Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC Minutes 11-13-06 ITEM #1 7:00p.m. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2006 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Given ROLLCALL Present Chair Floyd Chair Pro Tern Puckett Commissioners Kozak, Lee, and Nielsen Staff present Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Jason Retterer, Deputy City Attorney Dana Ogdon, Assistant Community Development Director Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Clayton Anderson, Code Enforcement OIIicer Brad Steen, Code Enforcement Officer Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS Approved CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 23, 2006, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Nielsen. to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued to the 2. November 27,2006 Planning Commission meeting CONTINUED CODE AMENDMENT 06-005 PROPOSING TO REPEAL AND ADD CHAPTER 4 'SIGN REGULATIONS" TO ARTICLE 9 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4043 recommending that the City Council adopt Code Amendment No. 06-0OS to amend Chapter 4 "Sign Regulations" of Article 9 of the Tustin City Code. MinUlas-PlanningCommission11-13.06-Page 1 7:02p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Reekstin Presented the staff report. Floyd Asked if the list of other cities, as compared to Tustin, was provided to the realtors at the last meeting. Reekstin Answered in the negative. Floyd Asked for a description of markers. Reekstin Responded that a suggestion was made requesting that a marker be placed in the ground to indicate the area where signs could be piaced. Director Stated that Field Services has been asked to paint a simple stripe to make evident the areas where signs cannot be placed in order to provide the visual clearance; Field Services does not wish to be responsible for providing such markers on every comer in the City; staff asked that the markers be placed only on the more heavily used locations such as Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road. Puckett Asked if those markers would be on the curb. Director Answered in the affirmative. Floyd Asked if that was a suggestion from the realtors. Director Responded in the affirmative, Nielsen Asked how the limitation of eight signs at an intersection would be enforced. Reekstin Indicated that staff is proposing generic signs and not anticipating duplicates, Directors Clarified that the number would be within the vicinity of an intersection, 200 feet away, not right at the intersection. Puckett Asked if the current Code requires that political signs be removed within seven days. Director Stated the Code presently allows 10 calendar days. Stated he had been out of the country, returning on Saturday, and was pleased to see the candidates have done a good job removing their signs. Puckett Minules-Planning Commission 11.13.06-Paga2 Floyd Director Retterer Floyd Director Lee Reekstin Director Floyd Jeanne Lafourcade, ReMax Preview Reekstin Ms. Lafourcade Asked for clarification for the reason to address the human sign issue since the Gode currently prohibits them. Indicated there is concern regarding the current ordinance basad upon the way it is written; outright prohibition of signs in the public right-of-way would present a stronger case for enforcing the current provision prohibiting human signs in the public right-of-way; there could always be First Amendment issues, but there would be a stronger case due to prohibiting all signs in the right-of-way; since the City allows for political signs which are protected by the Constitution and also allows commercial signs (the real estate signs) in the right-of-way; the City Attorney may want to expand on this issue. Declined to add anything further. Asked if the prohibition of human signs has always been in the Code but never enforced. Stated the City has attempted to enforce the prohibition but concerns exist regarding enforcing that provision; if the Commission wanted to prohibit all signs in the right-of-way, perhaps human signs could be prohibited in the right-of-way but would allow such signs on private property like any other sign. Asked if there could be a limitation on the duration a human sign could remain in one place. Indicated he was not aware of the time frame being an issue with human signs. Noted that staff could take a look at the time frame but would also have to check the hours of operation of the business involved. Suggested that human signs do not seem to be a problem after dark. Inviled the public to the lectern. Suggested that one of the recommendations was that open houses would be held open by Realtor licensees which would eliminate any agents who usa hostesses that are not licensed agents. Indicated that suggestion was made by a Realtor, not by staff. Asked if an agent will be allowed a certain number of signs if there are signs within 200 feet of every intersection. Mlnules-PlanningCommis.ion11'13.06-Paga3 Reekstin Ms. Lafourcade Director Ms. Lafourcade Don Saltarelli, C-21 Saltarelli Floyd Mr. Saltarelli Floyd Mr.Saltarelli Reekstin Mr. Saltarelli Stated that the current proposal allows three signs per open house and eight per intersection 200-500 feet from the intersection. Suggested that three open house signs for ten different open houses would be allowed. Responded in the affirmative. Suggested that would not seem to be cutting down on the blight, but believes that generic signs will ease the problem; the problem that exists now is 60 open house signs for one agent. Stated he worked on the political side of the sign issue for 15 years, and he understands that sign blight is a costly problem for staff; however, he does not know what is meant by "generic" signs nor what signs are allowed and which are not; real estate signs cost agents a great deal of money and replacing the signs during a time when home sales are stagnant seems to be an undue punishment of real estate agents; there should not be any restriction on the number of open house signs to locate the site; restricting the number to three will make it impossible for realtors; all open house signs should betaken down before sunset. Asked Mr. Saltarelli if he attended