Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 04-16-84 TURIN ~ANNING ~II4ISSION ACTION AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING April 9, 1984 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF HINUI'ES REPORTS NO. 1 4-16-84 PUBLIC CONCERNS 7:30 P.M., CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AINSLIE, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE, SHARP For Meeting Held March 26, 1984 Approved as submitted (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 None 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. None. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Applicant: Request: Initiated by the Tustin Planning Commission Allow large family day care homes for up to twelve (12) children subject to a conditional use permit in the single-family residential districts. Adopted 5,-0, Resolution No. 2140, with changes as recommended by the Planning Co~sston, recommending approval to the City Coun¢tl of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 84-1 to the City Council. Planning Comm! April 9, 1984 Page 2 ion Agenda PUBLIC HERRINGS 1. USE PERMIT 84-8 Applicant: Daugherty & Hart Architecture on behalf of James S. Beauchamp Location: 13181-13195 Gwyneth Drive Request: Authorization to add three (3) two-story buildings (a total of eighteen (18) units) to the existing complex Continued to the next regular meettng on Apr~l 23, 1984. AI)#INISll~ATIVE NAT[ERS A. Old Business None. B. New Business 1. Consideration of Initiating an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Limiting Specific Uses Within Proximity to Public Schools By unanimous inform1 consent, the Comflsston directed Staff to re-afftra the City Council's interest in considering such an amendment. STAFF CONCERNS 1. Departmental Status Report Report ~eceived and filed. 2. Report on Council Actions - April 2, 1984 Report received and filed. 3. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Report received and filed. 4. Status of General Plan Revisions Report received and filed. C01~tISSION CONCERNS Co~ssioner Ainslie requested staff provide the Commission wt~ information regarding traffic circulation in the City of Tustin. ADJOURN)lENT: At 9:23 p.m. to a workshop session of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., April 23, 1984 and thence to the next regular meeting on April 23, 1984 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR TUSTIN PLANNING AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEEI..,G April 9, 1984 7:30 p.m. 7:30 P.M., CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AINSLIE, PUCKETT, WEIL, WHITE, SHARP For Meeting Held March 26, 1984 (limited to 3 minutes per per,on 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 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 ¥OTING 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. None. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Applicant: Initiated by the Tustin Planning Commission Request: Allow large family day care homes for up to twelve (12) children subject to a conditional use permit in the single-family residential districts. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. USE PERMIT 84-8 Applicant: Daugherty & Hart Architecture on behalf of James S. Beauchamp Location: 13181-13195 Gwyneth Drive Request: Authorization to add three (3) two-story buildings (a total of eighteen (18) units) to the existing complex Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Planning Commi s April 9, 1984 Page 2 an Agenda ADMINISll~ATIVE MRITERS A. Old Business None. B. New Business 1. Consideration of Initiating an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Limiting Specific Uses Within Proximity to Public Schools Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development STAFF CONCERNS 1. Departmental Status Report Presentation: Alan Warren, Senior Planner 2. Report on Council Actions - April 2, 1984 Oral Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development 3. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Oral Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development 4. Status of General Plan Revisions Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT: To next regular meeting on April 23, 1984 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ~EETING OF THE PLANNING COI~ISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA March 26, 1984 The meeting was called to order by Chairman sharp at 7:31 p..m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The Piedge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner White and the InvocatiOn was given by Commissioner Puckett. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also present: James B. Sharp, Chairman Ronald White, Chairman Pro Tem Mark Ainslie- Charles Puckett Kathy Well None Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Alan Warren, Senior Planner Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Suzanne Atkins, Deputy City Attorney Janet Hester, Recording Secretary MINUlliS Minutes for 'the meeting of March 12, 1984 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC CONCERNS None. CONSENT CALENDAR None', CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AMENDMENT NO. 84-1 TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Applicant: Initiated by the Tustin Planning Commission Request: Allow large family day care homes for up to twelve (12) children subject to a special permit in the single-family residential districts presente~ staff's report. In response to questions from Jeff Davis Commissioner White, Mr, Davis answered that current zon(ng permitted day care homes in multiple-family zones, and the proposed amendment addressed only single-family. Mr. Davis responsed to Commissioner Well's questions stating that the County of Orange was responsible for licensing and inspecting the homes and the Fire Department made annual inspections. Commissioner Ainslie asked what body would conduct a hearing if necessary. Mr. Davis replied the responsibility was held by the Zoning Administrator but could be tranferred to the Commission if so desired. Commissioner White asked if the license would be issued only to the property owner. Mr. Davis replied a distinction was not made. Chairman Sharp opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. The following person spoke in on the matter: Mr. Greg Lynch, 14692 Cheshire Place, operator of a large family day care home, expressed opposition to condition (c.) of staff's report which stated a protest from an abutting property owner would be cause for denial of a license. He also expressed opposition to condition {d.) which would require that all homeowner vehicles be parked on private property during hours of operation of the day care home. Mr. Lynch also stated he felt a fee of $250 to process a permit was excessive. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1984 Page 2 Seeing no one else wishing to 'speak, Chairman Sharp closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Lamm responded to Mr. Lynch by stating staff was trying to protect the integrity of the residential area by implementation of Condition (c.) and felt Condition (d.) would provide an easily accessible curb-side drop off point for parents using the day care home. Mr. Lamm also responded that no fee would be charged for processing or issuance of a permit. Commissioner White asked What appeal rights the applicant had in .the event of denial due to protest. Mr. Lamm replied that the applicant did not have appeal ri ghts. Commissioner Well stated she felt the condition requiring the property owner to park on private property would be too difficult to enforce and requested the following amendments and additions to the conditions: Amendments: All homeowner vehicles and/or aides vehicles shall be parked either on private property or in the area in front of the day care home during hours of operation. A permit shall not be granted for a day care home that would be established wihtin 300 feet of any existing licensed home. If any written protest against permit issuance is received from any ~roperty owner abutting the proposed large family day care home a hearing must be held by the Planning Commission whereupon evidence shall be submitted and the commission will maintain the right to either grant or deny the permit based upon evidence presented. Additions: i. The center shall be operated in a manner that does create a nuisance or annoyance to the adjacent properties. j. not The city will have the authority to withdraw the permit upon any substantiated violation of any of the above conditions, after a hearing before the Planning Commission. In response to Chairman Sharp, Commissioner White stated that State law pre-empts C.C.&.R.'s. In response to Commissioner White, Mr. Lamm stated that existing, licensed homes were exempt from the proposed requirements because it would be difficult to try to re-permit homes which had already obtained licenses from the County. After Commission discussion regarding parking, right of appeal and denial, it was moved by Well, seconded by Puckett, to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting and direct staff to revise the conditions in accordance with Commission concerns, and to send copies of SB 163 to each Commission member. Motion carried, S-O. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. USE PERMIT 84-9 Applicant: Location: Request: Su Chan Lee 17400 E. 17th Street, Suite F Authorization to install and operate a retail plant. dry cleaning Mary Ann Chamberlain presented staff's report. Commissioner Well asked if any other dry cleaning establishments were located in the center. Ms. Chamberlain replied there were none. Chairman Sharp opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Chairman Sharp closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1984 Page 3 It was moved by White, seconded by~Ainslte, to approve Use Permit 84-9 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2149. Motion carried, 5-0. 