Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 PC MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2015 MINUTES ITEM #2 REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2015 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Smith ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Thompson Chair Pro Tem Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved as 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 27, 2015, PLANNING amended. COMMISSION MEETING. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the January 27, 2015 meeting as amended. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Altowaiji, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. Thompson abstained due to an excused absence. 2. 2014 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT AND ANNUAL MITIGATION MONITORING STATUS REPORT FOR FEIS/EIR FOR MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN California State Law requires each City to adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan. The City's general plan serves as the blueprint for future growth and development. As a blueprint for the future, the plan contains policies and programs designed to provide decision makers with a basis for all land use related decisions. State law requires the Planning Commission provide the General Plan Annual (GPA) Report to the City Council. Following the City Council's action, the GPA Report will be forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the State Office of Planning and Research. The City Council certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin along with its Supplemental and Addendums. The FEIS/EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin, which included the adoption of a Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 1 of 13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. The MMRP is a review of actions performed by the City or other responsible agencies in implementing mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR. To coordinate implementation and reporting the completion of the MMRP, an annual review of the progress of the program is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review and authorize staff to forward the GPA Report on the Status of the Tustin General Plan and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status Report to the City Council for consideration. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Altowaiji, to forward the GPA Report on the Status of the Tustin General Plan and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status Report to the City Council for consideration. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 3. CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) — SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT The proposed Code Amendment (CA) 2015-001 would provide new standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District, allow new second residential units on any residentially zoned lot in the CR District regardless of lot size, and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. The standards for second residential units in all other areas of the City are not proposed to be amended, and all second residential units in the City would continue to be allowed ministerially without discretionary review or a public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The proposed CA is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as found in Public Resources Code Section 21080.17. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4277, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1454, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code to provide new standards for second residential units in the CR District and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. Thompson recused himself since his property is located within the CR District. Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 2 of 13 Altowaiji Altowaiji asked the City Attorney to clarify if he is able to participate since he owns property near the subject area. Bobak In response to Altowaiji's question, Bobak verified with the Fair Political Practices Commission and received a written response indicating that although Altowaiji owns property within the vicinity of the CR District, there is no conflict of interest. 7:11 p.m. Binsack notified the Commission of an audio issue within the Council Chambers. Meeting recessed to restore audio. 7:14 p.m. Meeting reconvened. Reekstin Presentation given. Smith Smith's questions for staff generally included: Infrastructure - sewer systems being accounted for in the CR District; he asked which smallest lot in the CR District could accommodate the 600 square foot unit (i.e. adding a 600 square foot unit to a 3,000 square foot lot); requested clarification of "square footage" and if it included a garage, living space, or an enclosed porch. Reekstin Reekstin's response to Smith's question generally included: No significant strain on the infrastructure given the size and the number of units that could potentially result under the proposed amendment; under the proposed ordinance, this would allow second residential units on any size lot; however, the smaller the lot, the less likely it would be to accommodate such a structure and would depend where the existing dwelling is located on the lot and how large the front yard is compared to the rear yard, etc.; there are only a handful of 5,000 square foot lots and 33 R1 lots that are less than 7,500 square feet; "square footage" in a 600 square foot unit would be "living space", a porch (not conditioned or a heated place) would not be counted. Binsack In response to Smith's questions, Binsack's stated an "efficiency" unit over a two-car garage could be over 400 square feet. Lumbard Lumbard asked how staff decided on 600 square foot for the second residential units and if it would impact the overall zoning. Reekstin Reekstin's response generally included: The 600 square foot was decided on in order to accommodate an efficiency unit, at a minimum, which is required by the State law; staff looked at appropriateness for the CR District as far as maintaining the character of the CR District; looked at floor plan arrangements large enough to accommodate a studio and a one- bedroom unit; and also was not so large to negatively impact the neighborhood. Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 3 of 13 Binsack In addition to Reekstin's response to Lumbard's question, Binsack stated, if over the 600 square foot amount, there could be a significant impact on massing (i.e. an additional bedroom unit, creating a need for an additional parking space and two-car carport/garage) which would lead to a need for parking analysis, traffic, and infrastructure. A studio or a one-bedroom unit would fit within 600 square feet very comfortably. 7:37 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Mr. Brent Ferdig, Tustin resident, opposed the project and his concerns generally included: Height of the units (30 feet maximum per regulations), per the Internet, the average height for a two-story house is 25-30 feet, which would impose on neighbors privacy and quality of life; he asked if 300 square foot unit would be allowed on the ground level and 300 square foot on the upper level; suggested one rental unit be allowed per lot; does not want the second residential units to become "rental properties" which he felt would attract investors, and would have a negative impact on the neighborhood (i.e. traffic and parking). Mr. Richard Leon, Tustin resident, was in favor of the project and his comments included: He felt the density would be good for the downtown area; he would like to see a similarity to the downtown area in the City of Orange; and he would like to see the downtown be a walking community. Mr. Stephen Jones, Tustin resident, opposed the project. His concerns generally include: Parking issues; he felt the 600 square foot unit would not be limited to two (2) residents, and that it would be plausible that 3-4 cars would be generated; and he asked Reekstin how the proposed ordinance would differ from the rules applied in Tustin in general and why the CR District. Reekstin In response to Mr. Jones's question, Reekstin stated the current ordinance allows a second unit on a 12,000 square foot property (city-wide). The proposal would only apply to the CR District. Mr. Lindburgh McPherson, Tustin resident, was in favor of the project. He was concerned with parking being an issue. He suggested permit parking be looked at and the number of second residential units should be limited to one (1) unit per property. Mr. Jim Gominsky, Tustin resident, opposed the project. His concerns generally included: Parking issues; utilizing garages for rooms; agreed with the other residents on permit parking; should limit the number of cars a resident can have; requested current illegal units be taken care of first before building second residential units; and asked if the second residential units would be considered an apartment or guest house. Mr. Nathan Menard, Tustin resident, commended staff for the proposed ordinance. He stated that there is a need for this project to make the Old Town successful and that it would increase the population to generate Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 4 of 13 revenue. 7:50 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Kozak Kozak requested feedback from staff on the concerns previously mentioned: 1) he asked if there would be outreach to property owners of existing non-conforming units; 2) single vs. multiple units; 3) and permit parking. Reekstin Reekstin's response to Kozak's questions generally included: Some of the existing non-conforming structures would remain "as is" and some property owners may want to see if they qualify for the second residential units in order to meet the City's standards; and the City is aware of many "detached" structures throughout Old Town; however, they are uncertain as to what types of structures they are or what they may be used for. Binsack Binsack clarified that to be "non-conforming" the structures must have been legally established to begin with. Kozak Kozak clarified his meaning of"non-confirming" to "guest quarters" that may have a kitchen or other facility without obtaining a permit through the City. Binsack Binsack's response to Kozak's concerns generally included: "Guest quarters" are not being recognized as second residential units; the proposed ordinance would create a level "playing field" so that every lot, within the Old Town area, could overcome the "zoning hurdle", which they currently cannot overcome due to lot square footage limitations; it encourages people to bootleg kitchen facilities in and rent the unit out, or make modifications to some other structure; deed restrictions do make current and future owners aware of what can and cannot be done, but these are often ignored; true non-conforming properties, guest quarters, as well as second residential units, have been legally established; property owners have the right of non-conformity in perpetuity; the true non- conforming properties can be maintained just as they are, unless the property owners choose to do something else within City requirements (as long as they are not destroyed significantly, expanded or altered). Altowaiji Altowaiji's questions/concerns generally included: guest quarters not being allowed; second residential