the meeting held by staff that included approximately 60 real estate agents. Answered that he did attend that meeting. Asked if generic signs were discussed/described at that meeting. Stated he did not know what generic means. Indicated that a generic sign would be green with white lettering and an arrow and would include identification of the agent on the back. Reiterated that replacing his signs with generic ones would be very costly; as a small real estate agency, he would not be able to afford to replace his signs; the City needs to differentiate between Seven Gables and First Team and ReMax and Century 21 and let the agents have their own signs; the cyclical nature of selling real estate dictates whether or not signs are necessary; the suggestions being proposed will make It even more cost~ for staff 10 ensure compliance; with time restrictions, agents can police themselves; there are only a few agents who are abusing the current code; otherwise, the City will be putting an entire class of agents out of business. MinUles_PlanningCommission11_13_06_Page4 Jennifer Palmquist, First Team Real Estate Reekstin Floyd Director Ms. Palmquist, Diane Montgomery, Tarbell Realtors Floyd Ms. Montgomery Floyd Reekstin Indicated that she understands the diffk::ulties involved in the sign issue, especially in terms of the time and money that Code Enforcement spends to police the issue; asked, if generic signs are imposed, would fhe realtors personal signs be allowed wifhin the tracts in Tustin and immediately outside the tracts or is that considered private property. Stated that staff is proposing three generic signs be allowed on public streets per open house. Suggested that individual signs for all the agents within an HOA or a private property would remain the same. Responded that tf HOAswant to allow real estate signs inside the tract or other individuals chose to allow signs on their private lawns to provide directions that would be acceptable. Indicated that many of the realtors had been in favor of keeping their personal signs and not movIng to generic; after much discussion, many of the realtors have reconsidered the use of generic signs and feel that may be the only way to stop the proliferation of signs; the purpose of an open house is to lead the general publk:: into the venue where the open house is being held and not advertise their names to gain name recognition; there would not be motivation for realtors to put up a lot of generic signs; one on a corner with a direction arrow would be sufficient; there need to be spectfic requirements as to how large the name can be on the back of the sign. Disagreed with the previous speaker regarding generic signs; many realtors steal the generic signs; three generic signs at an intersection will not provide direction to the proper open house; 17 signs were necessary for a house she currently listed in Tustin Meadows. Noted that Tustin Meadows would not be affected by the proposed changes in the code. Insisted that generic signs are not a reasonable solution to the problem because it would not be possible to put enough signs on private property. Asked if an agent could have their own directional signs in the situation described by Ms. Montgomery. Answered that the streets in Tustin Meadows are public; the current proposal would allow three signs. Minutes~Ple.nningCommkssionll.13.06-Paga5 Jan-MarieWells, Coldwell Banker Nick Krill, Coldwell Banker DainieClymer, Tarbell Realtors Don Saltarelli Patti Winter, Properties by Patti Winter WalterWiebach, First Team Real Estate Emphasized that in her leller to staff she stated that generic signs are unacceptable because of the different areas from which agents draw; the agent that is holding an open house should have his or her name on the sign; that way one agent would not be allowed to hold 15 open houses with his or her name all over the City; allowing the signs to the put up between 8:30-9:30 a.m. would be appropriate; putting signs out at noon in the summertime can be uncomfortable work due to the heat; realtors advertise in several places; a generic sign would not help potential buyers find individuals; it would be helpful for Code Enforcement to better explain the boundaries; open houses should be held by professionals, not by unlicensed hosts. Stressed that signs taken by the City removes the ability for that realtor to pull traffic in through an open house; the City should stop confiscating signs; signs that were in compliance with a sheet provided by Code Enforcement were taken because of a new concept regarding sign placement that is not published anywhere; the enforcement is doing a disservice to the people by whom the agents are employed. Asked what the proposed punishment will be; the signs shown in the presentation are for the people who are known to be the regular violators who have made a great deal of money due to name recognition; that is why one of suggestions made by the realtors was that signs must lead to an open house; those signs are not being taken; everyone knows certain realtors have scoffed the law, paid a fine. and nothing has changed. Stated that there should be only one open house per agent; there should not be hostesses; referred again to the high cost of signs and the risk of theft; indicated the law says that the individual owns the grass spot between the sidewalk and the curb and has to maintain that area even though it is public right-of-way. Stated she has been a Realtor for 28 years; three signs are not adequate for most open houses; 10 or 12 signs might be too many; the number should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Agreed that three signs are inadequate in tracts other than Tustin Meadows; realtors are not clear regarding what is private and what is public property; six of his signs were taken and disposed of inappropriately by the City; generic signs can only work with strict timing; the realtor's name has to be on the signs. Minutes-Planning Commission 11-13.06-Paga6 Rosemary Kral, First Team Real Estate James Cameron, Coldwell Banker Ms. Wells Mr.Saltarelli 8:03p.m. Nielsen Floyd Reminded everyone that traditionally open house signs were put up on the way to the property and removed when