Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 12-16-85TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR ~EETI NG DECEMBER 9, 1985 REPORTS NO. 1 12-16-85 CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION Present: Ed Knight, Jeff'Davis, Irvine Company representatives, public Ed Knight made an oral presentation with questions and answers following. session adjourned at 6:20 p.m. The study 7:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL: Present: Weil, 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. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON l~E 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.) Puckett moved, White seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting November 25, 1985. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-6 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 Puckett moved, White seconded to approve Resolution No. 2283 recommending adoption of ZOA 85-6 to the City Council. Motion carried 5-0. Action Agenda December 9, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) 3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-7 Applicant: Initiated by the City Council Action: Recommend to the City Council to amend the City of Tustin Code as it relates to office parking standards in all applicable zones, Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Puckettmoved, Baker seconded to approve ZOA 85-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2284. Motion carried 5-0. 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-8 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 Puckettmoved, Baker seconded to approve ZOA 85-8 by the adoption of Resolution 2285. ~otton carried 5-0. 5. USE PERMIT 85-28 Applicant: Location: Request: George Hillyard on behalf of Mobil Oil Corporation 17241 Irvine Blvd. To convert an existing 167 square foot sales area to a mini-market. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner Puckettmoved, White seconded to approve UP 85-28 by the adoption of Resolution 2287. Motion carried 5-0. 6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-9 Applicant: Action: Initiated by the City Attorney Recommend to the City Council to amend the City Code to require a Conditional Use Permit for Fortune Telling businesses. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Baker moved, McCarthy seconded to approve ZOA 85-9 by the adoption of Resolution 2286. Motion carried 4-1, Puckett opposed. Action Agenda December 9, 1985 page three Applicant: Action: Presentation: FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by the City Council Recommend to the City Council adoption of the First Street Specific Plan. Jeff Davis, Associate Planner McCarthy moved, White seconded to recommend to the City Council adoption of the First Street Specific Plan by the adoptiOn of Resolution No. 2288 with the amendments discussed during the course of the public hearing. )lotion carried 5-0. AI~IINISTRATIVE MAl-rERS Old Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 8. Oral Report on Council actions of December 2, 1985. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development CO~ISSION CONCERNS McCarthy questioned the status of Bryan Avenue striping study to designate four lanes and left turns between Browning and Newport Avenue. Baker requested the status of the culvert on Bryan {East Tustin). Puckett wondered if there are any fortune telling businesses presently in Tustin. ADJOURNIqENT McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on December 23, 1985 for a study session on East Tustin Specific Plan. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will follow. Motion carried 5-0. AGENDA REGULAR ~ETING DECEMBER 9, 1985 CA_LL TO ORDER: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION Don Lamm will make an oral presentation with questions and answers following. 7:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESEHTATIONS: PUBLIC ~ONCERNS: 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 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 25, 1985. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. ~ING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-6 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 Agenda December 9, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-7 Applicant: Initiated by the City Council Action: Recommend to the City Council to amend the City of Tusttn Code as it relates to office parking standards in all applicable zones. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-8 Applicant: Initiated by the Planning Commission Action: 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 5. USE PERMIT 85-28 Applicant: Location: Request: George Hillyard on behalf of Mobil Oil Corporation 17241 Irvine Blvd. To convert an existing 167 square foot sales area to a mini-market. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner 6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-9 Applicant: Initiated by the City Attorney Action: Recommend to the City Council to amend the City Code to require a Conditional Use Permit for Fortune Telling businesses. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner 7. FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN Applicant: Initiated by the City Council Action: Recommend to the City Council adoption of the First Street Specific Plan. Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Presentati on: Agenda December g, 1985 page three ADNZ#ZSTRATZYE MATTERS Old Business None. ~ew Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 8. Oral Re orr on Counctl actions of December 2, 1985. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development CO/~4ISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to 6:00 P.m. on December 23, 1985 for a workshop on East Tustfn Specific Plan. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting Will follow. MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN WORKSHOP Present: All Council members, all Commission members, Bill Huston, Don Lamm, Jeff Davis, Mary Wynn. A1 Bell and Mark Brodeur, the Planning Center and Matt Disston, Research Network The joint workshop of the City Council and Planning Commission was called to order by Mayor Greinke and Chairman Well at 6:05 p.m. Introductory comments concerning the purpose and scope of the First Street Specific Plan and specific plans in general were given by Don Lamm. Following Mr. Lamm's comments a presentation by the consulting team of A1 Bell, Mark Brodeur and Matt Disston covering land use issues and the market study relating to the First Street corridor. kfter the consultants' presentation a general question and answer period followed with questions revolving around: the possibility of expanding the study area; receiving more detailed information derived from the market study; how development bonuses or incentives will work and the possibility Of including the study area in a Redevelopment Agency project area. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. 7:40 p.m. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONYENED ROLL CALL: Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: .. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting November 12, 1985. McCarthy moved, Baker second to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes November 25, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS Baker moved, White seconded to continue public hearings 2, 3 and 4 to allow staff to publish public notice of the public hearings. Motion carried 5-0. 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 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: Initiated by the Planning Commission Action: 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 ADMINISTRATIVE I~A1-FERS 01d Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 5. 0ral Report on Council actions of November 18, 1985. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COMMISSION 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. Minutes November 25, 1985 page three McCarthy requested clarification on low cost housing in East Tustin at the workshop. Chair Well welcomed Pat Buttress from Southern California Edison. ADJOURNMENT Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to adjourn at 7:53 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. December 9th for a study session on East Tustin Specific Plan. Motion carried 5-0. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will follow. KATHY WEIL, CHAIRMAN DONNA ORR, RECORDING SECRETARY ITEM NO. 2 Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 9, 1985 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 85-6 1. LOCATION OF PROFESSIONAL, INSTRUCTIONAL, MOTIVATIONAL SEMINAR SCHOOLS IN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT. 2. LOCATION OF ATHLETIC INSTRUCTIONAL USES IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. L RECOI~qENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the amendment of the Professional Office District 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. Both of these recommended actions will be forwarded to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2283. BACKGROUND: The issues before the Commission are being presented as a result of two separate requests from members of the business community. Each item will be discussed individually. School Uses in the Professional Office District - Upon the request of Dr. Marti 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) District. 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 in the C-1, C-2, 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. Community Development Department Planning Commission Repor% 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 Planning 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. A~ssociate Planner iD:do attach: Report to the Commission (10-28-85) Draft Resolution No. 2283 Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: SUBdECT: OCTOBER 28~ 1985 LOCATION OF PROFESSIONAL, INSTRUCTIONAL, HOTIVATIONAI. AJID SEJ~INAR SCHOOLS IN l'l{E PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OISTRICT (PR). RECO~ENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission intiate an action to amend the Professional District to allow professional, instructional, motivational and seminar school uses subject to a conditional use permit by a direction that a public hearing be advertised. ISSUE: Dr. Marti Malterre, director of the Professional School of Psychological Studies, has requested that the city zoning code be amended to allow a professional school use in the professional office district. ANALYSIS: Currently professional, instructional, motivational and seminar schools are not allowed in the professional office district. However, business schools which would be a comparable use, are allowed in (C-1) Commercial zones. The location of schools in a commercial zone could present problems such as the loss of space for higher sales tax generation retail uses, or an inadequate number of parking spaces to allow schools in a Commercial Zone. The issue of inadequate parking spaces for schools in a commercial district is currently being reviewed by the planning staff. The major concern with the location .of professional and other schools in any area is the parking demand created by such a use. Currently the parking requirement for professional uses in the PR district is one space per 300 square feet of building space. Although a proposal to increase the requirement to one space per 250 square feet is being considered, the adequacy of this standard for a school use would still be very questionable. In a survey of Orange County cities it was found that only a small percentage allowed a school type use, and then only subject to a conditional use permit. The major reason for the conditional use permit is to assure that adequate parking is provided so parking congestion will not be a problem. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report PR Zone page two CONCLUSION: When considering school uses in the professional office district it is important to note that normally schools will be occupied at a higher density than will offices. Because of this, a higher standard of parking requirements would be advantageous. In the survey of other Orange County cities, a variety of parking standards were found. These standards ranged from one space per 35 square feet to one space per 100 square feet. Another city required one space per each five seats but noted problems have resulted because the requirement was not strict enough. If approved, it is also recommended that the following parking requirements be implemented: Off street parking: (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 conclusion, the location of professional schools in the professional office district would not have an adverse impact to the city if the stated requirements for parking are met. Specifically, because of the fact that business schools are allowed only in commercial zones and as earlier stated could be a disadvantage. Because of these reasons approval of professional, instructional, motivational and seminar schools in a professional zone is recommended. oTM, ciate Planner JD:CH:do Community Development Department 1 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. 85-6 AUTHORIZING SCHOOL USES, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, IN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (Pr), AND INDUSTRIAL (M) DISTRICTS The Planning Commission of the city of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That by the initiation of the Planning Commission a public hearing was scheduled to consider amending the municipal code (Zoning Ordinance Amendment 85-6) to authorize school and instructional uses in the Professional Office (Pr) and Industrial (M) District. B. That the scheduled public hearing was held on the subject amendment. Ce That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ' De 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: The uses that will be authorized will be consistent with the Tustin 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. 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. 85-6 should be approved. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 85-6 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. 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 ~,~ ~3 ~5 26 27 Resolution No. 2283 page two Off-street parking requirements for these uses shall be as follows: One (i) space for each two (2) students at maximum enro]]ment and one (1) space for each Instructor; or, one (1) space for each 50 square feet of occupted area, whichever Is greater. That Section 9242 of the Tustin City Code Is amended to add the following: 9242(d) Conditionally Permitted Uses. The following uses are authorized subject to a Conditional Use Permit: 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 50 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 Cornrnission DATE: SUB,]ECT: DECEHBER 9, 1985 ZONING ORDINANCE AHENDHENT NO. 85-7. PARKING STANDARDS REVISIONS TO CORRERCIAL RECO/~4ENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2284 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 85-7. 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: Community 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 i space: 1 space: i space: 1 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: 1 space: 1 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 1 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 1,000 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 1,000 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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 (10/21/85) Draft Resolution No. 2284 Cornmunity Development Department DATE: TO: FROM: SU BJ EOT: October 21, 1985 OLD BUSINESS HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CO~JUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COI~4ERCIAL OFFICE PARKING STANDARDS RECOI~4ENDED 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 10,000 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 Internatton Parking Design {IPD) and another study by the City of Irvine to test this proposal. The IPD study draws a distinction betwJen 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% carpooling 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. 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 SO0 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 1/200). From these data, staff would recommend that the zone amendment to a 1/250 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 appli.cant could apply for a use permit and pursue any reduction through this process. Senior Planner EK:do Gommunily Developmenl DepaFlmen[ ~ ITEM # 7 Commission DATE: FEBRUA, RY 25, 1986 SUBJECT: CO~ERCIAL OFTICE PAJ~)CING ~-TANDARDS BACXGROUNO: The City Council at its meeting on December 18, 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 Citx, (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 Irvine Industrial Complex, Tustin located in the Myford and Walnut area, and has a requirement of one space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. The third standard is a part of the Planned Community Regulations for the Irvine 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 parking. 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'l/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 CornrnuniLv Development Department ~'/ 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£COI~£NDED 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 Development DeparTment 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 2~ 25 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 follows: resolve as II. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae 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. 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. the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission hereby recommmends to the City approval of the following amendments to the Tustin City Code: A. That Section 923167 be amended to read as follows: A Negative Declaration has been applied for in conformance with Council "7. 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 9232c2 {f) be amended to read as follows: "(f) Off-Street Parking: Retail Store: 1 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: 1 parking space for each 300 square feet plus I space for each 2 staff members. Social halls, lodges, clubs, rest homes and theatres: I parking space for each 3 seats. Launderettes, mortuaries and other similar uses: 1 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. 