2. ZO#E'OIA~GE 84-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Initiated by the Planning Commission 17361 McFadden Avenue To change the zone for the property from the Residential Suburban District (R-4) to the Retail Commercial District (C-1) Alan Warren presented staff's report. Chairman Sharp opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Chairman Sharp closed the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. It was moved by Puckett, *seconded by Weil, adoption of 2151 recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 84-1. Motion carried, 5-0. A~#INISTIL~TIVE MATTEIG 1. Old Business None. 2. New Business a. Request for Zone Change - 14462 Red Hill Avenue ' Mary Ann Chamberlain presented staff's report. Chairman Sharp asked if the owner of the property had given an indication of how he wished to develop the property. Mr. Lanm responded the applicant had stated he did not have any development plans at this time. It was moved by Weil~ seconded by Puckett, adoption of Resolution No. 2150, initiating a zone change for 14462 Red Hill Avenue. Motion carried, 5-0. STAFF CO#C£RNS 1. Report on Council Actions - March 19, 1984 Donald Lamm presented staff's report. By unanimous informal Coimnission received and filed staff's report. consent,~the COI~IlSSION CONC£R#S Commissioner Ainslie complimented Associate P~anner, Mary Ann Chamberlain, for her part in the pre-meeting presentation by the Orange County Housing Authority. Commissioner Well informed the Commission of a "Candidates Night" for all City Council and City Clerk candidates on March 27, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Tusttn Mead~s, West Clubhouse. ADJOUR~E: at 8:40 p.m. to the next regular meeting on April 9, lg84. James B. Sharp, Chairman Janet Hester Recording Secretary Report to the Planning Commission CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NO. APRIL 9, 1984 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 84-1 Large Family Children's Day Care Homes in Residential Zones ENVIRONlqENTAL STATUS: A Negative Declaration has been filed in conformance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act Background On March 26, 1984 the Planning Commission continued its .public hearing on the subject matter. Commission concerns regarding specific staff recommendations have been addressed and modifications to draft Resolution No. 2140 have been made and are attached for your consideration. Discussion The majority of Commission discussion revolved around four areas: the hearing process for issuance of a large family day care home license; on-site parking to be required; distance requirements from .other established homes; and revocation proceedings. Staff has incorporated comments expressed at the March 26, 1984 meeting and the following criteria for the establishment of large family day care homes as ~ecommended. a. Such day care homes shall be operated in a manner not exceeding the noise levels in the Tusttn Noise Ordinance. Nor shall such day care homes be allowed to operate in a manner that would constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties. b. A permit shall not be granted for a day care home that would be established within 300 feet of any existing licensed large family home. c. All property owners within 100 feet of a proposed large family day care home shall be notified of the intent to establish such a home. d. If any written protest against permit issuance is received from any property owner within 100 feet of the* proposed home, a hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission. Based on testimony presented during the hearing pertaining to noise, traffic, parking or concentration of such homes, the Planning Commission shall approve or deny the request for a large family day care home. Corn munity Development D~partment Amendment No. 84-1 to the Zoning Ordinance April 9, 1984 Page 2 Se All homeowner vehicles shall be parked on private property during day care home hours of operation. f. All employed assistants shall park on the private property of the large family day care home. g. Any day care home must comply with all regulations adopted and enforced by the State Fire Marshal' and Orange County Fire Department. h. The rear yard of the home must be enclosed by a minimum six foot {6') high fence. i. The provis4ons of this code section shall apply only to large family day care homes establ'ished after January [, 1984. However, homes licensed prior to January [, [984 may not increase the number of children cared for without ~omplying with the standards listed herein. j. Nothing contained in the provisions of this amendment shall preclude the revocation for cause of any permit granted for a large family day care home, following proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission to determine if said use' i.s operated in a manner detrimental to the hea)th, safety or welfar& of the community, or detrimental to surrounding property owners. Recommndatlon Staff recommends the Commission adopt and forward to the City Council Resolution No. 2140 amending Tusttn City Code section 9223 to include "large family day homes" permitted uses subject to specific development standards. care as Assistant Planner JSO:jh Attachments: Revised Resolution No. 2140 Original Resolution No. 2140 Community D~iopment De~partmont RESOLUTION N0..'2140 A RESUcUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOk OF THE CITY' OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF SECTION 9223a OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE BY REQUIRING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-I) DISTRICT AND SECTION 9297 OF THE CITY CODE TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES Fhe Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as OWS: REVISED 5 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 8 9 10 11 12 A. That there is a growing need for properly licensed care facilities within the Community. B. That as an alternative by which to provide such day care facilities, the State of California has authorized local jurisdictions to permit day care facilities for a maximum of twelve (12) children in Single-Family Residential zones. Such homes shall be approved upon findings that such facilities comply with .all local ordinances presribing reasonable standards, restrictions and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking and noise control relating to' such facilities. 