leaving; the purpose of an open house is to sell the property, not to' advertise individual realtors; there are other ways to do that; the generic signs would be an improvement for the City and should not be a problem because realtors logically only want people directed to an open house; perhaps the City could purchase generic signs in bulk and sell them to the realtors in order to ensure conformity. Indicated he is the manager of Coldwell Banker in Tustin; one of the things that has not been addressed is the ongoing regulation that will be created by the limits proposed for the number of signs; part of the problem is inconsistency in the present regulation; more restrk:tions will only exacerbate the problem; his office currently has hundreds of signs on order to be delivered next week; the proposed changes will require more money to change those signs; the realtors should be allowed to monitor themselves within specific parameters. Returned to the lectern to mention Thursday twilight open houses during the summer; restricting open houses to Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays would eliminate those twilight open houses. Added that 97.2 percent of all sales are made through the MLS; open houses are held to satisfy the seller. The Public Hearing closed. Stated there are differences across the board regarding this very complex issue; the issue is before the Planning Commission because the industry has not been regulating itself; complaints continue regarding the sign blight across the City; whatever the sign content, the fact is that signs are advertising; other businesses have to pay for advertising; a common way needs to be found to reduce the proliferation of signs; many hours of staff time have been devoted to this issue; while he did not initially favor the idea of generic signs, that now seems the only way to effectively limit the numbers; however, open house signs should not be limited to three; perhaps more customized signs per agent inside of tracts would be feasible. Stated that one of the reasons for the workshops was the blight issue for the residents of Tustin who are the ones complaining; it is not City staff that are complaining, but staff and Commissioners are receiving the telephone complaints; the encroachment by other cities into Tustin also contribute to the sign blight. Mlnute._PlannlngComm;ssionl1.13-06_Page7 Nielsen Added there have been suggestions from Tustin residents to eliminate signs in the public right-of-way. Floyd Noted there are several cities in Orange County that do not allow signs. Kozak Indicated he had assumed that a solution was forthcoming to the issue of blight and the cost involved for the CitY; thanked the public for their comments during which he leamed new perspectives; he is not advocating disallowing signs in the public right-of-way at this point; the lack of self-regulation is the reason the solution has fallen to City government; the number of signs is an important aspect, but three may not be the correct figure; the open house signs must lead to an active open house; it is Mficult to know how to accomplish the goal; the comments this evening have been persuasive against the generic signs in terms of getting a potential buyer to an appropriate location; Mr. Saltarelli's comments regarding specific definitions where the signs may be placed in the right-of-way were useful; staff's recommendation prohibiting signs between 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. and allowing signs from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. seems reasonable. L" Referred to a human sign in a neighboring city every day from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. which is something that needs to be discouraged; perhaps there should be a human sign permit that expires within a specific time period; the development of The Legacy has created a proliferation of human signs; perhaps generic real estate signs should be allowed on major thoroughfares but not have excessive signs to the property within tracts, whether the signs are on public or private roads; the problem seems 10 be defining excessive. Puckett Suggested that only a couple agents are causing the problem; three open house signs are not enough, while 17 sounds excessive; perhaps 10-12 signs would be necessary; generic signs on major thoroughfares' and specific signs within neighborhoods seems appropriate; agents do need their identification on signs; something needs to be done to alleviate the situation; there has to be a solution; uniform enforcement and time limits are necessary. Floyd Stated his concem regard the alleged removal of certain agents' signs but not others. Director Indicated that staff can consider those on a case-by-case basis and provide information to the Planning Commission. Floyd Asked what staff typicaliy does regarding the removal of signs. Minutes-Planning Commission 11.13.06-Page S Director Answered that the policy is straight enforcement of the code; there is not code enforcement all day Saturday and Sunday; someone might violate the ordinance on one of those days; if there were an emergency situation that required attention, code enforcement would be called; the sole purpose of weekend enforcement is not policing signs; if a sign is not removed, that does not mean the City is selectively enforcing the code. Floyd Asked If code enforcement would be collecting real estate signs on a Monday moming. Director Replied that would depend on the priorities for that particular time; as indicated in some of the correspondence provided in the staff report, some people are requesting that code enforcement very aggressively confiscate individual signs; just because a sign is there does not mean it is illegal; when in doubt, staff chooses to give the benefit of the doubt; a more strict interpretation has been in effect regarding the 25 fool corner cut-off area. Floyd Asked how agents get their signs back. Director Answered that the signs may be returned the first or second time but are disposed of if the situation continues. Puckett Asked if the same people are responsible. Director Indicated there are multiple individuals involved. Floyd Suggested that, while the proliferation may