement. For example,the Fireman's Fund building Planning Commission Report Parking Standards page two on Seventeenth Street supplied parking at 1/250 even though the requirement was 1/300, primarily because they knew our standard was not sufficient to supply enough parking. The trend in other cities in Orange County appears to be toward a 1/250 standard. A parking study done by International Parking Design, Inc. surveyed fourteen cities in Orange County, with eleven of these cities having at least a 1/250 standard. An analysis prepared by the firms indicated that a low density urban office building should, based upon use, provide parking between 3/1000 to 5/1000 gross square footage. The report went on to say that although the 3/1000 standard would not be sufficient for some users, such as insurance firms, the uniform application of a 5/1000 standard would severly penalize the low to moderate floor density user, such as a corporate headquarters. It appears from the research that most of the surveyed cities in Orange County felt a 1/250 standard was a suitable median point. One of the negative aspects of this proposed change is the magnitude of non-conforming uses it will create. With the exception of medical offices, nearly all of the professional offices in the city were developed at the 1/300 standard. All of these offices will be frozen at their current square footage, and will not be able to expand without providing parking at the 1/250 standard for the entire building. This impact will not be a major concern since most offices originally developed at the maximum the site would allow, and the City receives few requests to expand square footage. The primary impact will be from structures that are destroyed and those few offices that are able to expand their square footage. Staff would, recommend that any change to the parking requirements be applied to all zones in the city that permit professional offices. R£CO~ENOEO ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission request the City Council to advertise for a zone amendment to the parking standards for professional offices. Senior Planner EK:do Community Developrnem DeparTment J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 '2.1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2284 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE AMENDMENT OF VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That upon direction of the City Council, a public hearing before the Planning Commission for the purpose of amending parking standards for professional office uses was scheduled and held. B. That based upon information presented during the public hearing, parking standards for professional office uses should be amended to require that office developments provide one (1) parking space for each 250 square feet of gross building floor area. Further, that industrial district parking standards should be amended. C. A Negative Declaration has been applied for in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommmends to the City Council approval of the following amendments to the Tustin City Code: A. That Section 923167 be amended to read as follows: "?. Off-Street Parking: One (1) parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. The Planning Commission may prescribe the amount of parking for uses not listed herein." B. That Section g232c2 (fl be amended to read as follows: "(fl Off-Street Parking: Retail Store: I parking space for each 200 square feet of store floor area. Banks and Office Buildings: 1 parking Space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. Restaurants: 1 parking space for each 3 seats. Clinics: I parking space for each 300 square feet plus 1 space for each 2 staff members. Social halls, lodges, clubs, rest homes and theatres: ! parking space for each 3 seats. Launderettes, mortuaries and other similar uses: i parking space for each 200 square feet of store floor area. Medical-Dental Professional uses: 6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. (Ord. No. 495, Sec.2) The Planning Commission may prescribe the amount of parking for uses not lis[ed herein. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24: 25 26, 27 28 Resolution No. 2284 page two That Section gg35f3(b)(2) be amended to read as follows: "(2) Banks and Office Buildings: One (1) parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area, calculated to be all floor space under roof. That Section 9241c(h) be amended to read as follows: "{h) Off-street Parking: 1. Office Standards: One {1) space for each 250 square feet gross floor area allocated for office uses, calculated as all floor space under roof. 2. Manufacturing, Research and Assembly: One (1) space for every 500 square feet gross floor area allocated for Manufacturing, Research and/or Assembly uses,but in no event less than two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees must be provided. If there is more than one shift, the number of employees on the largest shift shall be used in determining parking requirements. 3. Storage and Warehouse: One (1) space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet of area allocated for storage and/or warehouse use; one (1) space for each g,O00 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; one (1) space for each 4,000 square feet in excess of the initial 40,000 square feet, but in no event less than two (2) parking spaces for each (3) employees shall be provided. 