Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 9-9-14 MINUTES ITEM #1 REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Altowaiji ROLL CALL: Present: Chairperson Thompson Chairperson Pro Tem Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: Approved. CONSENT CALENDAR- 1. ALENDAR:1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — AUGUST 26, 2014, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the August 26, 2014 meeting as provided. Motion. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Altowaiji, to approve the August 26, 2014 Minutes. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted Reso. 2. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2014-001 (FIFTH No. 4266, as AMENDMENT TO EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) amended. Development Agreement (DA) 2014-001, an amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement (ETDA) to allow the conversion of up to 23,445 square feet of the former Edwards Theater located at 2982-3030 EI Camino Real to a City of Tustin Community Center and to allow the transfer of development rights of the theater space to other potential development sites within the Tustin Market Place commercial center. APPLICANT: Peter K. Pirzadeh, P.E. Pirzadeh &Associates, Inc. 30 Executive Park, Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92614 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Minutes—Planning Commission—September 9, 2014—Page 1 of 8 PROPERTY OWNER: The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2982-3030 EI Camino Real ENVIRONMENTAL: This project has been determined to be exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3) in that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, proposed DA 2014- 001 would allow for the continuation of an assembly use (community facilities within a former theater) and allow development rights to be transferred to other potential in-fill development project sites which would be subject to separate CEQA review. The DA has no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to CEQA. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4266, recommending that the City Council approve DA 2014-001, the Fifth Amendment to the ETDA to allow the conversion of up to 23,445 square feet of the former Edwards Theater located at 2982- 3030 EI Camino Real to a City of Tustin Community Center and to allow the transfer of development rights of the theater space to other potential development sites within the Tustin Market Place commercial center. Reekstin Presentation given. Smith Smith questioned the issue related to the deletion of Section 3.3 from the DA and wanted confirmation that the City Attorney's perspective on leaving Section 3.3 in the DA would not compromise the City's position in any way. Bobak Bobak's response to Smith's questions, generally included: The Irvine Company's definition is designed to make sure the waiver of the rights is specifically limited to what is in the DA, which is in Section 3.2; the City Attorney's Office did not see a need for that section but having it in the DA does not preclude a recommendation of approval; and Bobak's concern is having two (2) sections referring to the waiver limitation of the restrictive covenants; and that there may be some possibility in the future for conflict on what each provision meant; therefore suggested Section 3.3 be deleted but The Irvine Company (TIC) wanted extra protection they thought Section 3.3 gave them. Altowaiji Altowaiji asked if the other two (2) commercial centers at the Market Place were owned by TIC. He questioned Section 2.1 of the DA— "Computation Minutes—Planning Commission—September 9, 2014—Page 2 of 8 of Maximum Floor Area — Further Development" where it states "No further EIR, traffic study or similar reports or studies shall be required....." Reekstin In response to Altowaiji's question, Reekstin stated that TIC does not own the other two (2) commercial centers. Thompson Thompson's questions/concerns generally included: He asked Staff to explain the "notification process"; he requested affirmation that the Commission's action had to do with what was being presented, "rezoning", not looking at what was done in the past; he also asked about the 23,000 plus square foot and the past approvals - would a conditional use permit (CUP) be necessary and an explanation of the process; future approval on the parking; the intent of the development; and parking. Binsack Binsack's response to Thompson's questions/concerns generally included: She referred to Exhibit A of the DA, which identified a 300' radius for public hearing notification from the property line (i.e. the building footprint is the property line); clarified to the Commission the entitlement is not a rezone, but a development agreement and that the Commission would be recommending an ordinance approval to the City Council; the occupancy is not changing, most significant would be the transfer of development rights; depending on the future project and what the request is, will determine if a CUP, design review, or variance would be needed; Binsack gave an example that TIC might not be able to develop all 26,000 square feet in one (1) quadrant of the center, which may not necessarily have the adequate parking to support the use and/or they might have an impact on an intersection; and, more