units to the non-conforming units so as not to create "non-conforming or legal non-conforming"; he felt property owners of large lots should have the option of building a guest quarter that is 1,000 square feet; the City would be limiting property owners rather than being flexible; eliminating existing allowance; and impeding the existing availability of adding a guest house (referred to taking rights away from the property owners). Binsack Binsack's response to Altowaiji's questions generally included: That individuals have noted a lack of desire to record a deed restriction; there is no parking accommodation for those people living in "guest quarters"; the Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 5 of 13 second residential units could take away from the parking impact issue; property owners could still come forward and construct room additions to the main structure, if they choose to, they just would not have a separate living quarter; 45 lots proposing to reduce square footage for the larger lots, but also reducing the requirement for additional parking; 150 lots would receive an additional benefit. Bobak In conjunction with Binsack's response to Altowaiji, Bobak's comments generally included: It becomes an enforcement issue when adding to the guest quarters is allowed and property owners illegally convert them into second residential units that are rented out and becomes a significant impact for the City (i.e. terms of enforcement, code enforcement actions, attorney resources in pursuing remedies); it becomes less of an enforcement issue if there is a uniform standard and everyone has the same legal requirements; it is less likely a scenario owners would illegally convert guest quarters by adding kitchen facilities and not have the requisite parking; a person could choose to construct a second residential unit without a kitchen facility and would not be in violation of the proposed ordinance; 600 square foot limitation; if later on a kitchen facility was added it would not become a code enforcement issue for the City and the City would have assurances of the requisite on-site parking space; and at that point makes it easier for the City to enforce the code. Altowaiji Altowaiji's argument to Bobak's explanation generally included: "Enforcement issue" could happen anywhere (i.e. a person could change their 600 square foot unit to 900 square feet); concern with existing allowance and people having "rights" with certain things and then restricting those rights by eliminating; lots over 12,000 square feet should qualify to build a second unit per the current ordinance; and he felt the City would be eliminating that "right" by limiting it to 600 square feet. Lumbard Lumbard requested the Commission stay on topic and finish responding to Kozak's third question previously stated. Reekstin Reekstin's response regarding the proposed ordinance generally included: Addresses properties zoned single-family residential that have one (1) primary dwelling and there is a desire to add a second residential unit on that property for a total of two (2) residential units; would not allow a property owner to add two (2) residential units to the primary dwelling and is limited to 600 square feet limited space; currently there are areas within the city with permit parking and this issue could be considered if deemed necessary. Altowaiji Altowaiji noted his prior questions still stand. Binsack Binsack further stated that taking away a certain square footage allowance is proposed but the property owners would gain by not having to provide additional parking. Altowaiji's modification to the proposed ordinance is not staff's recommendation to the Commission under the proposed ordinance. If the Commission chose to consider something different, staff would need Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 6 of 13 to bring back a modified ordinance. Altowaiji Altowaiji stated the proposed ordinance would prohibit property owners of larger lots (over 12,000 square feet) from building larger units; stated they would be "treated differently than the rest of the city in reducing their rights", which he had a problem with. He also questioned "minimum building site" and asked if it was the same as "lot size" (referenced Item 3) and that lot size is used in other areas of the report; suggested staff limit the second residential unit; suggested the 600 square foot be increased to 700-800 square feet; the other restrictions would limit the availability of building a second residential unit by front yard setbacks; and leave the option of the 12,000 square foot property owners be in compliance with the current ordinance. Reekstin In response to Altowaiji's question, "minimum building site" refers to the lot size which both terms are used in the Tustin City Code. Lumbard Lumbard stated Altowaiji's concerns were valid and again reminded the Commission of staff's recommendation as stated in the report presented. Smith Smith asked staff for clarification with regards to Kozak's previous questions being answered. He asked what the City was doing to enforce the illegal units and asked legal counsel to provide comments on the City's challenges on enforcing rules with the illegal units on restrictions of converting guest houses into property income effectively and if any efforts have been placed. Bobak Bobak's response generally included: the City has had some budget issues that constrains what it can and cannot do and generally has relatively reactive code enforcement program; when the City is aware of a problem, code enforcement investigates; the City does not have resources to obtain inspection warrants from the courts to go out and inspect every single property in the city to make sure they are complying with all the various code requirements; when there is a code enforcement issue, code enforcement follows a process (i.e. letter to property owner indicating issue); if not resolved at staff level, then it is referred to the City Attorney's office (i.e. lawsuits); and, the proposed ordinance would make the process easier by removing some of the incentives for people to take something that was legal and turn it into something illegal that the City would need to be made aware of. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated overall comments/concerns which generally included- Staff s ncluded:Staff's intent of the item was to balance the concerns of the Old Town property owners with the character and benefits to the area (i.e. building second units on smaller lots); concerns - fear of threatening the character of Residential 1 zoned community by changing the standards on the larger lots; the desire to avoid multiple units or overly large second units because of parking impacts; density/massing; street parking issues; pros on the item - the limit on square footage would address the potential impact on the street; second residential units would hopefully have only two (2) cars by Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 7 of 13 having guidelines and setting limits by restricting/control what the second unit can look like; should have property rights for the property owners in Old Town regardless of the size of the lot; cons on the item - proposed ordinance does not address existing non-permitted converted units; the issue still exists and should be addressed; parking issue; and parking program options should be considered by Council. Lumbard stated that overall; the proposed ordinance is a reasonable balance and moves toward a more vibrant, robust, commercial core without threatening the character of Old Town. Altowaiji Again, Altowaiji reiterated his concerns which included: Certain ordinances and rules currently available for the property owners qualified to build a second residential unit; the proposed ordinance would limit/take away property rights; creating legal/non-conforming situations to those with guest houses; asked that staff take the item back and work on the concerns listed above; and cannot support taking rights away from certain people. Bobak Bobak understood the concept of reducing the amount of development that can occur on certain properties; she wanted to clarify Altowaiji's statement "taking property rights away" — it is not "taking of property" in a legal context to reduce the square footage permitted to be developed when people have not yet exercised their rights by developing their property. Altowaiji In response to Bobak's comments, Altowaiji stated the option is currently available to property owners of 12,000 or more square feet within the rest of the city and would now not be available to them. Bobak Bobak reiterated to Altowaiji that it does not constitute a legal taking of property rights, but reduces what they are able to build. Binsack Binsack addressed the Commission collectively and generally stated the following: Staff considered the intensity, massing, density, number of people, that could potentially take place or be accommodated for the CRD (district-wide not just the 45 properties but the 194 properties in total) in the proposed ordinance; the alternative ordinance [an ordinance that allows larger second units] the Commission is contemplating is not the ordinance staff contemplated; if the Commission, collectively, wants staff to bring the item back, staff did not consider their ordinance and the impact on schools, parks, traffic, because it probably would have an impact; and when a number of bedrooms are added, the number of people increases. Altowaiji Altowaiji stated no additional impact in the existing ordinance to build a second residential unit if over 12,000 square feet lot. Binsack In response to Altowaiji's concern, Binsack generally stated: With regard to his modifications requested, the public notice that was sent out to 600 people was for the proposed ordinance, not Altowaiji's modifications; if the Commission, collectively, wants staff to take a look at the concerns addressed previously, staff can do so; and Binsack understood Altowaiji Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 8 of 13 was interested in "relaxing" the standards district-wide (i.e. additional square footage and additional bedrooms thereby creating additional population and traffic). Altowaiji Altowaiji would like to leave the existing allowance in place and add to it — smaller lots can build a second unit and exempt the 12,000 square foot lots from the proposed restriction and subject it to the other restriction currently in place, or they could take advantage of both. Kozak Kozak's summary comments generally included: Debate on second residential units vs. guest houses; the item presented is a proposed code amendment for a solution and would provide certainty for property owners going forward; much work has been done by staff (outreach to the public and Commission in 2013-14); the proposed code amendment is reason to address the issues mentioned for the CR District; he referred to the existing Government Code which allows local agencies to set uniform standards for second residential units including: Parking, height, setback, lot coverage, and architecture; the proposed ordinance would have the second residential units subordinate to the primary single-family dwelling with the maximum size limitation of 600 square feet living space and one (1) additional covered parking space in order to minimize the negative impact on the character of the CR District; the proposed ordinance