HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1a GPA 84-4A 10-15-84i~UBLIC HEARING
NO. 1
TO:
HONORABi. E KRYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
COIlqUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTTqENT
SUBJECT: GPA 84-4~
APPLICANT:
ZONING:
CURRENT GP:
DANIEL O'CONNOR ON BEHALF OF CORNICHE DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL (P&I)
PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL (P&I)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: APPLICANT HAS PETITIONED FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REQUEST:
A CHANGE FROM PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) TO PROFESSIONAL O~FICE
(PR) -
BACKGROUND:
the subject site is the western portion' of the First Christian Church property
located at 1372 Irvine Boulevrd. The applicant, Daniel O'Connor, is proposing
to purchase an approximate 30,000 square foot site and construct a professional
office structure. The site is currently a vacant lot adjacent to and owned by
the church.
Surrounding land uses include: single family residential to the west and south,
and the church to the east. There are office complexes on the northwest and
southwest corners of Redhill Avenue and Irvine Blvd.
The Planning Commission considered GPA 84-4a at its September 24, 1984 meeting,
and has adopted a resolution recommending to the City Council that this
General Plan Amendment be approved. The resolution of approval has been
enclosed for your review. Staff recommended that the Commission receive public
input, and if so directed, prepare a resolution for Commission approval.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission staff report from the September 24th meeting has been
enclosed for your review. One couple addressed the Commission in regard to the
proposed amendment. Their concern was in regard to sound attenuation and the
Commission responded that this concern could be considered in a subsequent
hearing regarding a zone change or use permit.
City Council Report
October 15, 1984
page two
RECOR~ENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Plannin9 Commission
recommendation and adopt General Plan Amendment 84-4a, by the approval of
Resolution No. 84-82.
· Associ ate Planner
EM:do
Community Development Department
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~3
~4
25
26
~7
~8
RESOLUTION No. 84-82
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL
PLAN FOR THE NORTHWESTERN PORTION OF
1372 IRVINE BLVD., AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A".
The City Council of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. Section 65356.1 of the Government Code of the State of
California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public
interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General
Plan.
B. That in accordance with Section 65356 of the Government Code of
the State of dalifornia, a public hearing was. duly called,
noticed, and held on the' application by Daniel O'Connor on
behalf of Corniche Development to reclassify the land use from
Public & Institutional to Professional for the northwestern
portion of 1372 Irvine Blvd., as shown in Exhibit "A".
C. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and
is hereby recommended for adoption.
D. That a change in classification would be in the public interest
and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the
surrounding property owners.
E. That the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2186,
recommending that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment
84.-4a.
II. The City Council hereby adopts General Plan Amendment 84-4A amending
the Land Use Element for the northwestern portion of 1372 Irvine
Blvd., as shown in Exhibit "A".
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on
the 8th day of October, 1984.
URSULA E. KENNEDY,
Mayor
MARY E. WYNN,
City Clerk
Planning Commission "
DATE:
SUB,3ECT:
APPLICANT:
ZONING:
CURRENT GP:
September 24, 1984
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-4a
DANIEL O'CONNOR ON BEHALF OF CORNICHE DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL (p&T)
PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL (P&I)
ENV I RONlqENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
BACKGROUND:
APPLICANT HAS PETITIONED FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A CHANGE FRO# PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
(PR)
The subject stte ts the western portlon of the First Christian Church property
located at [372 [rvtne Boulevard. The applicant, Dantel O'Connor, ts proposing
to purchase an approximate 30,000 square .foot site and construct a professional
offtce structure. The site ts currently a vacant lot adjacent to and owned by
the church.
Surrounding land uses include: stngle famtly residential to the west and south,
and the church to the east. There are office complexes on the northwest and
southwest corners of Redhtll Avenue and [rvtne 81vd.
DISCUSSION:
Any discussion about an amendment to a community's General Plan should center on
its possible effect to the community and what benefit, if any, it may have for
the community as a whole, not just the property owner or developer. In the case
of this proposal, analysis centers around the possible impact on surrounding
properties, the applicability of having the proposed land use at this location,
and the possible impacts from the current land use designation.
The possible impacts from either the proposed or current land use designation is
a common element for comparison purposes. The Public and Institutional land use
serves a dual prupose of providing the City with an inventory of tax-exempt
properties, while giving the City the maximum amount of control over specific
site development and intensity of use. This control is needed since P&I uses,
such as a church, can develop in areas such as residential, where potential
conflicts could occur. The Professional land use designation is used
exclusively for the development of professional office buildings.
Corn munity Development Deparlment
Planning Commission Report
September 24, 1984
page two
Both uses have an inherent development potential. In the specific case of the
church, it could conceivably have a potential for a private school,
administrative offices for the church, or some other related use to the church.
All potential uses are controlled by a use permit. The Professional designation
permits only the development of a professional office. If the City wants to
maintain the same control that it currently has with the P&I designation, a use
permit process would be required for a proposed office development.
The subject property fronts on a majo? arterial, Irvine Blvd., and is nearby to
two office complexes. While this property is not located within a residential
area, it is immediately adjacent to a single family residential tract, and a
potential office development could be incompatible with these residential
homes. Other properties in the City with similar circumstances have been
successfully developed with offices adjacent to and compatible with residential
uses, and in each of these cases the City has control through a use permit
process.