be greater in Tustin Ranch, the problem will aiso exist as The Legacy is developed especially since there will be no gated communities; it is obvious there is a big difference between the real astate sign code in Newport Beach and Tustin; the Realtors are not policing themselves in Tustin other than removing competitors' signs. Nielsen Suggested that one common thread in the discussion so far indicates the Planning Commission would like to limit generic signs in the major thoroughfares. Floyd Agreed that no more than eight generic open house signs may point to a location along the major thoroughfares, allowing specific signs within tracts. Asked staff how difficult this suggestion would be for Code Enforcement to monilor. Nielsen Minutes-Planning Commission 11.13.0Il-Page9 Director Stated a response to that is difficult because there is no provision to determine what would need to be enforced. Added that if there was general consensus on the generic signs on the major arterials and allowance for Realtors to use identification signs within tracts, it might be best to allow staff to bring language back to the Planning Commission for consideration rather than attempting to devise language this evening. Floyd Invited the real estate community to e-mail suggestions to Scott Reekstin. Director Indicated that, while staff appreciates the input, there have been four different public meetings with the real estate community in which staff asked Realtors what they thought would wor1< to remove the sign blight from the public right-of-way; nothing was provided; if it were left up to staff, the recommendation would be for no signs in the right-of-way; staff listened to the Realtors and came before the Commission with language that provided a compromise; it does not appear that staff has hit the mark and will need to come back with further language; there would still be an opportunity for public input. Nielsen Stated that staff should receive more direction; the major key seems to be limitation of the number of signs, whether it is generic signs on arterials and company signs inside tracts, there needs to be a number limit. Director Suggested that staff could go to tracts such as Tustin Meadows to determine a reasonable number of signs needed for one of the more interior streets. Floyd Indicated staff would also need to visit Township because, once through the gates, there are 100 streets. Director Stated that would not be an issue because those are private streets. Floyd Asked about The Legacy. Director Replied that those will be private streets; the question is iimitation of signs on secondary public streets. Floyd Suggested the intent is not to limit signs within a gated community because that would be an HQA decision. Director Indicated that an HOA may disallow all signs. Mnut..._PlannlngCommission11_13-06_Page10 -- - ~- Nielsen Noted he would not want to see a generic sign limitation on arterials just to move the problem into the residential tracts; there needs to be a lim~ation per broker or company; a: total number may be better per open house. Puckett Referred to Mr. Saltarelli's suggestion of eight signs which seems to be an adequate number. Floyd Stated that 6-1 0 per open house seems reasonable. Director Indicated that she meant staff would look at a logical direction change in the most drastic situation in Tustin Meadows; the easiest one might be two and the most difficult one might be seven; on a given weekend, a Realtor might be limited to two, five, or six signs, depending upon the direction change. Nielsen Asked if there would be budgetary savings to staff regarding complete elimination of real estate signs in the right-of-way. Director Answered in the affinnative. Nielsen Asked if an amount could be provided to the Commission. Director Answered in the affinnative. Fioyd Referred to the summer hours versus winter hours question; asked what happens if theft of generic signs becomes a problem; and, indicated his understanding that the same rules would apply to sale by owner signs. Nielsen Indicated that theft of generic signs might be a probiem but that would be a criminal offense to be dealt with by the Police Department. Rick Krill Stated there needs to be a hierarchy in place for Realtors to access when questions or problems do arise; generic signs offer only a small area for identification which makes it difficult to identify the agent. Director Stated that Realtors may contact her with problems or questions. Kozak Indicated that Mr. Krill articulated the idea he had been trying to express regarding the generic signs; it is not clear how the generic signs would direct a potential client who may be looking for a Century 21 agent at a particular house. Mlnute.-Planning Commission 11-13-06-Page lj Floyd Puckett Floyd Nielsen Kozak Floyd Director Saltarelli Amy Dudley, North Hills Realty Ms. Wells Floyd Reekstin Floyd Director Suggested that adding a 4" x 4" or 6" by 6" identifier stamp should be adequate; added that, if he were driving around looking for houses, he would not necessarily be looking for a Century 21 open house; someone looking for a particular location would' have the MLS listing with the map. Agreed that staff needs to be some more work and bring the item back to the Planning Commission; and, suggested it be moved to the next Planning Commission meeting. Requested that photographs of generic signs be included in the next presentation. Stated one of the comments indicated there should be distribution in the real estate industry once the code amendment is passed so that everyone knows what is going on. Asked if time needs to be spent this evening on the other categories, human arrow signs and political signs. Asked if the item can be continued to the November 27, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Replied in the affirmative. Returned to the lectern to state that the entire concept of advertising will be destroyed if generic signs are required; the current problem regarding real estate signs exists only in Tustin Ranch. Reiterated that if her open house ends a 4:00 p.m.; if the generic sign comes down at 3:00 p.m., there is an hour she is without a directional sign to her open house. Stated that she