also includes a process to bringing existing accessory quarters into compliance with the proposed standards for second residential units; in support of the proposed ordinance; and he also echoed Lumbard's comments regarding permit parking and expanded enforcement with regards to existing non- conforming units. Smith Smith's response, in general, was supportive of the proposed ordinance with modifications previously mentioned; 600 square foot restriction is appropriate with regard to massing issues; agreed with comments regarding the downtown area and making it robust which is part of the vision of the DCCP; perplexed by the result of the ordinance effecting those who have certain freedoms (12,000 square foot lots) and would like to figure out a way to allow those property owners to entertain their current rights; and asked about protecting the current rights for the 12,000 square foot units and how is that undermining the capacity in trying to address the illegally constructed second units that currently exist in the CRD. Binsack Binsack's response to Smith's comments generally included: Does not affect staff's capability of addressing the issues raised; and in order to address the concern with lot size, the item would need to be brought back to the Commission for consideration. Altowaiji Altowaiji again asked if the Commission could pass the proposed ordinance with certain exemptions (lots over 12,000 square feet to remain under the current ordinance). Binsack In response to Altowaiji's question, Binsack stated that the proposed ordinance affects all properties within the CR District uniformly. Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 9 of 13 Bobak Bobak stated the proposed ordinance was noticed as an ordinance limiting all second residential units to 600 square feet. If there are members of the community who thought that was acceptable, and therefore did not come forward to address the Commission at the meeting, they might have questions/concerns if they knew 45 of the units would be treated differently, so they may want to comment. She suggested to the Commission, if the consensus is to modify the proposed ordinance, staff needs to address the additional issues and draft some proposed language so the public knows what the Commission is considering. Lumbard Lumbard did not agree with modifying the proposed ordinance. He reiterated the proposed ordinance was reasonably balanced with the major concerns, and agreed it did not include parking or enforcement on permitted structures, but those were separate issues which were not being voted on at the meeting. Altowaiji Altowaiji made a motion to reject the proposed ordinance and to direct staff to prepare a revised ordinance exempting the 12,000 square foot lots and to analyze additional square footage requirements. Motion failed due to a lack of a second to the motion. Lumbard Lumbard moved to adopt Resolution No. 4277, seconded by Kozak. Altowaiji and Smith opposed. Thompson abstained from the vote. Motion failed 2-2-1. Smith Smith asked for an explanation of the policy change that removes some of the capabilities of the second residential units on the 12,000 square foot lots. He also asked staff if the ordinance remains "as is", exempting the 12,000 square foot lots, would that trigger CEQA concerns. Binsack Binsack suggested, if the Commission collectively wanted staff to do so, an appropriate CEQA analysis/document would need to be done to see if there would be an impact and the item would need to be continued; again stated staff looked at the entire CR District (194 units); alternatives could be — allow them to proceed under the existing standard which would be up to 1,000 square feet, two-car garage, and/or rezone those lots, which would change the character of those lots, if that is the Commission's desire. Then a re-notice would have to take place in order to inform the public. Binsack's concern was that staff already outreached to over 600 people, who have not had a chance to review the considerations. Altowaiji Altowaiji agreed with Binsack on the re-noticing and that there could be a conflict with the public's perception but they could have the option to agree with the modified ordinance — not limiting to build on the 12,000 square foot lots or the option to keep the current ordinance. The intent came about with Assembly Bill 1866 to allow additional units to provide additional housing. Binsack Binsack clarified the direction Altowaiji was suggesting — not looking at an either/or scenario for the 12,000 square foot lots. The property owners Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 10 of 13 either develop under the current ordinance OR it would be the new proposed ordinance of 600 square feet. They would not get the choice. Lumbard Per Lumbard, the intent of the proposed ordinance is to simplify the standards for the CR District. If there are two (2) different standards (above 12,000 square feet / below 12,000 square feet) there could be questions (i.e. "why 600 square feet allotment and not 11,500 square feet?"), which could complicate things even further. Kozak Kozak's response to Lumbard's comments generally included: The 600 square feet living space is the result of research completed by staff with respect to other jurisdictions that have second dwelling ordinances as well as the range of lot sizes within the CR District; if the City begins to make exceptions, there would be other exceptions requested; the intent is to offer to the Council a uniform plan that is compromised in many ways but again, to preserve the character of Old Town; if there are exceptions to the 12,000 square foot lot standard for second residential units in the CR District, we can expect a change