13 14 15 16 17 18 C. That to ensure that the integrity of the Single- Family Residential zone is maintained, and to determine if each application for a large family day care home (defined as a home for seven to twelve children) is in compliance with all applicable standards for spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking and noise control, Section 9223a of the Tustin City Code shall be amended to include as a permitted use subject to a permit issued by the Community Development Department: Large Family Day Care Homes for up to a maximum of twelve {12) children. 19 20 Da A Negative Declaration has been filed in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 21 22 II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Tustin, that Section gg23a of the Tustin City Code be amended to read as follows:' 23 Section 9223a 24 25 26 27 28 6. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to twelve children subject to the following standards:. a. Such day care homes shall be operated in a manner not exceeding the noise levels in the Tustin Noise Ordinance. Nor shall such day care homes be allowed to operate in a manner that would constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties. ~lution No. 1.40 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 III. b. A permit shall not be granted for a day care home that would be established within 300 feet of any existing licensed large family home. c. All property owners within 100 feet of a proposed large family day care home shall be notified of the intent to establish such a home. d. If any written protest against permit issuance is received from any property owner within-100 feet of the proposed home, a hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission. Based on testimony presented during the hearing pertaining to noise, traffic, parking or concentration of such homes, the Planning Commission shall approve or deny the request for a large family day care home. e. All homeowner vehicles shall be parked on private property during day care home hours of operation. f. All employed assistants shall park on the private property of the large family day care home. g. Any day care home must comply with all regulations adopted and enforced by the State Fire Marshal and Orange County Fire Department. h. The rear yard of the home must be enclosed by a minimum six foot (6') high fence. i. That the provisions of this code section shall apply only to small or large family day care homes established after January 1, 1984. However, homes licensed prior to January 1, 1984 may not increase the number of children cared for without complying with the standards listed herein. j. Nothing contained in the provisions of this amendment shall preclude the revocation for cause of any permit granted for a large family day care home fol lwi ng proceedi rigs conducted by the Planning Commission to determine if said use. is operated in a manner detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community or detrimental to surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission further recommends to the City Council that Section 9297 be amended to include the following: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution N~. 2140 Page 3 Section'9297 Definitions "Large Family Day Care Homes" means a family dwelling unit, non-institutional tn character, properly licensed by the County of Orange, which provides day care only, for a maximum of s3eelve ([2) children ages [6 years or younger, including the licensee's own children. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the day of , 1984. Janet Hester Recording Secretary James B. Sharp, Chairman 1 2 3 ORIGINAL 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. 2140 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE cITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF SECTION 9223a OF THE TIJSTIN CITY CODE 'BY REQUIRING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) DISTRICT AND SECTION 9297 OF THE CITY CODE TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES .The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That there is a growing need for properly licensed care facilities within the Community. B. That as an alternative by which to provide such day care facilities, the State of California has authorized local jurisdictions to permit day care facilities for a maximum of twelve (12) children in Single-Family Residential zones. Such homes shall be approved upon findings' that such facilities comply with all local ordinances presribing reasonable standards, restrictions and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking and noise control relattng to such facilities. C. That to ensure that the integrity of the Single- Family Residential zone is maintained, and to determine if each application for a large family day care home (defined as a home for seven to twelve children) is in compliance with al] applicable standards for spacing and concentration, traffic contro!, parking and noise control, Section g223a of the Tusttn City Code shall be amended to include as a permitted use subject to a permit issued by the Community Development Department: Large Family Day Care Homes for up to a maximum of twelve (12) children. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the. City of Tusttn, that Section 9223a of the Tustin City Code be amended to read as follows: Section 9223a 6. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to twelve children subject to the following standards: a. Such day care homes shall be operated in a manner not exceeding the noise levels In the Tusttn No!se Ordinance. 1 2 3 5 6 Resolution No. 2140 Page 2 b. All property owners within 100 feet of a proposed large family day care home shall be notified of the intent to establish such a home. c. A permit sha'll not be granted for a day care home that would be establ'tshed within 100 feet of any existing licensed home or if any written protest against permit issuance is received from an abutting property owner to the proposed large family day care home. d. All homeowner vehicles shall be parked on private property during hours of operation of the day care home. 9 10 11 e. Any employed assistants shall park on the private property of the large family day care home. f. Any day care home must comply with all regu. lations adopted and enforced by the State Fire Marshal. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 III. g. The rear yard of the home must be enclosed by a mintmum six foot (6') fence. h. That the provisions of this amendment shall not apply to small or large family day care homes licensed by the County and in operation prior to January 1, 1984. However, said homes may not increase the number of children cared for without complying with the standards listed herein. The Planning Commission further recommends to the City Council that Section 9297 be amended to include the following: 19 Section 9297 Definitions 20 "Large Family Day Care ~lomes" means a family dwelling unit, non-institutional in character, properly.licensed 21 by the County of Orange, which provides day care only, for a maximum of twelve (12) children ages 16 years or 22 younger, including the licensee's own children. 23 PASSED ANO AOOPTEO at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the day of , 1984. 2~ 25 26 James B. Sharp, Chairman 27 28 Janet Hester Recording Secretary Planning Commission APRIL 9, 1984 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: Use Permit 84-8 ~augherty and Hart Architecture 1180 N. Coast Highway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 James S. Beauchamp 13181-13195 Gwyneth Drive Planned Development (PD) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A Negative Declaration has been filed in compliance with the requirements of the.California Environmental Quality Act REQUEST: Authorization to construct three (3) two-story apartment buildings, adding a total of eighteen (18) units to the existing apartment complex of 30 units RecomndatJon That the public hearing be continued to the April 23, 1984 meeting. time is needed to resolve unanticipated design concerns. Assistant Planner Additional JSD:jh Community Development Department Report to the Planning Commission NEW BUSINESS NO. i April 9, 1984 SUBJECT: Consideration of Initiatln§ an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Li~ttng Specific Uses In the Imedfato ¥ictnity of Public Schools Discussion The City Council, at its meeting on December 19, 1984, directed staff to review the concept of establishing land use controls to limit and/or prohibit motels, hotels, liquor stores and other similar uses within the immediate vicinity of public schools. Specifically, Council requested that staff research how other. cities in Orange County have dealt with this subject and to solicit an opinion from the Tustin Planning Commission concerning necessity for such regulations. Since December, staff planners have surveyed other cities to determine which have adopted in their zoning ordinance specific district requirements for issuance of new liquor licenses and/or establishment of motels, hotels and liquor stores near elementary and junior/senior high schools. We discovered, however, the subject to be more difficult to research than anticipated since there does not appear to be consistency among Orange County communities. The attached survey summary indicates that some cities require use permits for off sale liquor licenses, while others do not. After in-depth conversations with planning staff in various cities, it appears each city's regulation was community and/or politically initiated to resolve a specific problem. Last fall, a proposed motel across from Tustin High School was determined by the community to be detrimental to the welfare of school students. Later, a request by Southern Counties Oil for an off-sale beer and wine license again resulted in mixed community opinion. Most recently, a request to convert Albertson's Supermarket to a liquor-only store has resulted in extensive public opinion. Since the Albertson's request is again scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission, that specific subject can be discussed only during an advertised public hearing. However, the overall concept of establishing land use limitations near schools can be