Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC Minutes 5-27-08ITEM #1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 27, 2008 7:03 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Chair Nielsen, Chair Pro Tem Puckett Commissioners Kozak, Murray, Thompson Staff present Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager Dana Ogdon, Assistant Community Development Director David Kendig, Deputy City Attorney Tim Serlet, Director of Public Works Jerry Craig, Redevelopment Program Manager Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Edmelynne Huffer, Associate Planner Ryan Swiontek, Associate Planner Reina Kapadia, Assistant Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS Approved CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVAL OF MINUTES -MAY 13, 2008, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Murray, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Adopted Resolution 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 08-001 (HOUSING Nos. 4094 and 4095, ELEMENT UPDATE) AND MINOR TEXT AMENDMENT as amended TO THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN. RECOMMENDATION: a. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4094 recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 08-001. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 1 b. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4095 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 08-001, updating the Housing Element and minor text amendment to the General Plan. 7:05 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Willkom Presented the staff report. Nielsen Thanked staff and the consultants for putting together a very comprehensive amount of information; and, asked if there were any questions. Thompson Echoed the Chair's comments regarding the information; and, asked for the following: • a definition of income and how the various levels translate into today's income levels • the City's approaches in implementing affordable housing at the Legacy • clarification of the information on page 30 of the Housing Element regarding the average construction price of $88/square foot which appears to be low • how rental assistance program functions within the City with the Orange County Housing authority Section 8 program. Shingleton Responded as follows: • Income is determined by-the Department of Housing and Community Development at the state level; income limits are issued in February of each year which corresponds to the median income in the county; the figures in the Housing Element reflect the 2006-07 income levels; there will be changes as the City moves forward with individual projects; further details were provided in a handout which is included herein by reference. • The Legacy strategy involves a layer of programmatic requirements that were different from what had been seen Citywide; a homeless assistance plan was prepared that responded to the needs for homeless accommodation in the vicinity of the Base; opportunities were identified in response to submittals by the homeless providers; there are a number of homeless providers that Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 2 were recommended to the Navy to meet the affordability obligations; transactions were negotiated with each of the developers to accommodate that need. • The Housing Element identifies a broad average of construction costs but does not reflect indirect costs or land costs; the Affordability Gap and Comprehensive Affordability Strategy (parts of the Element) identifies the actual gap in construction types for each housing development prototype. • The rental assistance programs are the existing rental assistance program provided through Section 8 certificates that are made available to the City through the Orange County Housing Authority; as those units become available, they are allocated; this program is currently closed; there is also a new construction and multi-family acquisition and rehabilitation program with which the Redevelopment Agency is directly involved that includes county and state bond financing; currently there are four projects in Tustin. Nielsen Stated that two of the public response letters referred to the inclusionary zoning ordinances; and, asked for an explanation. Shingleton Answered that the City only has mandated inclusionary obligations that are included in the Zoning Ordinance as it affects the MCAS-Tustin Specific Plan area; elsewhere in the City, there are no inclusionary zoning requirements; in the Redevelopment Project area, 15 percent of new residential products must be affordable; rather than mandating affordable housing through an inclusionary zoning stipulation, the City negotiates developer assistance; there are also density bonus provisions which requires a certain. number of units to be affordable. Nielsen Asked if members of the public wished to speak. Linda Tang, Stated The Kennedy Commission is a coalition of community representing The members advocating for the development of housing for Kennedy Commission residents who earn less than $20,000 per year; and, read from and submitted a letter which is incorporated herein by reference. Nielsen Asked if staff wished to respond at this time. Shingleton Responded that the supporting addendum chart is being modified to reflect the actual densities tied to each of the vacant sites and underutilized sites, identifying what the total unit capacity would be; the HCD does not mandate rezoning of the Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 