requested in the ordinance that affects the balance of the property; and he encouraged the Commission to move the item forward. Smith To clarify, Smith stated the following: 1) not interested in promoting multiple unit development in the CR District 2) sustain current rights the 12,000 square foot lot property owners currently have or give them the option to opt for the smaller unit with a one (1) car parking requirement. Altowaiji Altowaiji did not promote the proposed ordinance not allowing more than one (1) unit. His concern was not making use of the land. Further discussion took place among the Commission and staff on the issues discussed previously. Clarification needed on Assembly Bill 1866 with regard to not allowing agencies to restrict building secondary units. If the City is restricting the 12,000 square foot lots then the City would unreasonably be restricting their rights since it is different in the CR District then the rest of the city. Via the proposed ordinance, the City is removing the barriers to build second residential units. If the Commission chooses to, they can continue the item for 30 days and staff can bring back alternatives. Further direction from the Commission needed as well as clarification of the proposed ordinance given to the Commission from Bobak. Only two (2) owners of 12,000 square foot units have obtained permits for second residential units (one has constructed the unit, the other has obtained permits but has not yet constructed). It does not appear the owners have taken advantage of the existing regulations. Kozak It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Altowaiji to continue the item to March 24, 2015, to provide alternatives on lots over 12,000 square feet. Lumbard opposed. Thompson recused himself. Motion carried 3-1-1. Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 11 of 13 REGULAR BUSINESS: 4. TUSTIN HISTORIC REGISTER NOMINATION — 178 NORTH C STREET Owners of historic homes or commercial buildings in Tustin are eligible to participate in the City's plaque designation program, called the Tustin Historic Register. The purpose of the voluntary program is to recognize Tustin's historic properties, educate the public, increase public interest in historic properties, and promote community pride. The property owner of 178 North C Street submitted a nomination for a plaque designation for their home. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the nomination of 178 North C Street to the Tustin Historic Register Plaque Designation Program and select "Knapp House" as the most appropriate historical name and "1920" as the date of construction of the property. Reekstin Presentation given. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Smith, to approve the nomination of 178 North C Street to the Tustin Historic Register Plaque Designation Program. Motion carried 5-0. 5. WITHDRAWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2014-15 & DESIGN REVIEW 2014-009 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2014-15 and Design Review (DR) 2014-009 was a project that proposed the construction of an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of a sixty (60) foot tall mono-eucalyptus faux tree with twelve (12) panel antennas and associated equipment mounted to the structure at the existing self-storage facility located at 14861 Franklin Avenue in the Planned Community Industrial (PC IND) Zoning District. On December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 10, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. However, on February 2, 2015, the applicant submitted a written request (attached) to withdraw the application for CUP 2014-15 and DR 2014- 009. The February 10, 2015, Planning Commission meeting was subsequently cancelled, so it is requested that the Planning Commission consider the applicant's request at this time. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1) Receive and file the applicant's letter to withdraw CUP 2014-15 and Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 12 of 13 DR 2014-009 for an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of a sixty (60) foot tall mono-eucalyptus faux tree at 14861 Franklin Avenue; and 2) Remove the item from consideration as requested by the applicant. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Altowaiji to receive and file the withdrawal letter and to remove the item from consideration as requested by the applicant. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission of upcoming events: OC Business Council — Workforce Housing Forum 2015; California Preservation Foundation's (CPF) 40th Annual Conference — San Diego; and the swearing in of the three reappointed Commissioners. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Kozak Kozak had favorable comments regarding the 2014 General Plan Annual Report — many good indicators of progress in the city. On February 3, 2015, he participated in the CPF webinar regarding the Mills Act. Altowaiji None. Smith Smith had favorable comments regarding the Commission's "healthy debate" and staff's response to the many questions/concerns. Lumbard On February 19, 2015, Lumbard participated in the Office of Historic Preservation webinar. Thompson Thompson attended the following events: • 1/20: OCTA Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) • 1/28: OCTA conducted an "open house" at Tustin High School on the 1-5 Improvement Project" • 2/5: Urban Land Institute (ULI) • 2/12: Dedication ceremony for OCTA's West County Connectors Project • 2/17: CPF webinar ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way. Closed the meeting in Honor of Captain Robert "Bob" Thomas. Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 13 of 13