4. Landscaping of parking areas shall be in accordance with adopted city standards." That Section 9242 c(c) be amended to read as follows: "(h) Off-street parking: 1. Office standards: One {1) space for each 250 square feet gross floor area allocated for office uses, calculated as all floor space under roof. 2. Manufacturing, Research and Assembly: One (1) space for every 500 square feet gross floor area allocated for Manufacturing, Research and/or Assembly uses, but in no event less than two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees must be provided. If there is more than one shift, the number of employees on the largest shift shall be used in determining parking requirements. 3. Storage and Warehouse: One (1) space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet of area allocated for storage and/or warehouse use; one (1) space for each 2,000 square feet for the second 20~000 square feet; one (1) space for each 4,000 square feet in excess of the initial 40,000 square feet, but in no event less than two {2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees shall be provided. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22I 23, 2~ 27 28 Resolution 2284 page three 4. Landscaping of parking areas shall be in accordance with adopted city standards. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, held onthe day of , 1985. KATHY WEIL, CHAIRMAN DONNA ORR, RECORDING SECRETARY Planning Commission DATE: NOVE#BER 25, 1985 SUB~£CT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 85-3 PROHIBITION OF TOXIC NASTE TRANSFER STATIONS RECDMHENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordnance Amendment 85-3 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2285. BACKGROUND: Upon direction of the Planntng Commission staff has revtewed the.possibility of prohibiting toxic waste transfer stations from being constructed within the city ltmtts. Accordingly, the matter was reviewed with the city attorney's office and it was determined that it is appropriate to prohibit certain uses from being allowed in the city. ANALYSIS: Based upon the proximity of the ctty's Industrial zones to residential and other sensitive zones, tt ts reasonable to determine that the potential adverse impacts of a toxic waste transfer station make such a use incompatible with other uses currently permitted by the zoning ordinance or the Tustin Area General Plan. Particularly when it is considered that the majority of industrially zoned properties are primarily "light industrial" in nature. Therefore, it is recommended that the general regulations section of the city code be amended to establish a section* specifically addressing prohibited uses. Toxic waste transfer stations should be included within this category. If the Planning Commission concurs, this recommendation can be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration by the adoption of Resolution No. 2285. JD:do attach: Resolution No. 2285 Corn munily Development Deparimem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2285 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE TUSTIN CITY CODE BE AMENDED {ZONING ORDINANCE A/4ENDMENT 85-3) PROHIBITING THE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR OPERATION-OF TOXIC WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. The Planning Commission of the city of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: II. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That upon direction of the Planning Commission, a public hearing before the Planning Commission for the purpose of amending the Tustin City Code to prohibit toxic waste transfer stations was scheduled and held. Be That the concentration, storage, processing and/or transportation of hazardous and toxic wastes may pose acute and chronic health hazards to individuals who live and work in the city of Tusttn if exposed to such substances as a result of fires, spills, industrial or traffic accidents, or other types of releases or emissions. Cm That toxic waste transfer stations concentrate the handling and storage of toxic or hazardous wastes in a particular location and caused an increase in the number of vehicles transporting these wastes throughout the city. Dm That because of the proximity of all industrially zoned properties to residential, school, and retail commercial zones, the concentration and transportation of large quantities of toxic or hazardous wastes associated with waste transfer stations make such uses incompatible with other uses in the city. Therefore, toxic waste transfer stations should be prohibited within the city limits. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been applied for in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council the following amendments to the Tusttn City Code by the approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 85-3: Am That Section 9270 of the City Code be amended to add the following: "Section 9270(c) Prohibited Uses - All uses listed in this part, and all matters directly related thereto are declared to be uses possessing characteristics of such unique and special form as to make them incompatible with any other use permitted in any zone classification, and therefore are strictly prohibited. 1. Toxic waste transfer stations." 