than likely the 26,000 square feet would need to be dispersed throughout the center. Bobak Bobak's response to the Commission's questions/concerns generally included: The discussion with City Staff and TIC - a list or an identification of where they anticipated developing the additional 23,000 square feet, which TIC could not provide, and is why a process of future approvals was included in the DA; reserving the City's right to review City approvals pursuant to whatever the development standards are in place, including the power of authority to deny the project if there was an adverse effect to parking or traffic impacts to offset the development plans; the City can allow the initial review to assess traffic impacts, per CEQA, and if it showed there was a need for an EIR and TIC decided not to an environmental analysis, the City could deny them; however, TIC is not mandated to do an EIR; and the City anticipates development will be covered under the East Tustin Specific Plan. Lumbard Lumbard wanted to clarify to the Commission that the DA is an amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement and asked Staff and legal counsel if the DA contained "report requirements" and if additional reports are required. Bobak In response to Lumbard's question, Bobak stated additional reports are required only for the additional square footage. Minutes—Planning Commission—September 9, 2014—Page 3 of 8 7:28 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Pirzadeh Peter K. Pirzadeh, representing The Irvine Company, spoke in favor of the project. He commended Staff for their hard work on the project ("joint effort between the City and TIC"). His response to Commission's questions/concerns generally included: Background information on the closure of the former theater and the proposed plans of the community center; CEQA analysis - Mr. Pirzadeh stated all required mitigation measures under the DA were put into place; parking would not be impacted since the use of the center would be during non-peak hours; currently no issue with parking at the Market Place; the use of square footage would be spread throughout the community center; the architectural review is important to TIC and the integrity of the neighborhood would be in line with the architecture; and additional square footage would bring more revenue, more shoppers, and would be an asset to the City of Tustin. Altowaiji Altowaiji was concerned with the restriction on the hours of operation and asked if an analysis was done. He asked if a statement should be added to the DA, "except for special events approved by the City". Pirzadeh Mr. Pirzadeh's response to Altowaiji's concern generally included: In keeping with the impact analysis of the Specific Plan, EIR and outside mitigations would remain in place; the restriction does not prevent staff from allowing special use/event permit; and protection of keeping the potential impacts outside the peak hours would keep the DA and integrity of the analysis and mitigation measures. Binsack Binsack clarified to the Commission that the City's desire is to have ongoing programming for these facilities as we do for other facilities throughout Tustin (i.e. Columbus Tustin Gymnasium, Senior Center, etc.). There would not be programming for this facility during the peak hours unless it was a special event. An environmental analysis was not conducted; therefore, revising the DA could be problematic. 7:42 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Lumbard Lumbard reminded the Commission that the City was recommending the Commission approve the item based on the current contract and legal counsel's advice. Thompson Thompson referred the Commission to Resolution No. 4266, Page 2, Item E with regards to hours of operation in order to not cause traffic and parking impacts which reinforces why, in the future, an EIR is not needed. Hesitant about making changes to wording in Section 2.1. Kozak Kozak had concerns with Section 2.1 and suggested removing "no" and replacing with "may" to then read "may be required". Altowaiji Altowaiji requested the Public Hearing be re-opened in order to ask Mr. Pirzadeh further questions regarding Section 2.1. Minutes—Planning Commission—September 9, 2014—Page 4 of 8 7:47 p.m. Public Hearing re-opened. Pirzadeh Mr. Pirzadeh stated that TIC would not accept changes be made to the DA. TIC is not in a position to renegotiate or modify the DA. 7:49 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Kozak Kozak requested further comment from Staff and/or legal counsel reassuring there would be, if necessary, adequate environmental review for the expansion. Bobak Bobak stated the DA does not put the City in a position to be forced to approve a project that the City believes has unmitigated environmental impacts. Binsack Binsack reiterated to the Commission the length of time spent with Staff and Mr. Pirzadeh regarding Section 2.1. Nothing would preclude the City from requiring an environmental analysis. Her response to the Commission's concerns generally included what was previously discussed by the Commission and Staff. Both the City and TIC have equal protections. Bobak Bobak requested a sentence be added to Resolution No. 4266 that the purpose of the hours of operation restriction is to minimize potential impacts on parking and circulation within the Market Place. Motion. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4266, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 3. ZONE CHANGE 2014-002 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2014-17, A REQUEST TO REZONE AN EXISTING VACANT PARCEL AND RESPITE PARK FROM CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C2) DISTRICT TO PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) DISTRICT AND APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SMALL PUBLIC PARK The Successor Agency is requesting to rezone the subject property from the current C2 Zoning District to P&I District and establish a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)for a public park, so as to be consistent with the existing use of the property as a respite park (Figures 3 and 4). No change to the existing overlay zoning of CR and P is proposed and no new physical improvement or modification to the property is proposed. APPLICANT: Successor Agency to the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency Attn: Jeffrey C. Parker 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Minutes—Planning Commission—September 9, 2014—Page 5 of 8 PROPERTY OWNER: Successor Agency to the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency Attn: Jeffrey C. Parker 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 450 EI Camino Real ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3) — the Zone Change will not have any significant affect to the environment. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4265, recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change (ZC) 2014-002 changing the zoning of an existing vacant land with respite park from Central Commercial (C2) District to Public and Institutional (P&I) District and approve CUP 2014-17 for a public park. Thompson Thompson recused himself since he owns property in close proximity of this location. Hutter Presentation given. Smith Smith asked Staff to clarify that the residential single-family units near the park are C2 property zoning and asked if the residents were interested with the potential uses of the park. He also asked if the action taken would not restrict future use of the park. Hutter Hutter stated the residents near the park were interested. Any new changes or additional expanded uses would have to go through additional City approval (i.e. possible modified CUP). Lumbard Lumbard clarified to the Commission that the park would be restricted and must be a park unless zoning is changed. 8:05 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Jerry Craig, Economic Development & Housing Manager, expressed a desire of seeing the respite park be zoned accordingly and also asked the Commission for support. 8:06 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Kozak Kozak stated the origin of this project was due to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency and it is consistent with ownership zone change and Minutes—Planning Commission—September 9, 2014—Page 6 of 8 CUP would achieve zoning and consistency. He also added that it would be good measure for transparency. Altowaiji Altowaiji asked if the City had a zone for parks only; questioned why a CUP is necessary; and, questioned why they cannot be zoned "parks" like other communities zone them. Binsack Binsack's response to Altowaiji's questions generally included: The most typical zone for parks in the City of Tustin is the P&I zone; the developments in parks vary from park to park and it provides public notification; and in the future, if the Commission requested to not allow for public notification, the City could remove CUPS in the parks; however, this would be a policy decision. Smith Smith stated the City anticipated potential residential uses around Old Town area, and having park space is important. He had favorable comments for Staff and the project. Lumbard Lumbard had concerns with additional use space on what the Commission would be considering, and wanted to clarify that the recommendation presented is only rezoning, not to approve a change to what is existing. He also had favorable comments for Staff and the project. Hutter Hutter's response to Lumbard's concern was that there would be no physical change or improvements to the project. Motion. Item was moved by Smith, seconded by Altowaiji. Motion carried 4-0-1. Thompson abstained. None. REGULAR BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS: Smith No concerns. Smith attended the League of Cities Annual Conference in Los Angeles. Lumbard Lumbard informed the Commission Caterina Lunardi's passing, (founder of Caterina's Club charity) mother of Bruno Serato, chef and owner of the Anaheim White House. Kozak Kozak attended the Grand Opening of the Pepper Tree Park Bocci Ball and mentioned the 9/11 remembrance. Altowaiji No comments. Thompson Thompson also mentioned the 9/11 Patriots Day remembrance. He asked for everyone to drive safely with school being back in session. Thompson stated Sam Couch III (VP of Entitlements in M.V.) passed away. Minutes—Planning Commission—September 9, 2014—Page 7 of 8 8:17 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, September 23, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Closed the meeting in honor of the passing of Caterina Lunardi and Sam Couch III. Minutes—Planning Commission—September 9, 2014—Page 8 of 8