1 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 C. That Section 9235f3(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. D. 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 ~,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 (3) employees shall be provided. 4. Landscaping of parking areas shall be in accordance with adopted city standards." E. 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. 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 23 ~5 ~6 27 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: DECEMBER 9, 1985 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AIqENDMENT NO. 85-8 PROHIBITION OF TOXIC NASTE TRANSFER STATIONS RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 85-8 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2285. BACKGROUNO: Upon direction of the Planning Commission staff has reviewed the possibility of prohibiting toxic waste transfer stations from being constructed within the city limits. 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 city's industrial zones to residential and other sensitive zones, it is 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 Ho. 2285. JD:do attach: Resolution No. 2285 Community Development Department 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 OV THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO TNE.CITY COUNCIL THAT THE TUSTIN CITY CODE BE AMENDED (ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-8) PROHIBITING THE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR OPERATION OF TOXIC WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Plannlng Commission finds and determines as follows: 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. II. B. 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 Tustin if exposed to such substances as a result of fires, spills, industrial or traffic accidents, or other types of releases or emissions. C. Tha't 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. 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 Tustin City Code by the approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 85-8: A. 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." 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~3 2~ 26 ~7 2sI Resolution No. 2285 page two That Section 9297 of the Tustin City Code be amended to add the fol lowing: "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 ITEM NO. 5 Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY O~NER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DECENBER 9, 1985 USE PERMIT NO. 85-28 MR. GEORGE HILLYARO ON BEHALF'OF MOBIL OIL CORPORATION P.O. BOX 290 DALLAS, TEXAS 75080 ZORRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION C/O MOBIL OIL CORPORATION P.O. BOX 290 DALLAS, TEXAS 75080 17241 IRVlNE BOULEVARD PC-CO~ - PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, SECTION 15303c TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 167 SQUARE FOOT SALES AREA TO A MINI- MARKET RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 85-28 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2287. SUMMARY: This location currently has a Mobil gasoline and service station. The Use Permit, if approved, would allow for the conversion of an existing 167 square foot sales area to a mini-market. This would allow for the sale of prepackaged foods and beverages in addition to the current sales of gasoline and auto repair services, ANALYSIS: The applicant has not requested authorization to sell alcoholic beverages at this time. However, should the proprietor choose to sell alcoholic beverages in the future, another Use Permit will be necessary. Community Development Department Y Planning Commission Report Use Permit 85-28 page two According to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, a ten (10) foot irrevocable offer of dedication is required along Irvine Boulevard. At such time Irvine Boulevard is widened, the front pump island will have to be eliminated. CONCLUSIONS: Since this request meets all requirements of the Tustin City Codes, and the applicant provides an irrevocable offer of dedication of ten feet along Irvine Boulevard, staff considers this Use Permit to be appropriate for this location. LP:em Community Development Department : !t 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 10 20 21 22 24 25 2{i 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2287 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON THE APPLICATION OF MR. GEORGE HILLYARD ON BEHALF OF MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, TO INSTALL A MINI-MARKET AT 17241 IRVINE BOULEVARD. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 85-28) has been filed by Mr. George Hillyard on behalf of Mobil Oil Corporation to authorize the installation of a mini-market in an existing 167 square foot sales area at 172411rvine Boulevard, in conjunction with a retail gasoline and automotive service station. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working tn the neighborhood of Such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: The use is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan and with use end application proceedures of the Zoning Code (Section 9232b). That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin as evidenced by compliance with the City's Zoning and Development standards. Proposed development shall be in a~cordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. That the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act as specified in Section 15303c. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit 85-28 to authorize the installation of a 167 square foot mini-market within the existing sales area at 17241 Irvine Boulevard as applied for, subject to the following conditions: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26! 27 28 Resolution No. 2287 Page ~o A. Compliance ~lth Engineering Department requirements for the following: 1. Any missing or damaged public improvements shall be installed or replaced. 2. Provide an irrevocable offer of dedication of ten (10) feet along Irvine Boulevard. B. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. C. The provisions of the Use Permit do not include authorization for the sale of alcoholic beverages. D. Prior to conversion to the mini-market, a sign plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department. Approval of Use Permit 85-28 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the director of Community Development. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustln, California held on the ~ day of , 198___. KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 6 DATE: SUB,1ECT: DECEMBER 9, 1985 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-9 AUTHORIZING FORTUNE-TELLING BUSINESS IN DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS ' RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 85-9 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2286. BACKGROUND: With the adoption of Ordinance No. 120 in February, 1959, the municipal code was amended to make unlawful the practices of palmistry and fortune-telling. Recently, however, the California Supreme Court ruled that such a blanket prohibition is unconstitutional in that it restricted freedom of speech. The court however, did not preclude local., jurisdictions from establishing appropriate land use restrictions in relation to fortune-telling establishments. Accordingly, the City Attorney's office has drafted appropriate amendments to the municipal code in compliance with the Supreme Court decision and establishing specific regulations governing the operation of fortune-telling businesses. DISCUSSION: Three separate areas of the City Code must be amended to accommodate fortune-telling businesses. Specifically: Sections 9232 and 9233 as they pertain to conditionally permitted uses in commercial districts; Section 2523 as it pertains to business license tax; and a new Section, 3800, as it pertains to specific regulations governing fortune-telling. Although only the sections relating to zoning are within the purview of the Planning Commission, a brief discussion each of the regulating aspects is appropriate. With the amendment of Sections 9232 and 9233, fortune-telling businesses will be in Retail Commercial (C-1) and Central Commercial (C-2) Zoning Districts as conditionally permitted uses. However, contrary to the usual discretionary authority available to the Commission, a conditional use permit must be granted if all other pertinent requirements of the municipal code are met. This is where a discussion of proposed Section 3800 is necessary. As drafted, Section 3800 of the City Code defines fortune-telling, sets procedures for receiving proper licensing and establishes criteria relating to where such businesses can be located. Specifically, no fortune-telling business shall be granted a permit unless the property upon which such business is located: Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Zoning Ordinance Amendment 85-9 page two [) ts classified in the zone of C-! or C-2; and 2) Is not within five hundred (500) feet of any lot zoned for residential use or occupied as a resfdential use; and 3) ts not within five hundred (500) feet of any public park or playground; and 4) Is not within five hundred (500) feet of any lot upon which there is located a church or educational institution which is utilized by minors; and ,~Is not within five hundred (500) feet of any lot on which there located any adult business, adult hotel/motel, adult theater, massage parlor, figure model studio, adult bookstore, arcade, tattoo parlor,~ tavern use or any other fortune-telling business. If a proposed establishment meets these criteria and complies with all other sections of regulatory ordinances (e.g. background checks and posting of surety bonds) the permit must be issued and the business allowed to operate. CONCLUSIONS: In order to implement the required provisions of the municipal code and comply with the mandate of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to amend the zoning ordinances to authorize fortune-telling businesses. The restriction of fortune-telling uses to C-1 and C-2 districts is logical in that most major centers are classified as C-1 or C-2 and afford leased space the 500 foot distance requirement from residential properties. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 85-9 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2286. ,/~s~cl ate Planner JSD:em Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14i 1,5 17 18 19 gO 21 22 25 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2286 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 THE OPERATION OF FORTUNE- TELLING BUSINESSES The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao That a public hearing before the Planning Commission for the purpose of amending the Tustin City Code to authorize fortune-telling businesses as conditionally permitted uses in the Retail Commercial (C-1) and Central Commercial (C-2) Districts was duly called, noticed, and held. That based upon information presented during the public hearing, the C-1 and C-2 Districts should be amended to authorize fortune-telling businesses as defined by the municipal code as conditionally permitted uses. Ce That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been applied for in compliance 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: Ae That Section 9232b of the Tustin City Code be amended to add the following: 9232b(t). Fortune-telling business as defined by Section 3811 of the Tustin City Code. That Section 9233c of the Tustin City Code be amended to add the following: 9233c(z). Fortune-telling businesses as defined by Section 3811 of the Tustin City Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin held on the day of , 1985. KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary · ? Planning Commission DAft: SUBJECT: LOCATION: ACTION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DECEMBER 9, 1985 FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 10) PROPERTIES FRONTING ON FIRST STREET BETWEEN NEHPORT AVENUE AND THE COSTA I~SA FREEgAY RECOI~END TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF LAND USE AND DESIGN REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORiqANCE WITH CEQA RECOI~ENDED ACTION: After conducting the required public hearing, the Commission adopt Resolution No. 2288 thereby recommending to the City Council