3 property but requires cities to determine vacant and underutilized properties that would accommodate the RHNA numbers and the need for affordable housing; the land inventory indicates the City is in excess of the capacity necessary to meet the RHNA housing numbers within the time frames provided by the statute; the Police Department information addresses the homeless needs of the community in response to Senate Bill 2; in addition, the Homeless Accommodation Plan prepared in conjunction with the reuse of the MCAS Tustin provides a comprehensive homeless accommodation analysis. Willkom Stated that the City has addressed the extremely low income households in the Housing Element (Technical Memorandum); perhaps a better description can be provided in describing how the City would address the needs of extremely low income households. 7:40 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Thompson Reiterated that staff and the consultants have done a good job compiling the information; and, suggested that Resolution No. 4095 be amended to remove the word "cleanup" and replace it with "update" in Item I.B. Kozak Complimented staff and the consultants for developing an excellent Housing Element; the workshop was helpful for putting everything in context; this seems to be a balanced plan; looking at the 1998-2008 construction goals versus what was constructed, the City has more than met its goal. Murray Agreed with the comments of Commissioners Thompson and Kozak. Puckett Stated that this is his 13th year of public service, and he cannot remember a more comprehensive document. Nielsen Added his thanks to staff; and, stated his agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners. It was moved by Murray, seconded by Thompson, to adopt Resolution Nos. 4094 and 4095, with the small correction. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Resolution 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2007-234, A REQUEST TO No. 4093 SUBDIVIDE A CONDOMINIUM SUITE WITHIN AN EXISTING OFFICE CONDOMINIUM BUILDING. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD RESULT IN AN ADDITIONAL CONDOMINIUM OFFICE UNIT FOR A TOTAL OF TWELVE (12) UNITS WITHIN THE Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 4 EXISTING 33,669 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY BUILDING. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2552 WALNUT AVENUE IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC-COMM) IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4093 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 2007-234. 7:50 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Swiontek Presented the staff report. Murray Asked for clarification regarding the modification of the CC&Rs referred to in Resolution No. 4093, Condition 4.1. Swiontek Replied that the applicant would need to update the CC&Rs to include the newly divided unit. Thompson Asked if the applicant had satisfied all the prior conditions of approval. Swiontek Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Gabe Foster, Stated that the reason for splitting the last unit is market projectlmanager constraints; there seems to be more of a demand for smaller and broker units versus larger. Puckett Indicated he believes this is one of the most beautiful buildings in Tustin; and, asked how much space the South Coast Dermatology Group occupies. Mr. Foster Responded the group occupies 2,600 square feet. Puckett Asked if the group has the largest space. Mr. Foster Answered that there is a 5,000 square foot unit upstairs, an attorney with sign rights; Farmers Insurance also has sign rights but has not acted upon that right. Nielsen Indicated that he agreed with Chair Pro Tem Puckett's assessment of the building; and, asked if the applicant foresees any further subdivisions in the existing plan. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 5 Mr. Foster Answered in the negative. 7:58 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Nielsen, to adopt Resolution No. 4093. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Resolution 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08-005, A REQUEST TO No. 4092, as amended OPERATE A SPIRITUAL CENTER WITH A BOOKSTORE AND SERVICES INCLUDING CHILDCARE, CLASSES, AND SANCTUARY WITHIN AN EXISTING 4,685 SQUARE FOOT TENANT SPACE. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 14051 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE H, IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC-C) ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4092, approving Conditional Use Permit 08-005. 8:00 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Swiontek Presented the staff report. Thompson Asked if this conditional use permit is transferrable to another tenant should the space become available and whether the use at Larwin Square would move with the applicant or that landlord could allow a new tenant with similar use. Swiontek Replied that conditional use permits are not transferrable from one location to another; a new tenant could come in within a year and operate within those conditions of approval, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department; Condition 1.8 indicates that the use may be reviewed annually or more often if deemed necessary by the Community Development Department to ensure compatibility with the area; there is a use restriction regarding noise or parking problems that may be observed by the City; any new tenant would have to comply with all the conditions of approval. Kozak Noted that the project site is within the ULI study area; and, asked when the Field Paoli study will be completed. Swiontek Suggested that question would be better answered by the Redevelopment Agency staff. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 6 Craig Stated the market analysis was just submitted; next will be a series of public meetings in July; it is anticipated the study will be concluded in late October or November. Nielsen Questioned whether any licensing would be required for the child care. Ogdon Indicated that the proposal for child care would be for those attending the services and not to be used as an independent day care service. Nielsen Stated his understanding that the City considers this a church use with a sanctuary. Swiontek Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Indicated that this is the third time since he has been on the Commission that hours of use have been imposed upon a sanctuary; it is constitutionally guaranteed that hours of operation not be imposed on a church or religious organization. Asked if there are any reference materials that staff used for previous cases. Kendig Replied that he was not aware of any reference materials on this topic. Nielsen Restated there have been two other cases in the past five years with a similar issue. Invited the applicant to the lectern. Reverends Stated they are the co-founders of Common Ground. Glenda Knox and Judy DePrete Nielsen Asked if there is any sort of licensing required through the state regarding the child care use. Ms. DePrete Responded that the County does not require any licensing as long as parents are on-site while the children are in care. Nielsen Asked if the applicant has any objection to the restriction of the sanctuary hours of operation being 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Ms. DePrete Answered in the negative; the hours are compatible with the intention of the use. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 7 Murray Asked if those hours applied to the Larwin Square operation and whether or not there was ancillary child care at that site. Ms. Knox Stated there have been three small children who accompanied their parents. Ms. DePrete Added that there is no accommodation for children at the present site.' Murray Asked if the hours at Larwin Square were consistent with the proposed plan. Ms. DePrete Answered in the affirmative. Murray Asked if there were any issues at the current location that contributed to the move. Ms. DePrete Indicated that size was the only factor. Thompson Asked the applicant to provide discussion regarding the compatibility factor with current tenants and tenants at the new location regarding noise, parking, etc. Ms. DePrete Stated that the new site is a destination location; there is not much retail; the adjacent occupant is retail, but no difficulty is anticipated; there has never been any difficulty at the present location. Murray Complimented the applicant on her past successes; and, stated that the business plan was excellent. Puckett Added that should be a good location for the use and an asset to the center. 8:16 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Thompson Requested that Resolution No. 4092, Item IE2, and Condition 3.2 be amended to read 48 persons "at one time." Nielsen Stated he understood the concerns expressed by the Redevelopment Agency as presented in the staff report; this is a unique situation and location, and this is a positive proposal for the site and a perfect use for this area. Murray Indicated he was in full support of the project. Puckett Extended best wishes to the applicant. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 8 Nielsen Agreed with the other Commissioners' comments; and, added that it is important when looking at religious organizations and churches not to infringe, be a roadblock, or do anything of that nature restricting the practice of religious freedom; if the applicants have agreed to the hours of operation, he supports the project. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution 4092, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Resolution 5. CODE AMENDMENT 08-001: OFF-STREET PARKING Nos. 4096 and 4091 REGULATIONS. The Tustin City Council instructed City staff to provide information and analysis on prohibiting overnight parking on public streets, and the Community Development Department was asked to draft a code amendment to address the potential effects such a prohibition may have on off-street parking conditions. RECOMMENDATION: a. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4096 recommending that the City Council Adopt a Negative Declaration for Code Amendment 08- 001. b. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4091 recommending that the City Council approve Code Amendment 08-001, addressing the potential impacts of on-street parking regulations on off-street parking conditions. 