generally discussed at this time. Community De~'elopment Department New Business No. April 9, 1984 Page 2 . Reco~sendat~on City Council specifically requested the Planning Commission report its recommendations as to whether the City should amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish limitations on specific uses within the immediate vicinity of public sch'ools. Director of Community Development DDL:jh Attachment: Survey Summary Community Development Department 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Status Report APRIL 9, 1984 DEPARTMENTAL PROdECT STATUS - WF_EK OF APRIL 2, 1984 Department projects and their processing or construction status. the Council or Commission desire further information, please convenience. This report is intended to inform the Council and Commission of Community Development Should any member of contact me at your 1. Preliminary ~te plans have been submitted for the following: a. Redevelopment of a 50,500 square foot industrial warehous~ for a beer distributor to be located on Woodlawn Avenue south of Edinger Avenue. 2. Public hearing applications have been submitted for Planning Commission review for the following: a. Expansion of the elementary grade school facilities at the Children's Center- First Baptist Church on Newport Avenue. b. Minor Expansion of the Union Oil Service Station, located in Enderle Center. 3. The Housing Element Advisory Committee is in the process of reviewing the draft Housing Element which should be presented to the Planning Commission in June. 4. Planning staff has been enforcing the political sign ordinance by the removal of political signs in the public right-of-way which are in violation of the Tustin Sign Ordinance. 5. Burnett/Ehline Company's plans for the Tustin Commercenter Phase III, at the northwest corner of Irvine Boulevard and Holt Avenue have been submitted for structural plan check. Alan G. Warren Senior Planner AGW:jh C~om munity Development Department Planning Commission STAFF CONCERNS NO. 2 APRIL 9, 1984 SUBJECT: Report on Council Actions - April 2, 1984 Oral presentation to be given by Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development /ih Attachmentsi City Council Action Agenda - April 2, 1984 Community Development Department 7:04 I. ALL PRESEbT II. EXCEPT GREINKE ACTION AGENOA OF A REGULAR ~ETING OF THE llJ~IN CITY COUNCIL April 2, 1984 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL JACK MILLER III. PUBLIC INPUT FROM 'PAREIrrs ~ CJU~E- SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO ~ IlPCOIIING HEARING FOR A LIQUOR STORE AT THE ALBERTSON I~JC[T LOCATION. HE ASKED COUNCIL TO STAT[ THEIR OPINIONS ON THE PRO,)ECT. COUNCIL RESPONDED THAT THEY COULD NOT GIVE AN OPINION BEFORE THE P~.IC HEARING WAS HELD OR ~'lSE WITH- OUT HAVING THEIR VOTE OIALLENGED. JAY NUNEZ WAS CONCERNED THAT THE CANDIDATES FOR CITY CLERK DID NOT GIVE THEIR AGE. SHOULD BE A REQUIRE]qENT THAT ALL CANDIDATES SHOULD GIVE THEIR AGE. DON BIRD IV. PROCLAMATION ACCEPTE]) THE PROCLJiJI~TION 1. PRIVATE PROPERTY WEEK V. PUBLIC HEARING - None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Ma~ch 19, 1984 APPROVB) -N)OPTED RESOLUTION NO. 34-31 APPROVED STAFF 4. RECOlg[NDATION APPROVED STAFF 5. RECOI~ENDATION FELT IT APPROVED STAFF 6. ~ ~COFg~.NOATI ON RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $106,800.4.[ APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $1,160,856.17 RESOLUTION NO. 84-31 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON llJESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984, TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK Adoption of Resolution No. 84-31 as recommended by the City Clerk. ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND RELEASE OF BONDS - TRACT NO. 11282 (S side of San Juan Street W of Utt Drive) Accept the public improvements within Tract No. 11282 and authorize the release of the following bonds as recommended by the Director of*Public Works/City Engineer: #2SM561926, Faithful Performance - $18,800.00; #2SM561926, Labor & Materials - $9,400.00; and #2SM563148, Monumentation $500.00. ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND RELEASE OF BONDS - TRACT NO. [1746 (W side of Red Hill Ave., between Walnut Ave. and Mitchell Ave.) Accept the public improvements within Tract No. 11746 and authorize the release of the following bonds as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer: #7122688, Faithful Performance - $21,000.00; #7122688, Labor & Materials - $10,500.00; and #7122689, Monumentation - $500.00. INSIDE ENTRANCE FOR RESTROOMS AT LAMBERT SCHOOL Allocate $1,500 in Revenue Sharing Funds for an inside entrance to restroom facilities at La, err School as recommended by the Recreation Superintendent. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page I 4-2-84 'ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 84-30 e RESOLUTION NO. 84-30 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 18 WHICH PLACES BEFORE THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA JUNE 5, 1984, A BOND MEASURE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL LAND ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER RELATED PURPOSES Adoption of Resolution No. 84-30 as recommended by the Director of Community and Administrative Services. VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION None .IX. OLD BUSINESS - None X. NEW BUSINESS APPROVED ST/t,CF 1. RECOI~EWOATION CONTINUED TO NEXT MEETING AWARD OF BID FOR THE HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) PROGRAM Award the contract for the Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Program to Dial One Air-Ex Air Conditioning Inc. of Walnut for $38,621.00 as recommended by the Engineering Department. 