often tells her clients to follow the signs to her open house; with generic signs, such a procedure would not work. Asked for clarification regarding the time frame for removal of political signs. Indicated the limit for removal can be changed to eight days. Asked who keeps the written approval by the owner, the campaign orthe City or the homeowner. Answered that staff will not be that administrative about this requirement; the individual running for office will need to get that Minulea_Pllll1nlngCommisslon 11.13.06-Pege 12 approval; if a sign is placed in the parkway without the owner's pennission, under the current Code the homeowner would not have the right to remove the sign. Floyd Asked how that relates to tree wells. Director Replied that along commercial rights-of-way sign placement would be allowed; on residential streets, the homeowner's permission would be required. Floyd Stated he would like to see more protection for the homeowner who may not understand the candidate must have authorization to place signs in the tree well in front ofa residential structure. Nielsen Suggested that candidates would regulate themselves in that regard because they do not want their signs removed. Kozak Asked for clarification regarding erecting signs 30 days before the election. Retlerer Indicated that the ordinance now states 90 days; imposing a 3D-day limit would be a reasonable time period to comply with the intent to reduce the cluller and proliferation of polttical signs. Floyd Asked for clarification regarding the 200 feet before the street intersection limitation for human signs. Director Clarified that no sign shall be allowed within 200 feet of an intersection. Kozak Stated he shared the concem regarding outright prohibition to an allowance for the human arrow signs; and, asked if there should be a specific prohibition of such signs in the medians in order to eliminate doubt and whether or not the definition of pedestrians would include bicyclists. Retterer Clarified the code sections for the Commissioners; and, noted that the signs cannot interfere with pedestrians or bicyclists. Floyd Noted he had seen political signs along Jamboree in the grass median. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Lee, to continue this item to the November 27, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Minul&S-PlannlngCommissioo11.13-06-Page13 Continued to the 3. November 27,2006 Planning Commission meeting 9:08p.m. Willkom Puckett CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-010 AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-015 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO CONVERT AND REMODEL AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BUILDING INTO A DA YCARE CENTER FOR NINE (9) TEACHERS AND NINETY-SIX (96) CHILDREN AT 365 WEST FIRST STREET. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, COMMERCIAL AS PRIMARY USE, ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4044 approving Conditional Use Permit 06-010 and Design Review 06-015. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report, adding that a telephone call was received today from Mr. Ed Halperson, 145 North A Street; who expressed the following concerns: . restriction on children playing outdoors before 8:30 a.m. . lights at the rear of the property being too bright . traffic backing up along First Street in the morning on the east side of the property . whether or not the business owner notified any of the parents regarding Megan's law reguiations. Indicated he did not understand the reference 10 Megan's Law. Stated that Megan's law requires registered sex offenders to disclose their places of residence; the concern was whether or not the business owner had run a check to determine if there are any sex offenders registered in close proximity to the site. Willkom Nielsen Asked" a traffic analysis was performed relating to the trips for the 96 students and teachers. Willkom Deferred to Terry Lutz from the Engineering Traffic Division to answer thai question. Indicated that the traffic analysis determined there will be no significant impact on First Street as a result of this business. Asked if that analysis included both morning and evening peak periods, including left-hand turn movements. Lutz Kozak L"tt Answered in the affirmative_ Minules-PlanningCommlsslonlH3.06-Page'4 Kozak Asked if there was consideration of circulation on the site in terms of the left-hand turn movements from eastbound into the property; the east entry appears to be the entry point and the west driveway appears to be the exit point. Lutz Indicated that a clarification and a striping plan on-site and more specifics off-site have been requested, because it was not clear to traffic engineers either. Nielsen Asked what the physical barrier between the construction and the school will be. Director Stated that is as yet unknown (Conditions 1.14 and 1.15); the applicant will need to submit a plan regarding the improvements and the phasing to ensure the use will be secured from the temporary structures and constructlon; staff will also need to know where the children will be during the play area constructlon; there are concerns regarding the duality of operations on that site. Floyd Noted there is a fence around the project; and. asked for clarification regarding where the students are now in relation to where the construction is taking place and how the construction workers are separated from the children to ensure the safety of the children. Director Indicated there should be no construction occurring on the site at this lime; there are four modulars in the rear with fencing in that location and along the easterly side which separates the two areas from the front parking lot area; another permit was recently issued for a wrought iron fence resulting in a doubie fencing system. Floyd Asked how the fencing mechanism is controlled. Director Responded that is questionable and that is the reason for the modified condition of approval that was presented at the dais; staff had conversations for the City Attorney's office in this regard; temporary uses that are approved for 30 days or approved by the Director through the Zoning Administrator as a temporary use