8:24 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Huffer Presented the staff report. Ogdon Added that the Public Works Department, Police Department, and City Attorney are preparing ordinances at the direction of the City Council that will affect public right-of-ways; the proposed parking ordinance before the Planning Commission will amend the Zoning Code and only addresses private property parking-related issues; the ordinance organizes all the parking requirements in the Tustin City Code into one chapter rather than the multiple sections that now exist; this will ensure that on-street parking issues that may be affected by the other ordinances, if adopted by Council, do not shift into residential neighborhoods or push parked cars off the arterials into commercial shopping centers; the ordinance will assist property Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 9 owners in addressing parking concerns that might shift into those neighborhoods and ensure that off-street parking developed and designed for a project is permanently available; this is an opportunity for the City to proactively introduce new Code sections that provide parking flexibility for historic properties in Old Town, a continuing issue; the ordinance will also provide flexibility for disabled parking requirements. Murray Complimented staff for moving forward with this ordinance; he has a particular area of concern regarding the handicapped striping and signage; throughout the City, there are many locations of off-street parking where appropriate striping and signage is not in compliance. Ogdon Asked if Commissioner Murray was referring to coming into compliance with the painting. Murray Reiterated that he sees situations where handicapped with placards cannot park because someone else has parked in the space, and this is non-enforceable because the striping is faded and the signs are out of compliance. Ogdon Responded that the proposed ordinance has several sections that require maintenance, the primary one being that it is the duty of the property owner to maintain and repair required parking areas (Section 9262c). Murray Questioned who addresses the compliance aspect. Ogdon Replied that the City's Code Enforcement officers would be responsible for enforcing that provision. Thompson Referred to page 2 of the staff report and the bulleted list of issues that the amendments are intended to address; and, suggested that parking on sidewalks and loading and unloading in the public right-of--way be restricted. Remarked that in the Negative Declaration Exhibit A there were several items that suggest the Parking Code update will add value in those areas. Referred to Exhibit C of the draft ordinance, the last paragraph on page 3, item (i), and asked for clarification of the "decrease in the parking by a maximum of one space" and a typical situation where this would be applied. Nielsen Specified Section 9291 of Draft Ordinance 1354 as the reference. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 10 Ogdon Stated that this has to do with Section 9264b(4), which is on page 13 of the ordinance, regarding historic resource residential parking; this is an attempt to provide flexibility to the registered historical buildings in Old Town: for example, property owners who have an historic building with an historic garage; the Code now states that, if the property owner wants to add a bedroom to a 1,200 square foot existing house, atwo-car garage would be required; this typically cannot be accomplished without demolishing the existing historical one-car garage or without taking off a piece of the historical residence to provide the driveway entrance to the garage; under the correct conditions, when a building is listed as an historic structure or listed in the City's Historical Resources Survey and at least cone-car garage exists, the requirement for the second-car garage can be waived if the property owner can provide an off-street parking space somewhere else on the site; that off-street space can be provided on a driveway, as a tandem space, or in a carport; this would only apply to registered historic buildings; there are further limitations regarding the size of the addition. Nielsen Asked if staff knows how many of these residents have one-car garages. Ogdon Stated that information is unknown. Murray Questioned whether this approach is consistent with other historical areas, such as the Orange Historic Area. Ogdon Replied that staff had property owners come forward with similar situations; staff contacted the cities of Laguna Beach and Claremont who enacted similar ordinances; some influences were pulled from those ordinances. Thompson Asked if granny flats are a protected use under the parking ordinance. Ogdon Stated that granny flats are not traditionally considered second units; granny flat units are restricted from having kitchens; second units are referred to in Section B(8) which states that a second residential unit is not authorized to take advantage of the provisions but would require atwo-car garage. Nielsen Referred to the state's provisions regarding second units and how that might affect the ordinance provision. Kendig Replied that the restriction is permissible under the state statutes. Nielsen Asked if parking is separated from that issue. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 11 Kendig Stated that, as he understands the new requirements, in order to establish a second unit, one would need to establish atwo- cargarage. Thompson Asked, if a granny flat were to have a small kitchen, which category would it fall under. Ogdon Indicated that the Code section that refers to granny flats and guest rooms requires a conditional use permit and would be conditioned not to have a cooking facility; a covenant is typically required on the property that would warn future owners that no kitchen would be allowed; since those are not considered second units, atwo-car garage is not required; the proposed ordinance is designed to protect the historic house when renovations are requested. Thompson Referred to page 15 of Exhibit C, Item C.2, and requested clarification regarding full screening of recreational vehicles. Ogdon Responded that the intent is to address what could be recreational vehicle blight in residential neighborhoods where vehicles are parked on driveways or in front yards and perhaps prevent access to a required parking area or become unsightly; all recreational vehicles, which are defined in the parking ordinance as boats, trailers, etc. to be located outside of any required front and side setbacks must be on a paved surface and screened from view from the public right-of--way by a wall or fence and landscaping; some discretion is provided for the Community Development Director to determine those requirements. Kozak Asked if any comments have been received during the public comment period. Huffer Stated she was unaware of any public comments received. Kozak Noted that in many retail centers vehicles are painted with advertising for a business that may have a monument sign or building-mounted sign; these vehicles are parked against the main street and presents borderline blight; and, asked if this ordinance will address that issue. Kendig Indicated that issue is not directly addressed in the proposed ordinance; there is a provision that prohibits overnight parking in commercially zoned areas. Puckett Asked for clarification regarding the restricted parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 12 Kendig Stated that restriction will be part of the other ordinances going before the Council but is not a part of the parking ordinance being considered this evening; the direction from Council was the return to them with a Citywide restriction prohibiting on- street parking between those hours. Puckett Asked if the ordinance will cover Irvine and Red Hill where on- street parking is allowed. Nielsen Restated the ordinance being considered by the Planning Commission would deal with off-street parking on private property. Kendig Added that was correct; more comprehensive regulations are also going before the Council. Murray Requested clarification regarding the signs on vehicles concerns expressed by Commissioner Kozak. Nielsen Stated that he noticed a 48-hour exemption was included. Ogdon Indicated that Code Enforcement officers currently enforce the Sign Code when people use their vehicles for advertising; if a vehicle has not been moved and is parked next to the street as a sign, Code Enforcement requires that the vehicle be moved. Added that, to provide balance, some businesses would be allowed to have their vehicles on-site but that other people would be prevented from abusing the commercial center by parking on the site; this would also protect residential communities from commercial businesses operating out of a home from lining the street with commercial vehicles, having their employees come to the house, get into the vehicles, and go about their business. Nielsen Asked if the above reference would be applicable to a vehicle for sale by a property owner would be an exception. Murray Stated that was the situation he was referring to. Ogdon Answered that Code Section 9262.1 .a allows private vehicles to be displayed on residential property belonging to or occupied by the owner for the purposes of temporarily displaying the vehicle for sale; the display may not occur for more than 90 days. Nielsen Referred to page 5, Section 92626, and asked for further clarification regarding the restriction of RVs, boats, campers, etc. on private properly. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 13 Ogdon Stated that this provision works in conjunction with the provision related to recreational vehicles; if someone moved a vehicle out of the front yard setback and into the side yard and was blocking access to the garage, this provision would restrict it because it would be impeding the access to a required parking space. Nielsen Indicated that he knows of homes that have been built for RV access with the wider setbacks usually on the side yard; and, asked if this ordinance would create a problem for those homeowners who own an RV and park it on their properly but do not block the garage. Ogdon Suggested that this would be a problem for some properties. Nielsen Asked if that would be due to the lack of screening from the right-of-way. Ogdon Answered yes and that some of those proprty side yards are adjacent to streets and the ordinance as currently drafted would prohibit RVs from being located within a front or side yard setback. Nielsen Questioned whether or not that would be the case even if the setback was specifically constructed in the original home construction to accommodate the width of an RV. Ogdon Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked if there might be a possibility for accommodating those homeowners. Ogdon Stated that staff can review that issue. Nielsen Asked if, on page 6 under Availability 2.b. regarding garage spaces, the reference is to residential garages and questioned how that provision is to be enforced. Ogdon Indicated that this issue is envisioned as being on a complaint basis only; there is a possibility that the off-street provisions that are being considered could involve a permit process allowing exemptions from the on-street prohibition; this might require an inspection of the property to determine whether or not there is an actual need for an exemption. Nielsen Stated that his primary concern regards snooping in residents' garages. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 14 Ogdon Restated that all code enforcement is complaint-based unless an officer sees a blatant situation of violation. Nielsen Indicated he wants to make sure that individual rights and public safety on private property are protected. Kozak Interjected with a question whether or not the homes that were purchased because of an RV accommodation might be considered a legal, nonconforming use. Kendig Answered that the issue of a legal, nonconforming use would arise only if it was initially permitted by the City and had been legally created. Nielsen Stated he had a difficulty regarding penalizing people who have RV use now being cited after 20 years of use. Thompson Suggested that the situations where garages are used as storage units pushes the cars elsewhere; the City needs to be careful about how far to go with enforcement and to find a balance, but this issue is a problem and needs to be addressed. Nielsen Stated he would rather err on the side of the homeowner than on the regulation, unless the situation presents a specific public safety issue or hazard; protection of homeowners' rights is important; most of the ordinance seems designed to cite the people who do not abide by the regulations and use their garage for storage, or a living area, etc. Murray Indicated he concurred with Chair Nielsen's remarks; the point of these types of regulations relates to quality of life issues and becomes a matter of balance in the spirit of the law and the letter of the law; many of the ordinances come into play for the residents who are the exception to the rule. Nielsen Suggested that the numbers may be minimal but the question of individual rights is nonetheless important. Asked how much of the ordinance was already on the books and how much has been added and/or amended. Ogdon Replied that the ordinance is based on the Zoning Ordinance update; the bulk of the proposed parking ordinance came from that effort, which was then tailored to address the City Council's concerns; some of the current parking guidelines needed to be codified and made more firm; the parking requirements by land use regarding the standards for the size of a space, back-up distances, etc. were prepared by a consultant through the preparation of the Zoning Ordinance. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 15 Nielsen Asked for clarification regarding the Transportation Demand Management on page 14, Section 9265. Ogdon Answered that refers to a separate ordinance adopted by the City Council that dictates how businesses will comply with the Transportation Demand Ordinance which is reviewed by the Public Works Department. Serlet Stated this section refers to ride-sharing. Nielsen Referred to page 18 and asked for a definition of motorcycle bollards. Murray/Puckett Stated that bollards are cement structures or poles for the parking of motorcycles. Nielsen Invited members of the public to the lectern. Jennifer McClure, gave Stated that she first viewed the staff report yesterday and was no address but stated speaking on behalf of herself, her family, and four or five she is a long-time neighbors with whom she discussed this matter to attain their Tustin resident opinions; Section 9262B(2)(b) regarding parking vehicles in garage spaces seems to state that she would be prohibited from parking in her driveway or apron unless her garage were fully parked, regardless of any overspill onto the street; she parks in her driveway, not in the street; if this is not the intent, there should be some clarification; otherwise, this seems to be an ex post facto limitation on her property rights; her neighborhood does not have CC&Rs; she has always used the driveway for parking and would not have bought the house if that type of restriction had existed; her house was built in 1967; the driveway was always intended for parking purposes; citizens need to know they are allowed to park in their driveways without having the Police checking to see if the garage is in compliance. Nielsen Asked if she has a parkable garage and chooses to use her driveway for parking. Ms. McClure Answered in the affirmative. Thompson Asked for the specific item reference. Ms. McClure Restated 9262B(2)(b) on page 6. Nielsen Suggested that what Ms. McClure describes, per this ordinance, would be allowed. Ogdon Stated that suggestion was correct; the section pertains to residential parking spaces which are inside a garage; the intent Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 16 of the section is to clarify that garages are to be used for parking, not storage; there is another provision, 9266.C.1 on page 14, which specifically reads that automobiles shall not be parked between the street property line in the front or side of the residential unit except on a legal driveway, parking space, garage, or carport; therefore, parking is allowed at any of those places as long as the area is paved. Ms. McClure Indicated that her concern is that a future owner may read the section differently. Nielsen Suggested Ms. McClure was more concerned regarding the garage aspect of the section. Ms. McClure Responded in the affirmative and referred to the recreational vehicle use restriction, suggesting that some sort of grandfather clause to allow for natural attrition rather than interfering with residents' property rights; however, that is not her issue; she also has an issue regarding visitors; her parents are located out of state and visit three or four times a year and bring their camper shell; the code would not