2. ADULT SOFTBALL LEAGUE FEES Pleasure of the Council. XI. REPORTS RECEIVED Alii) FILED 1. 1ECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - March 26, 1984 All actions of the Planning Commission appealed by the City Council. are final unless 2. ZONE CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN Receive and file. SALTARELLI ASKED STAFF TO LOOK INTO POSSIBILITY OF GETTING A LIST OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE FIP. ST BOSTON CORP. TO INFORM 'llfl~q RFGARDING. THE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF WllAT THEY MRY A PLANNING IN THE FUNDING OF ~ THINGS FOR THE BULLET TP. AIN. KENNEDY ASKED COUNCIL TO AGREE TO SEND A LETTER FRON THE MRYOR TO NOVA, ASKING THI'~ IF THEY WOULD CONSIDER ACCONEANYING JESSE UNRUH ON HIS TRIP, AT AMERICAN HIGH SPEED RAIL'S EXPENSE, ALONG WITH 23 OTHERS. HUSTON RESPONGED THAT STAFF WOULD SEWO THE LETTER. EDGAR POINTED OUT THAT PAUL GANN IS SUPPOETING. OUR BULLET ll~IN LAW SUIT WNICH GIVES US STATEWIDE PRESTIGE. EDGAR NOTED THAT TRAFFIC ON R~IN STREET IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL AGAIN ~ PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THE REDUCTIOII IN ENFORCEMENT. tie MAY HAVE TO RECONSIDER STOP SIGNS. BUSTON RESPONDED THAT HE WOULD RELAY HIS CONCERNS TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE. IN RESPONSE TO HOESTEREY'S CONCERN, BOB LEDENOECKER SAID HE WOULD CONTACT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SEE I!= THEY WOULO SET UP A BARRICAOE AT THE LOT BETWEEN THE LAST BONE ON CARFAX ~ THE THORMAN/CURRY TENNIS COURTS IN ORDER TO CUT DOWN ON THE DIRT AND OUST. HOESTEREY POINTED OUT THAT THEE IS A ~ROWINO PUBLIC AWARENESS ABOUT THE BULLET TRAIN AND WE ARE RECEIVING REQUESTS FOR SPEAKING ENGAGENENTS FROM PEOPLE M40 WANT TO HEAR OUR POSITION ON THE BULLET TRAIN. -R:25 XIII. ADJOURNMENT - To the next regular meeting on April 16, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 4-2-84 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR I~ETING OF THE llJSTI# REDEVELOPMEilT AGENCY Apr11 2, 1984 7 :DO P 8:25 1. CALL TO ORDER · ALL 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT EXCEPT GREINKE APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 19, 1984. 4. OTHER BUSINESS SALTARELLI REPORTED THAT THE CITY OF DOWNEY HAS TAKEN EXCEPTION TO SOlE OF THE I~ILERS THAT WERE PUT OUT BY AMERICAN NIGH S~EED RAIL. 8:26 5. ADJOURNMENT - To the next regular meet:lng on April 16, 1984. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page 1 4-2-84 ~UOLU~,J~doQ ~,UOUJdOIOAOQ Xl!unt.u u JO=) ~ q.c/ 3uemdOLe^eO ~%~un~ao3 ~0 Jo%DeJ~ 'uiuJeq '~ pLeuog ~q UeA~ eq m uo~e~ueseJd LeJO doqs~Jo~ uo~$s~Jo~ 8u~uueLd/L~3UnO~ Z~D ~u~o~ :~33P8~S ~96! '6 l~Hd¥ UO!~S!LUU~OD ~U!UUel~I STAFF CONCERNS NO. 4 Planning Commission April 9, 1984 SUBdECT: Amendments to the General Plan The Tustin Area General Plan, while in ~ompliance with the minimum requirements of State law, in my opinion contains information which is inadequate and outdated. Since employment in June, 1983, it has been my goal to completely revise and adopt' a new general plan for the City, to be followed by a revised City zoning ordinance. I have attached a proposed table of the .mandatory and optional elements of the new general plan. The Revised Housing Element was completed last week and has been submitted to the Housing Element Review Committee for their consideration. The Housing Element must ultimately .be approved by the City' Council and filed with .the State Department of Housing and Community Development by July 1, 1984. Dr. Ken Fleagle and the department planners are presently preparing revisions to the Open Space, Conservation and Noise Elements. Hopefully, within 90 days, the Planning Commission and City Council will be reviewing this group of new elements along with the Housing and Recreation Elements. Following these elements, staff will be revising the Land Use, Transportation and Circulation, Seismic and Safety elements and hopefully commence work on the Streetscape and Urban Design Element. The Old Town Community Design and Redevelopment Element preparation will be addressed in a separate report to Council at a future date. It appears that by the end of this year, to coincide with adoption of the East Tustin Specific Plan, Tustin should have a completely revised General Plan. 1 d D. Lamm - ~f~---~ Director of Community Development DDL:jh Community Development Department TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED' TABLE OF CONTENTS Planner Ed/Ken Ed/Ken Status Complete Draft/Review~ Mandatory Elements Land Use Element Open Space and Conservation Element Transportation and Circulation Element including Scenic Highways and Bike Trails Housing Element Seismic and Safety Elements Noise Element Optional Elements e Recreation Element Streetscape and Urban Design includes: Master Streetscape Plan Historic Tree Preservation Old Town Community Design and Redevelopment Element community Development Department