CONCLUSIONS:
The specific action that is being considered is a change in the land use
designati~on, and does Wot include zoning or any other form of entitlement at
this time. It is important to remember, though, that according to State law, a
change in the land use will requi~e the subsequent change in the zoning. The
discussion should center around the applicability of this land use designation
at this location, and the conclusions are drawn around this premise. Any
further land use restrictions or controls should be covered under a zone change
hearing.
1. Both land uses have an inherent number of potential uses that could be
developed.
2. A professional designation is limited to the development of only
professional offices.
3. The subject property is adjacent to a major arterial, and not within a
· residential area.
4. There are two professional office complexes in the immediate area.
5. There are residential uses immediately adjacent to the subject property.
There are zoning designations that would provide the City the same control
over a professional office as it would have over any proposed development
unde the Public and Institutional land use.
Staff has not received any calls regarding this proposal. The applicant
held a neighborhood meeting on his own, and the results of that meeting are
enclosed for your review.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
September 24, 1984
page three
R£COI~ENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission receive public input, and if they so
choose, direct staff to propose a draft Resolution recommending to the City
Council that GPA 84-4a be adopted.
Associate Planner
EMK:do
, Community Development Department
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 2186
A RESOLUTION OF ll~E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL AMEND Tl~E LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN
AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE NORTHWESTERN PORTION OF
1372 IRVINE BLVD., AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A".
The Planning Commission of the city of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. Section 65356.1 of the GoVernment Code of the State of
California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public
interest, the-legislative body may amend a part of the General
Plan.
B. That in accordance with Section 65356 of the Government Code of
the State of California, a public hearing was duly called,
noticed, and held on the application by Daniel O'Connor on
behalf of Corniche Development to reclassify the land use from
Public & Institutional to Professional for the northwestern
portion of 1372 Irvtne Blvd., as shown in Exhibit 'A'.
C. That a Negative Oeclaratton has been prepared in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and
is hereby recommended for adoption.
O. That a change in classification would be in the public interest
and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the
surrounding property owners.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that
General Plan Amendment 84-4A be adopted, amending the Land Use
Element for the northwestern portion of 1372 Irvine Blvd., as shown
in Exhibit 'A".
PASSEO AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission
held on the 8th day of October, 1984.
RONALD H. WHITE,
Chairman
DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
CORNICHE
DEVELOPMF-NT
CORPORATION
September 12, 1984
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 1 84
COMMUNITY OE~LOI~IE]~
CitY of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Attn: Mr. Don Lamm, Community Development Director
Re: First'Christian Church Property
'Dear Don:
In anticipation of our appearance before the Planning Com-
mission on Monday, September 24th, and in confirmation of our
previous conversation on this subject, we herewith provide you
with info£mation relative to our "Public Forum" meeting held at
the First Christian Church on Thursday evening, September 6th.
We had invited by correspondence (copy enclose~' the 54
surrounding property owners to this meeting to apprise them of
our development interests for the property west of the Church
on Irvine Boulevard. We had a very disappointing turn out at
the meeting of three people. A Mr. Knowles and his neighbor,
both of whom live outside public notice radius, (see map ~1 & 2)
were there out of curiousity and neither had any objection to
our project.
The third person at our meeting was Mr. James Ackley, (ab-
sentee landlord at 13022 Woodlawn Avenue, See Map ~3) who was
most impressed by our proposed development and indicated his
support. While not at the meeting, we had spoken with Mr. William
Patterson (See Map 94) who also indicated support and gratitude
that something was to be done on the property which heretofore
had been overgrown and ill kempt.
We have also had phone conversation with Mr. Dwight Ames
(absentee landlord of Fresno, California. His property is shown
on the map 95) who expressed an interest in selling us his prop-
erty for inclusion in our development. I pointed out that we
had no interest in such a purchase and doubted that the City would
approve a zone change from Residential to' Professional Office. His
comment was that if we failed to buy his property, he would object
to our application.
Real Property Development
1681 Loma Roia Drive/Santa Aha, California 92.705/(714) 731-2813
Mr. Don Lamm
Re: First Christian Church Property
September 12, 1984
Page 2
It would appear to me that the lack of attendance at our
meeting and the support indicated by those with whom we have had
contact, we can expect little objection to our application
pending before the City. In any event, we look forward to
· appearing before the CO~LLission and the possible staff recomen-
dation for approval.
WDO/ag
Enclosures
dent '
/i'M ~/1~"
M M
M M
47
1-88
I,,.._ I ',,' ! .
August 27,
Re: First Christian Church Property
This letter will serve to advise that Corniche Development
Corporation, as agent for the First Christian Church of Tustin,
has made application to the City of Tustin for an amendment to
the General Plan as effects their property on Irvine Boulevard.
Inasmuch as you are listed as an adjacent property owner who will
be impacted by our proposed development, we are inviting you to
meet with us prior to the City Planning Commission hearing sched-
uled for 7:30pm, Monday, September 10, 1984.
Enclosed for your review is a copy of our correspondence to
the City relating to this project. We are concerned that the
General Plan Amendment meeting will not provide an all encompassing
overview of our proposal for end use. We are anxious that you
have an opportunity to review and respond to our proposal and in-
vite you to a forum on this subject at the First Christian Church
at 7:00pm, Thursday, September 6, 1984.
At this meeting we will present the architectural renderings
for our 13,000 square foot commercial office building and be avail-
able to answer any questio~ you might have regarding our plans.
Sincerely,
W. Daniel O'Connor
President
WDO/ag
Enclosure