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2285 page two Be That Section 9297 of the Tusttn City Code be amended to add the fol lowi rig: "Toxic waste transfer station shall mean any location that is used specifically for the storage, handling or preparation of toxic or hazardous wastes for transfer or transport to permanent disposal site. Toxic or hazardous waste means any that is identified in: 1) Sections 25115 and 25117 of the California Health and Safety Code and set forth in Sections 66680 and 66684 of Title 22 of the California Administrative Code; or 2) The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Sections 261.31 - 261.33. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on the day of , 1985. KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning Commission November 25, 1985 SUBOECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - November 18, 1985 Oral presentation to be 91ven by Oona]d D. Lam, Dtrector of Co~____,ntty Development do Attachments: Ctty Counctl Action Agenda - November 18, 1985 Corn munity Development Department ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE 1USTIN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 18, 1985 7:00 P.M. 7:02 I. ALL PRESENT I I. III. APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATION NONE IV. V. APPROVED APPROVED CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARING 1. 12TH YEAR APPLICATION -COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (HCD) Recommendation: Approve submittal of the 12th Year CDBG Application for Fiscal Year 1986-87 as recommended by the Community Development Advisory Board and staff. PUBLIC INPUT CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 4, 1985, REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AJ~OUNT OF $803,565.71 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,439.30 oPROVED STAFF 3. .ECOI~ENDATION APPROVED STAFF 4. RECOI~IENDATION APPROVED STAFF 5. RECOI~qENDATION APPROVED STAFF 6. RECOI~IENOATION APPROVEO STAFF 7. RECOI~qENDATION ~OPTED RESOLUTION 8. NO. 85-115 REJECTION OF CLAIM OF KARYN LYN SMITH; DATE OF LOSS: 9/9/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 10/4/85; CLAIM NO.: 85-45 Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1027 - ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS & RELEASE OF BONDS Accept all public improvements as related to Parcel Map No. 84-1027, and authorize release of bonds in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond No. ASI100460 - $11,500; Labor & Materials Bond No. ASI100460 - $5,750; and Monumentation Bond No. ASI100462 - $125 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 1986 MISS TUSTIN TALENT SHOW & PAGEANT AGREEMENT Approve the agreement for use of City facilities by the Tustin Jaycees; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same as recommended by the Recreation Superintendent. L.'P. REPERTORY AGREEMENT - 1986 PRODUCTION Approve the 1986 Agreement with L. P. Repertory as presented in draft form as recommended by the Director of Community and Adminis- trative Services. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF SANTA ANA FOR SLURRY SEALING OF RED HILL AVENUE IN CONJUNCTION WITH FY 1985-86 SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM Approve subject agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same as recommended by the Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. 85-115 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 85-1 (PHASE II) IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page i 11-18-85 DOPTED RESOLUTION 9. NO. 85-111 ADOPTED 10. RESOLUTION NO. 85-112 ADOPTED 11. RESOLUTION NO. 85-113 ADOPTED 12. RESOLUTION NO. 85-110 ADOPTED 13. RESOLUTION NO. 85-114 RESOLUTION NO. 85-111 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-362 LOCATED AT THE SOUTH- EASTERLY CORNER OF WALNUT STREET AND NEWPORT AVENUE Adopt Resolution No. 85-111 as recommended by the Community Develop- ment Department. RESOLUTION NO. 85-112 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-391 LOCATED AT 2712 DOW AVENUE Adopt Resolution No. 85-112 as recommended by the Community Develop- ment Department. RESOLUTION NO. 85-113 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 12273 (15582 SOUTH "B" STREET} Adopt Resolution No. 85-113 as recommended by the Community Develop- ment Department. RESOLUTION NO. 85-110 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-20 FOR A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT 13201 SILVER BIRCH DRIVE Adopt Resolution No. 85-110 pursuant to City Council action of November 4, 1985. RESOLUTION NO. 85-114 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 85-5, ALLOWING AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING RESTAURANT AT 205 EL CAMINO REAL TO VARY WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE C-2 ZONE Adopt Resolution No. 85-114 pursuant to City Council action of November 4, 1985. VI. INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 952 ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION ORDINANCE NO. 952 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 5340d (PARKING OF VEHICLES OVER 6,000 LBS.) VII. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. If desired: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 952 have first reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 952 be introduced. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION CITY ATTORNEY TO 1. INCORPORATE OIANGES DISCUSSED OF MAKING SMOKING REGULATIONS - ORDINANCE NO. 949 ORDINANCE NO. 949 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A VIOLATION AN TUSTIN AMENDING ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 1 OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE BY INFILRCTION RATHER ADDING PART 2, SECTIONS 4120, 4121, 4122, 4123, 4124, 4125, 4126, 4127, THAJ( A MISDEMEANOR AND 4128, AND 4129, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT TO ESTABLISH A POLICY FOR EMPLOYEES AND CUSTOMERS AND TO POST THE SAME ANO THE ORDINANCE TO HAVE FIRST REAOING ANO INTROOUCTION AT THE NEXT MEETING. VIII. OLD BUSINESS None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 11-18-85 IX. NEW BUSINESS APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATION Xe 1. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - SAN DIEGO CREEK SEDIMENT MONITORING PROGRAM Recommendation: Authorize the execution of subject agreement; and ~'uthorize a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $6,000 for Fiscal Year 1985-86 for Tustin's share of the annual funding as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. REPORTS RATIFIED 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - NOVEMBER 12, 1985 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. RECEIVED AND FILED 2. COUNTY OF ORANGE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE Recommendation: Receive and file as recommended by the Community Devel- opment Department. THE CITY XI. OTHER BUSINESS MANAGER REQUESTED A CLOSED SESSION FOR LEGAL HATTERS. STAFF TO DRAFT A POLICY FOR PACIFIC BELL REGARDING REGULATING THEIR EMPLOYEES HOURS SO THAT IT WILL NOT Ill'ACT TRAFFIC ON RE1)HILL. ISTON TO CHECK ON WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HEET WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD. KENNEDY REQUESTED THAT SIGNS BE POSTED IN TUSTIN NEADOWS WHICH READ 'PLEASE StOW DOWN" BECAUSE THE TPdU:FIC AT REDHILL AND WALNUT IS BACKED UP SO FAR THAT PEOPLE ARE PASSING THROUGH TUSTIN MEADOWS. SALTARELLI INFORMED THE COUNCIL THAT THERE IS A VACANCY ON LAFCO AND THE COUNCIL WILL BE RECEIVING A LETTER TO SUPPORT A CERTAIN APPLICANT. HOESTEREY REQUESTED ll~T THE GRAFFITI AT THE CURVE OF BROWNING AND NISSON WHICH READS "GREG YOUNG= BE REHOVED. GREINKE REPORTED Ti(AT HE HAD A LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM RENEE FARRELL AND HE WOULD LIKE THE COUNCIL TO SEND HER A LETTER OF THANKS. HELEN EDGAR ASKED THE COUNCIL TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AS SHE IS BEING REQUESTED TO RECONSIDER HER RESIGNATION. GREINKE REPORTED THAT THERE WILL BE AN OPENING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ON THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN JANUARY, 1986, AND HE ASKED ROYLEEN WHITE TO PROVIDE SOME SUGGESTIONS. GREINKE REPORTED THAT THERE WILL BE A NEETING REGARDING FOOTHILL AND EASTERN CORRIDOR ANALYSIS AT THE GRANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NEETING ON TUESDAY FROM 7:30 to g:O0 AND THAT HE WAS GOING TO TRY TO ATTEND. SALTARELLI REQUESTED A PROCLAMATION FOR KATHY MONTGOMERY FROM THE REGISTER FOR THE TUSTIN INSERT SECTION. XII. ADJOURNMENT To an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Monday, November 25, 1985, at 6:00 p.m., and thence to the next Regular Meeting on Monday, December 2, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 11-18-85 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR ~ETING OF THE TUSTZN REDEVELOPI~NT AGENCY NOVEMBER 18, 1985 7:00 P.M. 8:46 1. ALL 2. PRESENT APPROVED 3. APPROVED 4. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 4, 1985, REGULAR MEETING APPROVAL OF DEMANDS STAFF RECOI~ENOATION Recommendation: Approve demands for the month of October, 1985, in the amount o-¢-~"~F~Tas recommended by the Finance Director. ADOPTED 5. DESIGN REVIEW - CHELSEA CAFE, INC., 1481 EDINGER - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 85-15 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 85-15 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 85-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APROVING THE DESIGN OF A RESTAURANT AT 1481 EDINGER AVENUE JOPTED 6. ~ESOLUTION NO. ROA 85-14 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. RDA 85-15 as recommended by the Community Development Department. SITE PLAN/DESIGN REVIEW - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE & WALNUT STREET {LA MANCHA DEVELOPMENT) - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 85-14 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 85-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A 9,750 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER TO BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE AT WALNUT STREET Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. RDA 85-14 as recommended by the Community Development Department. APPROVED 7. TRAFFIC SIGNAL - NEWPORT AVENUE AT SIXTH STREET/WALNUT STREET STAFF RECOI~tENOATION Recommendation: Authorize a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $41,500 for a traffic signal installation at Newport Avenue and Sixth Street/ Walnut Street as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. NONE 8. OTHER BUSINESS 8:56 9. ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, December 2, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page I 11-18-85