On The Planning Commission Agenda – January 13, 2015
After a month long hyatus, the Tustin Planning Commission is taking it easy for their first meeting of the year. The December 9th meeting had only three real items of discussion and they breezed through those in just over 30 minutes. The only reason it took that long was due to the discussion over sign variances on the Legacy property.
The lengthy discussion concerned temporary signs for 800 acres of property involving commercial and personal real property. The city staff, thinking they were going to breeze through this were taken by surprise by the concerns Commissioner Sam (may I call you Sam?) Altowaiji had over size and number of signs. Eventually, the remaining commissioners (two of them recused themselves) approved the ordinance.
Of course, one of the reasons they were able to breeze through the agenda was because they “suggested” going through without presentations. I’m not sure if that sat well with the city staff or if they were relieved they didn’t have to do another dog and pony show for an otherwise empty house while Jeff Thompson pretended to look fascinated. As was pointed out, the staff reports attached to the published agenda have all the information.
Let’s hope they remember that in future meetings.
Community Development Department Director Elizabeth Binsack did report on the Second Community Core Workshop, saying the turnout was very good (it was, I was there) and they received a few comments and suggestions they are considering. The consultants they hired to put this together have done a nice job on the inclusiveness tact.
Barring unforeseen presentations, Tuesday night’s planning commission meeting should go just about as quick as December’s. Only one public hearing is scheduled for a Conditional Use Permit.
Item 2, Conditional Use Permit 2014-22, would establish a dance studio on Bentley Circle near Walnut and Tustin Ranch Road. Actually the applicant, South Coast Performing Arts, has been in Tustin at the Ralphs Shopping Center on Irvine Blvd. since 2005. Business must be good.
The application and report look pretty in-depth save for a couple of items the commissioners should be asking about.
First, the city seems to put an incredible emphasis on environmental health. This building has been used, since 1979, for industrial application. The last use prior to this was as an electronics manufacturer. In my experience, electronics involved a lot of nasty chemicals and solvents for cleaning. Still, no testing or CEQA required before allowing children into the area?
The other item, and I admit it is a small one, is the inclusion of a “homework” room in the plans (right in the middle, Elizabeth). It sounds like this may be used when parents drop their kids off early or pick them up late ala (not-so-) free babysitting. Have those bodies been included in the max number of people at the facility? Just asking, and maybe the commissioners should, too.
That should be it for the week. Hopefully, the commissioners won’t want to spend a lot of time on their personal holiday antics. I’m not sure I want to hear about green bean casseroles gone awry.
Posted on January 12, 2015, in Local Government, politics, Tustin City Commissions and tagged Elizabeth Binsack, Jeff Thompson, public hearings, tustin planning commission. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.