permit; anything over that is presented to the Planning Commission; there was a time constraint on this project because a complete subrnillai to bring to the Commission for the permanent conditional use permit application had not been provided; it does not appear that the permanent improvements will be in by December 26, 2006, when the temporary approval by the Zoning Administrator expires; therefore, staff has simultaneously brought the permanent conditional use permit and an extension of the permit that was granted earlier; the reason for including a modified MinWlS-PlanningCommission 11.13.0S-Paga 15 condition of approval was warranted because of incidents on the site; when site inspections were conducted, it was discovered that the fencing was not being closed; there were some improvements to the site without ensuring that soma of the skirting under the trailers was provided; there was no separation between the temporary power poles and the children; the building was not being secured as it needed to be. Floyd Asked if secured meant security personnel, security guard, etc. Director Responded that security could also refer to on-site personnel; staff's concern is not who is performing the security as long as It is being done in a safe, effective manner; further, within the last week and a half, staff was advised by the Tustin Police Department that a four-year-old child leflthe site and crossed Yorba Street; while this causes concern, that is not something the City would oversee because that is a supervision issue that would be monitored by the State Department of Social Services; the applicant is asking for a permanent conditional use permit and to extend the temporary use permit via this condition; staff has the ability not to issue a demolition permit and allow the simultaneous use if it cannot be done effectively and safely on the site. Floyd Requested more information regarding the child who left the site. Director Indicated the child was safe; she went to a neighbor's home; Social Services is investigating the matter but have not reported back to staff on that issue; the Planning Commission is not obligated to extend the temporary use permit; the alternative would be vacate the site as of December 26, 2006. Floyd Stated that he would not suggest vacating; however, adequate controls need to be in place to protect the children. Director Noted that people are injured on construction sites; there would have to be a plan in place to ensure safety given the proposed uses, Floyd Indicated his concern is that, if something like a child escaping has happened, it is frightening to think what might happen when construction begins. Puckett Asked if the amended resolution would address those concerns. Director Stated the condition would allow staff to periodically inspect the site and to cease the child care operation if necessary, Minules-PlanningCommisslon l"'~.06-Page'S Barry Curtis, representing the applicant Floyd Nielsen Director Floyd Director Nielsen MLCurtis Nielsen Mr. Curtis Nielsen Thanked staff for being helpful and patient and cooperative in order to reach this point; the applicant understands staffs concems and the request for an additional deposit; the wrought iron fence has been erected with a more secure gate to ensure the children remain in the temporary portion of the site; $5,000 seems an unreasonable amount; $1,500 seems more reasonable; staff should only need to inspect the site once a week; once staff is comfortable with the operation, inspections would not be necessary that often; most of the improvements will be to the inside of the structure until work begins on the playground area; the fayade work wili be separated with fences; Cathy's Kids operated in Tustin for 15 years with no incidents similar to the recent one; the applicant accepts the conditions with one question regarding Condition 1.9 as follows: in the event the construction is not quite complete by April 26, 2007, will City staff have the authority to extend and additional month or two without retuming to the Planning Commission. Suggested that if the time were only -a few days, it might be appropriate for staff to authorize an extension; if it were to be 30 days or more, the applicant should come back to the Planning Commission. Asked staff to comment on that suggestion. Indicated there are conditions of approvai that staff could impose if necessary; at this point, a demolition plan has not been received. Asked if staff agreed with his suggestion that any extension within a certain period of time could be lefttostaffsjudgmenl. Answered that an additional 30 days would be acceptable. Asked what the pick up and drop off times are expected to be. indicated that the students would not arrive and leave all at once, but there are delined peaks. Suggested that the times would primarily be before work and after work. Answered in the affirmative. Stated his concern regarding the protection of the children and what sort of barriers are planned to keep the children out of the construction area. Min,,",s-Planning Commission 11_13.06_Paga 17 Mr.Curtis Indicated the applicant is presently looking at some type of fencing; it will be chain link or something more permanent such as the wrought iron recently installed. Nielsen Asked what mitigation measures are planned to reduce the debris and construction noise the children will be subject to. Mr. Curtis Reiterated that the majority of the construction will take place within the existing shell of the building; noise should not be substantial since the building has cinder block walls; the plan is that demolition will be completed on a Saturday and the debris removed from the property quickly; there will be bins on the front corner of the property away from where the children enter and leave the property. Nielsen Asked for clarification of the plan for monitoring the children during the construction to ensure that they do not get into potentially dangerous.areas. Mr. Curtis Indicated there is no plan for a security guard; staff will make sure the enclosure is sound and thai the gate is solid and closes on its own; staff will monitor the only entrance. Nielsen Stated his concern is more the area where the construction occurs