the adoption of the First Street Specific Plan. SL~IARY: Resulting from several public meetings, City Council and Planning Commission direction, and staff analysis and review, the Draft First Street Specific Plan is now before the Commission for consideration. Once adopted the Specific Plan would regulate land uses and establish design guidelines for all properties along First Street between Newport Avenue and the Costa Mesa Freeway. As proposed, the Plan identifies sub-areas along the corridor, and details categories of land uses that would, be permitted on particular parcels, eg., retail commercial or office. In most cases permitted land uses would not differ from existing zoning. BACKGROUND: Before addressing the proposed Specific Plan, a brief discussion of existing conditions along First Street is in order. Under current zoning regulations, the First Street corridor is to be developed with predominately retail commercial uses. Office uses are only authorized subject to a Conditional Use Permit. , Community Development DeparTment Planning Commission First Street page two Any use permit for office development can only be approved upon finding that an office use would be more compatible with the surrounding area than permitted retail uses. To this point, information supporting or refuting such a finding has not been readily available to property owners. This plan now provides the area-wide economic data necessary to substantiate a land use plan. In 'terms of design and development standards, there are not at present any particular guidelines that require a cohesive compatible pattern along First Street; only the general design review section of the Municipal Code specifying broad non-descrtpt features such as bulk and height. When the difficulty in determining "appropriateness" of uses and lack of design guidelines are combined with the historic sensitivity given to development along First Street, the need for some type of long term land use plan was realized; particularly as pressures for development become an issue. The development of the First Street Specific Plan is the end result of this realization. DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN: As submitted, the draft Specific Plan can be characterized by three general areas: Policies and Goals, Land Use Regulations, and Design Guidelines. Policies and Goals: Sections I, II and IV of the Plan set the tone and general direction of the document. Objectives such as lot consolidation, positive physical appearance, compatibility of land uses, and a balance between maximum economic potential and orderly growth are emphasized. These sections are established to guide development in a direction desired by the community. Accordingly, these sections should be adopted by Resolution (policy) to allow design flexibility as necessary. Land Use and Development Regulations: In contrast to Sections I and II, Section Iii detailing land use regulations should be adopted by Ordinance (law). Once adopted, this section would become the zoning for properties in the project area. Only uses listed in Section III would be authorized, and development standards such as setbacks, site coverage, parking requirements, building heights and landscape requirements can be legally enforced. ~ Corn munity Development Depart ment m~ Planning Commission First Street page three Approval of this document should satisfy issues and concerns raised by Council, Commission and First Street property owners. Implementation of the First Street Specific Plan would allow the corridor to develop in an orderly and balanced fashion while providing property owners greater flexibility in development than presently exists. Specifically, Use Permits would no longer be necessary for any new development project and only required of some future tenants such as those selling alcoholic beverages. J)EF.F/~AV [ S, As~J~iate Planner JD:do attach: First Street Specific Plan Design guidelines Reso. 2288 Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 The 6 $ 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2288 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN-NO. 10) Planning Commission of the city of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That upon direction of the City Council a comprehensive land use study covering properties indicated in Exhibit A attached hereto was commissioned and completed. That as a result of the land use study, a Specific Plan was prepared in accordance with Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code. The Plan is detailed in Exhibits B and C attached. C. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Specific Plan was duly called, noticed and held. D. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. Ee That establishment and implementation of the Plan as submitted, under the circumstances of this case, 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 proposed commercial and office development is consistent in intensity and character with the city's adopted General Plan. Reasonable alternatives to the plan and their implications have been considered. The scope and depth of plan analysis are commensurate with the level of detail contained in the plan and the specificity of land use entitlement its adoption authorizes. The various components of the plan as well as the plan in its entirety are sensitive to the environmental and public policy impacts of the proposed development. Appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated in the plan to insure that concerns identified at this level of planning are resolved as part of the more detailed site plan review which must be completed before private development may proceed. 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. 2288 page two Admtntstratio~-~f the plan is thoroughly integrated into the city's development processing system. All subjects required in a specific plan by the California Government Code and applicable city ordinances are appropriately and adequately covered. e Adequate time and opportunities have been afforded interested organizations and members of the public to comment on or propose changes to the plan if they so desired. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the plan as submitted will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the city of Tustin, and should be approved. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the First Street Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 10) as presented in Exhibits A, B, and C attached hereto be approved in the following manner: That Sections I, II and IV of the Specific Plan be approved as policy documents and adopted by a Resolution of the City Council. That Section III of the Specific Plan be approved as a strong regulatory document and be adopted by an ordinance of the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on the day of , 1985. KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Report to the Planning Commission December 9, 1985 SU8JECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - December 2, 1985 Oral presentation to be gtven by Donald D. La~., Dtrector of Community Development do Attachments: City Counct1Actton Agenda - December 2, 1985 Community Developmen~ Department ,J ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 2, 1985 7:00 P.M. 7:01 I. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL III. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED TO 12-16 1. VOTE: 5-0 TUSTIN URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - RESOLUTION NO. 85-118 RESOLUTION NO. 85-118 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE TUSTIN URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 85-118 as recommended by the Engineering Division. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2. NO. 85-119 VOTE: 5--0 STREET NAME CHANGE OF LAGUNA ROAD TO EL CAMINO REAL - RESOLUTION NO 85-119 RESOLUTION NO. 85-119 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING DESIGNATION OF LAGUNA ROAD BETWEEN 950 + FEET EASTERLY OF RED HILL AVENUE AND BRYAN AVENUE TO EL CAMINO REAL Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 85-119 as recommended by the Engineering Division. CONTINUED TO 12-16 3. VOTE: 5-0 ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 17592 AMAGANSET - RESOLUTION NO. 85-116 RESOLUTION NO. 85-116 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17592 AMAGANSET AVENUE (AP# 401-033-01) CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND HEREBY ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF SAID NUISANCE Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 85-116 as recommended by the Com- munity Development Department. NONE IV. PUBLIC INPUT R~LEEN MITE INVITED ~ERYONE ~ THE FIRST ~NGAL ~EE LIG~ING ~REMONY ~ ~CEMBER 6TH ~ 7 P.M. MAYOR GREINKE RECOGNIZED THE FOOTHILL HIGH SCHOOL CIVIC CLASSES. V. CONSENT CALENDAR APP~VED VOTE: 5-0 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1985, REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 1985, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING i: 5-0 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $330,038.64 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,694.79 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 3. NO. 85-120 VOTE: 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-120 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 85-3 (SOUTH- WESTERLY CORNER OF WALNUT AVENUE AND FRANKLIN AVENUE) CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 1 12-2-85 AP-~ROVED STAFF P~,IENDATION : 5-0 e ADOPTED RESOLUTION 5. NO. 85-117 VOTE: 5-0 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 6. NO. 85-122 VOTE: 5-0 NO PARKING SIGNS ON GREEN VALLEY FOR STREET SWEEPING Reject the request to install no parking signs on Green Valley for street sweeping purposes as recommended by the Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. 85-117 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A SELF-INSURED EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT PAYMENT ACCOUNT AND PROVIDING PROCEDURES THEREFOR Adopt Resolution No. 85-117 as recommended by the Finance Director. RESOLUTION NO. 85-122 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ENDORSING THE "FAIR RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1986" Adopt Resolution No. 85-122 as recommended by the City Manager. VI. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION ADOPTED ORDIN~glCE 1. ADOPTION OF NEW MODEL AMBULANCE ORDINANCE - NO. 953, AND ORDINANCE NO. 955 APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATION, AND INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 955 VOTE: 5..-0 URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 953 ORDINANCE NO. 953 - AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING PART 2, SECTIONS 3421 THROUGH 3429.6, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 3 OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE AND ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OPERATION OF AMBULANCES IN THE INCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 956 VOTE: 5-0 Recommendation: M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 953 have first read- ing by title only. M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 953 be intrOduced. M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 953 have second reading by title only. M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 953 be passed and adopted. (Roll Call Vote requires four-fifths majority.) M.O. - Approve the First Amendment to Agreement to Provide Licensing and Regulation of Ambulance Service and Convalesecent Transport Service; and authorize its execution by the Mayor and City Clerk for submittal to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. ORDINANCE NO. 955 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING PART 2, SECTIONS 3421 THROUGH 3429.6, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 3 OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE AND ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OPERATION OF AMBULANCES IN THE INCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE Recommendation: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 955 have first reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 955 be introduced. 2. REPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM ON FIRST STREET - URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 956 ORDINANCE NO. 956 - AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 936 WHICH ESTABLISHED A DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM ON FIRST STREET Recommendation: M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 956 have first read- ing by title only. M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 956 be introduced. M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 956 have second reading by title only. M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 956 be passed and adopted. (Roll Call Vote. Requires four-fifths vote.) CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 12-2-85 !'"~'~OOUCED ,~NCE NO. 949 : 5-0 3. SMOKING REGULATIONS IN PUBLIC PLACES & PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 949 (Revised Pursuant to Council action of November 18, 1985) ORDINANCE NO. 949 - AN 'ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AMENDING ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER I OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING PART 2, SECTIONS 4120, 4121, 4122, 4123, 4124, 4125, 4126, 4127, 4128, AND 4129, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. If desired: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 949 have first reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 949 be introduced. VII. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 952 VOTE: 5-0 1. PARKING RESTRICTIONS - ORDINANCE NO. 952 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.) Recommendation: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 952 have second reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 952 be passed and adopted. {Roll Call Vote.) VIII. OLD BUSINESS None. IX. NEW BUSINESS APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDTION VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATION VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED STAFF 3. RECO~IENDATION VOTE: 4-0, GREINKE ABSTAINED APPROVED STAFF 4. RF.~O)~ENDATION WITH ON (b) ON PAGE 2 TAFF REPORT ~.~: 5-0 1. BID AWARD - PURCHASE OF ONE TRACTOR MOWER Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of one small tractor mower from O.T.S. Distributors, Orange, in the amount of $8,998.34 as recommended by the Engineering Division. 2. BID AWARD - PURCHASE OF THREE PICK-UP TRUCKS Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of three pick-up trucks (one with utility bed) from Earnest Ford, Inc., Orange, in the amount of $36,632.02 as recommended by the Engineering Division. BID AWARD - ONE 4-WHEEL DRIVE TRACTOR Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of one 4-wheel drive tractor from Cook Tractor, Cerritos, in the amount of $14,453.10 as recommended by the Engineering Division. PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT INTERSECTION OF MOULTON PARKWAY AND MYFORD ROAD Recommendation: Authorize a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $93,500 for the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Moulton Parkway and Myford Road as recommended by the Engineering Division. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 12-2-85 FIED Vu,E: 5-0 REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - NOVEMBER 25, 1985 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. DON I.~ RESPONDED THAT THERE EDGAR ASKED XI. OTHER BUSINESS ABOUT STATUS OF REPORT ON REZONING MAIN STREET. STATUS REPORT FOR THE NEXT NEETING. WOULD BE A EDGAR REQUESTED A WORKSHOP FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET. HUSTON RESPONDED THAT EARLY MARCH WOULD BE A GO00 TIME TO SCHEDULE IT. ~OYLEEN WI(ITE RESPONDED TO EDGAR THAT THE SENIOR CITIZEN COI~MITTEE FOR THE NEW CENTER HAS BEEN MEETING AND HAS NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT YET. THEY PROBABLY WILL HAVE A REPORT IN JANUARY. IT WILL PROBABLY BE 4 TO 6 MONTHS AFTER THAT FOR WORKING DRAWINGS. KENNEDY REPORTED THAT BOTH TUSD HIGH SCHOOLS DID WELL IN THE ACADEMIC DECATHALON. COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT THE CITY MANAGER PREPARE A LETTER OF CONGRATIJLATIONS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD. LEDENDECKER RESPONDED TO SALTARELLI THAT THE SLURRY SEAL PROJECT HAS BEEN DELAYED BECAUSE STAFF HAS REQUESTED THAT THE WORK BE DONE ON THE WEEKEND AND THE RAIN HAS PROHIBITED THEIR WORK. GREINKE REQUESTED THAT A PROC~TION BE GIVEN TO THE BOys CLUB ON THEIR TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY NEXT MONTH. NKE CO~4ENTEO ON THE EXCELLENT OIRISTMAS PARTY, THE SELECTION OF ISABELLE MC: CLEMENTS AS 1,,,. 1~4PLOYEE OF THE YEAR, AND JOHN ORR'S REPORT ON THE EVENT. COUNCIL REAPPOINTED URSULA KENNEDY AS TUSTIN REPRESENTATIVE TO ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT. GREINKE REPORTED TI(AT RENEE FARRELL WILL RElw[AIN AS ~AIRHAN OF THE TUSTIN AREA COUNCIL-1 AND REQUESTED A LETTER OF COI~ENDATION BE SENT TO HER. 7:53 XlI. ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, December 16, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 4 12-2-85 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR ~ETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DECEMBER 2, 1985 7:00 P.M. 7:53 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT APPROVED 3. VOTE: 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1985, REGULAR MEETING IT WAS 4. THE CONSENSUS OF THE AGENCY THAT THIS SHOULD BE FUNDED FROM THE GENERAL FUND. IT WAS MOVED TO TABLE THIS AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS, COMMUNICATIONS CENTER UPGRADE - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 85-16 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 85-16 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMMUNICATIONS CENTER UPGRADE IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FACILITY AND DIRECT- ING THE SECRETARY TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. RDA 85-16 as recommended by the Chief of Police. UNDER THE REDEVELOPRENT AGENCY AND TO RECONVENE AS THE CITY COUNCIL. IT WAS MOVED TO APPROVE TU~g ITEH FROM THE GENERAL FUND. VOTE: 5-0. HOVED TO RECONVENE AS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. ~. ~ 5. OTHER BUSINESS 7:57 6. ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, December 16, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page I 12-2-85