allow them to park on her street or in her driveway. Nielsen Noted that the issue before the Planning Commission relates to off-street parking. Kendig Clarified that the current draft of the ordinance that deals with on-street parking would allow temporary permits for temporary parking situations such as the one Ms. McClure related. Ms. McClure Asked if Mr. Kendig was referring to the ordinance being considered by the Planning Commission. Kendig Answered that he was referring to the on-street parking ordinances being prepared for consideration by the City Council at their second meeting in June. Ms. McClure Reiterated that visitors' parking is a special issue that relates to many residents of Tustin and should therefore be considered for special short-term parking permits. Asked for clarification regarding the prohibition of parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and whether or not that will be a Citywide prohibition; there appears to be a permit process for neighborhoods on an as-needed basis. Nielsen Restated that the on-street parking is not the issue before the Planning Commission this evening. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 17 Kendig Stated that ordinance will be part of the package for the City Council on July 1. Ogdon Referred to page 15 of the proposed ordinance regarding nonconforming recreational vehicles; Item 3 states that recreational vehicles may be temporarily parked on driveways in front of residences for not more than 48 continuous hours within any seven consecutive day period of time; this is designed for loading and unloading only; Item 2 states that no habitation is allowed at any time; this is complaint-based; if it is the Planning Commission's desire, staff can revise that language. Nielsen Stated that visitors with RVs is a different issue from the homeowner being allowed to store an RV on the property. 9:25 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Nielsen Stated he has serious issues concerning the RV parking and the garage storage; creating CC&Rs for the City for garage use seems inappropriate; if there is a way to do so with protection for individual properly rights, that wording should be changed; protections should be built in to prevent garage peeping and neighbor-on-neighbor disputes. Kozak Agreed with Chair Nielsen's perspective; there needs to be a standard so the City does not become an arbiter between neighbor disputes about the contents of a garage; if the garage storage does not involve the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, it should be allowed; if residents store items for their businesses in their garages, such as flammable products, there may be a safety issue. Thompson Indicated he would like to see a balance with enforceable guidelines; he agrees with Ms. McClure's comments that in-laws should be allowed to park and, if she prefers to park in her driveway, there should be an accommodation; however, if the residents park their cars up and down the street, that should not be allowed. Nielsen Noted his agreement with Commissioner Thompson's remarks; it is difficult to know where to draw the line; the enforcement process needs to be handled in a way that best protects personal property rights and also the City's public safety; government intrusion needs to be limited. Murray Remarked that these issues are very difficult to balance and are a part of most communities; arriving at verbiage that is general enough that some interpretation may be allowed regarding compliance as well as quality of life is desired. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 18 Nielsen Stressed that his desire would be to find a way to strengthen the protections in the language regarding garage enforcement; and, asked if staff could bring back some language. Thompson Suggested that there was a common theme among the discussion issues that ties to what is allowed in the garage, the driveway, and provisions for flexibility regarding the recreational vehicles. Nielsen Stated that he understands this it is difficult; many years ago the City annexed County property where there were different types of parking ordinances and issues that are currently in force; parking for the multi-unit dwellings are a specific concern; it is important to understand how off-street parking affects those neighborhoods; it is also important to be sensitive to the poorest people in the community; perhaps staff could come back with something that addresses the garage issue with some determination to secure individual rights. Ogdon Responded that staff has been directed by Council to prepare the ordinance; under current state law, staff must notice the recommendation of the Planning Commission ten days prior to that meeting. Nielsen Asked if language could be added in a recommendation to the Council. Puckett Added that the process has to begin somewhere; the intent of this ordinance is not to be "Big Brother" but to bring some continuity throughout the City; there will be instances where there are hardships, but the intention is to bring everyone into compliance; he has acquaintances who use their garage as a playroom and are not abusing the intent of the ordinance, while there are people who are using garages for storage and not for parking; the Planning Commission needs to adopt the resolutions and provide recommendations to Council. Nielsen Confirmed that all the Commission is doing at this point is recommending; this can include language regarding the points mentioned above. Thompson Suggested it might be a good idea to itemize the specific points as follows: • Page 5 B.1, should reflect the prior codes that have been complied to for storage of recreational vehicles in side yards allowing for grandfather recognition. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 19 • Page 6, 2, b referring to residents parking vehicles in garage space may need to be clarified to state it is the intent that residents' vehicles be parked in garage spaces but not a mandate that opens up the door for Department inspectors to investigate how garages are being used. • Page 15, Sections C.2 and C.3, should allow more flexibility in the extent of time or flexibility for parking in the driveway; the garage does not have to be full of cars before residents can park in their driveways. Thompson suggested an a. and a b. be added allowing recreational vehicles longer term parking and allowing people to park their cars in their driveways. Kozak and Nielsen Agreed that residents should be allowed to park in their driveways regardless of the contents of their garages. With the suggested recommendations above, Thompson moved approval of the resolutions, seconded by Puckett. Motion carried 5-0. None REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 6. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE MAY 20, 2008, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Ogdon Stated there were no significant planning issues on the May 20 City Council agenda; he would answer any questions the Commissioners might have. COMMISSION CONCERNS Thompson Wished everyone a Happy Belated Memorial Day with special wishes to those veterans listening from abroad and thanking them for their service to our country. Stated he is looking forward to the Chili Cook-off and the State of the City Luncheon. Nielsen Asked if Commissioner Thompson had anything to report from the OCTA committees. Thompson Responded that he will be finishing his role as Chair on the Citizens Advisory next month but had no highlights to share from recent meetings; the Go Local Committee is still in the Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 20 process of reviewing the applications from the cities; he may have more to update in the coming months when the process is complete. Kozak Stated he is also looking forward to the Chili cook-of and the State of the City address. Offered his thanks and compliments to the staff for the agenda items this evening. Murray Indicated it is a pleasure for him to work with the members of this Planning Commission. Thanked staff for their outstanding work. Noted he has received good comments from people in the community regarding the City's being open every Friday. Offered his congratulations to Dave Wilson regarding his promotion to Director of Parks and Recreation. Congratulated the Tustin teachers of the year who were honored at the Irvine Marriott last week. Noted that he had read in the paper that applications are being taken online the affordable senior housing at Coventry Court. Stated that Tustin High School has an Education Foundation that will hold its inaugural fundraiser tomorrow evening at the Beach Pit BBQ from 6:30-9:30 p.m. Added that he will be involved as a judge in the Chili Cook-off and is looking forward to that. Indicated there was a great article in the newspaper about Lou Bone and his "district office." Asked if staff could research and provide suggestions regarding the use of energy and providing friendly housing and commercial technologies; this topic will become more and more important; anything we can do to move in that direction would be very helpful. Puckett Thanked staff for the well-documented Housing Element. Noted he is looking forward to being a judge at the Chili Cook- offand to attending the State of City luncheon. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 21 Puckett continued Referred to Memorial Day and said he had been wondering if that holiday has lost some of the emphasis it once had; he visited Riverside National Cemetery near March Air Force Base yesterday and found it was packed; it did his heart good to see all the people honoring those who gave their lives and helped America to be where it is today and to see the holiday being properly observed. Nielsen Stated that he will be a rookie judge at the Chili Cook-off. Asked Commissioner Kozak if he would be presenting a report on his historic preservation seminar. Kozak Replied that he will be attending the Design Guidelines workshop in the City of Orange tomorrow evening and intended to combine the two seminars for a presentation during a future Planning Commission meeting. Nielsen Indicated he enjoyed the TUSD Teacher of the Year dinner and encouraged others to attend in the future. Congratulated Dave Wilson on his promotion to Director of Parks and Recreation. Suggested that everyone should take Memorial Day and Veterans Day to remember our veterans; he remembers his uncle, his aunt, and his mother, all members of the Marine Corps during World War II; please keep in your prayers all our service people overseas and in harm's way. Murray Asked that everyone keep Director Binsack and her family in their thoughts and prayers during their time of sorrow in the loss of their mother. 9:50 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: It was moved by Murray, seconded by Kozak, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 10, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes -Planning Commission May 27, 2008 -Page 22