and whether or not a special monitor is planned or the teachers will be expected to do the monitoring. Mr. Curtis Restated that construction will be separated from the children by a fencing and gate system; the work on the playground will be planned for when the children are not at the site. because the trailers will have to be moved before the playground can be completed. Nielsen Stated his understanding that one of the conditions of approval requires monitoring. Director Indicated Commissioner Nielsen's understanding was correct. Nielsen Stated that Mr. Curtis seemed to be indicating that would not be the case. Mr.Curtis Answered that, if Commissioner Nielsen was referring to Condition 1.15, there will be sufficient personnel to monitor. Floyd Asked staff if the applicant meets that condition with the current staffing levels or additional staff would need to be hired. Minutes_PlanningCommis.ion 11_13-06_Paga la Director Indicated that question would be difficutlto answer; given what she saw when she was on the site, the answer would be no because the gate was open and the door was open and the children could access those points. Floyd Stated that, if the request were approved, the applicant would need to hire more personnel immediately since the site is not presently in compliance. Mr.Curtis Indicated that he believes the applicant is in compliance since the new gate and fence were added. Kozak Questioned whether or not a phasing plan or a safety plan had been submitted to staff in writing that can serve as a benchmark or standard to measure compliance; the Commission needs assurance of the children's safety; he walked the site and found it difficult to envision how those children are going 10 be protected in the rear area with only a single gate that mayor may not be monitored during the hours of operation. Director Stated such a plan would be required prior to the issuance of a demolition permit but has not been received; if the Commission desires, the applicant couid be asked to provide such a plan directly to the Commission. Nielsen Agreed with Commissioner Kozak that safeguarding the children is extremely important; the Planning Commission and staff need to be sure what is planned regarding supervision and protection from debris and noise; a plan needs to be in place before this item movesfOlWard. CathySipia, applicant Stated that no one wants the children to be safe more than she -does; when staff inspected the site and indicated issues that needed to be addressed, State Licensing had been to the site, inspected the facility, and given their approval; everything that City staff requested was addressed; in 15 years at her other location, no child had ever gotten out through the gate; because her mother is dying of cancer, the child did not want to be at school but with her mother; she knew the route because her grandmother walked her to school every day; when staff realized the child was missing, the Police Department, the family, and Social Services were called immediately; the fence person was aiso called 10 install a double gate; construction will not be taking place in the back where the children are; she will monitor the children herself to ensure that construction and children's areas are separate; there will not be any overlap. MinU\Els-Planning Comml..lon 11-15-06-Page,g Puckett Indicated he understood how this one instance could have happened; many years ago, his live-year-old son also found ways to return home from day care; It appears the proper corrections have been made and such an occurrence should not happen again. Floyd Stated he also wanted assurance there would be mechanisms in place to prevent any interaction between the children and the construction workers. Ms.Sipia Stated the construction area will be on the opposite side of the site from where personnel and children will enter. Floyd Mentioned the door in the back that exits to the play area. Ms. Sipia Indicated that there are no doors or windows in the back of the existing building. Puckett Asked the applicant what the chances are that the construction can be completed by the April deadline. Ms.Sipia Answered that she had no idea the process would take so long and understood that nothing could be done before the application was brought to the Planning Commission; that only after receiving approval, the demolition and construction could go forward. Puckett Asked if those plans were in place. Ms. Sipia Responded that there are no drawings; the plan is to tear out carpeting, booths, ovens, etc. because Shakey's left everything. Floyd Asked if there is a general contractor working with the applicant and with City staff in this regard. Ms.Sipia Reiterated that she was waiting for approval. Nielsen Stated he sympathizes with Ms. Sipia given that she is a daycare provider not a contractor; nevertheless, he still feels uneasy about not having specific plans in place for phasing. Ms. Sipia Invited the Commissioners to vis;! the site; and, volunteered to give them a lour in order to see what she is talking about. Nielsen Indicated that something needs to be presented in writing; it is the Commission's responsibility to assure the plan will be workable for a safe environment for the students and personnel as the construction progresses. Minu\es-PlanningCommfssion11.13-0S-Paga20 Floyd Stated that the condH:ional use permit requires that "applicant shall hire sufficient personnel and/or security guards to ensure daycare activities are clearly separated from construction activity"; staff has no way of knowing if there is sufficient personnel; no decision can be made until that information is provided. Ms. Sipia Indicated that nothing has started; once approval is received, there will delinH:ely be someone designated to make sure everything is as it should be. Director Suggested that the general consensus seems to be that the Planning Commission would like a plan brought back; the applicant's archH:ect or contractor can draft something for the Commission's consideration. 9:58p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Nielsen Reiterated there needs to be a phasing plan in place with a time frame, materials, barrier iocations, personnel monitors, etc. Kozak Concurred with Commissioner Nielsen; he believes the applicant has the best intentions and the situation is difficult regarding concurrent occupancy of temporary use and rehabilitation and reuse of this property; the plans that were submitted look acceplable and compatible wilhlhe surrounding uses; the removal of the Shakey's pole sign and the additions of landscaping and improvements to the building itself are things to look forward to. Regarding circulation and traffic impacts, suggested a striping and signage pian lor the left-hand movements across First Street; a clear demarcation of the entrance and exist should be provided; it is important for the safety of the children that the operation ensure the vehicles are parked and the children walked into the facility and also signed in; a clear flow 01 traffic circulation is necessary lor that reason. Condition 1.7 shouid be amended to require that a current license be posted in public view within the facility. Condition 1.8 should state that any "request" for an increase be reviewed by the Community Development Director. L" Staled his agreement with the other Commissioners. Puckell Indicated that this looks like a good project that will help beautify that area of First Street; ilthe requested items can be submitted, the Planning Commission should be able to work out the details MlnutBO - Planning Comm~sion 11_1 :>-06 - Page 21 and get the applicant back on track; extending the April 26, 2007, deadline to May seems reasonable, Floyd Asked staff to address the question regarding the $5,000 deposit. Director Replied that any excess will be refunded when the building pennit is finaled: a significant amount of staff time has been spent to get the architecture before the Commission; an amount well in excess of the entitiement fee has been spent. Floyd Restated that ail the Commissioners are pleased about the project, regret the incident with the child, and look forward to having the project move forward. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Fioyd, to continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0, Puckett Apologized to the applicant for having to wait so long due to the length of the earlier item on tonighfs agenda. Adopted Resolution 4. No. 4045 CODE AMENDMENT 06-007 (ORDINANCE NO. 1322) TO AMEND TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9270, SUBSECTION D, AND CODE SECTION 9298, SUBSECTION F. THE CODE AMENDMENT WILL EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT ANY USE OR ACTIVITY THAT IS PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL AND STATE LAW IS A PROHIBITED USE IN EACH ZONE DISTRICT IN THE CITY. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4045 recommending that the City Council adopt Code Amendment No. 06-007 - Ordinance No. 1322. 10:08 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Director Presented the staff report, Nielsen Asked if the City's enactment of this ordinance might create any Iiabiiity from a civil perspective. Retterer Answered in the negative. Director Added that some cities have been challenged; it remains to be seen what the fulure holds. Mlnutes_PlannlngCommission 11-12-05-page22 Retterer 10:19p.m. None Director reported Nielsen Kozak Agreed that no one can predict what might happen regarding the preemption issue; because this is an area of law that is constantly evolving, it seemed appropriate to take this type of approach. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Nielsen, to adopt Resolution No. 4045. Motion carrfad 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 4. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE NOVEMBER 6, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. The City Council accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation on the incentives for affordable housing and held the first reading of Ordinance No. 1320. COMMISSION CONCERNS Thanked the Tustin Chamber of Commerce for hosting the Candidates' Forum, which was handled well and impartially. Congratulated the Tustin Public Schools Foundation for an awesome Dino Dash, raising a large sum of money for the youngsters of Tustin. In honor of Veterans Day, Commissioner Nielsen urged everyone to remember all the servicemen and women who have passed and those who are now serving in Iraq. Thanked staff for their hard work on tonight's items and getting the Commission through the public hearings; and, stated he looks forward to a favorabie conclusion of the two items that were continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Expressed his support for the Code Enforcement staff and the difficult job that they perform for this community. Congratulated Mayor Davert on his re-election and Jim Palmer on his election to City Council. Minule5-Planning Commission 11-13-Q6-Page23 Kozak continued L" Puckett Floyd Director Floyd 10:27 p.m. Noted he is looking forward 10 this Thursday's Mayor's Breakfast sponsored by the Tustin Community Foundation, Tustin Chamber of Commerce, and the City. Indicated there are political signs on Edinger and Bryan for candidates from the City of Irvine. Congratulated Doug Davert and Jim Palmer. Thanked slafl for this evening's presentations. Stated he was happy to be back from his cruise through the Panama Canal. Congratulated Doug Davert and Jim Paimer. Indicated the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast is scheduled for Thursday, November 16, a17:00 a.m. at the Marconi Museum. Noted that Santa Claus will be appearing at the Enderle Center this Thursday, November 16, from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. for the kick-off to the holiday season. Thanked staff for the reports this evening. Congratulated Doug Davert and Jim Palmer. Asked 11 individuals are allowed to remove the political signs now. Indicated the removal of political signs is best left to Code Enforce- ment. Noted the required Ethics Training is scheduled for the 28111; he attended last week's session and strongly recommended that other Commissioners attend on the 28111 rather than take the online quiz. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, November 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Mlnutes_PlanningCommisslon".13-06-Page24