HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 12-8-15 MINUTES ITEM #1
REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 2015
7:04 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Smith
ROLL CALL: Chair Thompson
Chair Pro Tem Lumbard
Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak and Smith
None PUBLIC CONCERNS
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — NOVEMBER 10, 2015
November 10,
2015 Minutes. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the November
10, 2015 Planning Commission meeting as provided.
It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to approve the November 10,
2015 Minutes. Altowaiji had an excused absence for the November 10, 2015
meeting, therefore he abstained. Motion carried 4-0-1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Thompson Thompson requested to switch the order of two (2) of the Public Hearing items
(Items#3 and #5).
Continued to 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-01; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
January 12, 2015-139; DESIGN REVIEW 2015-10; AND CONDITIONAL USE
2016. PERMIT 2015-21
APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER:
Yenny Ng Designs Architects Goliath F&M LLC
1524 Brookhollow Drive, Suite 6 10 Dunes Bluff
Santa Ana, CA 92705 Newport Coast, CA 92657
LOCATION: 1051 Bonita Street
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project involves the construction of a four (4) unit
condominium complex consisting of two (2) buildings comprising 5,154
square feet total on an 8,500 square foot lot located at 1051 Bonita
Minutes—Planning Commission December 8, 2015—Page 1 of 10
Street. Development of the site will require demolition of all existing
structures on-site inclusive of a primary residence with a "D" rating per
the City's Historical Resources Survey (non-contributing structure).
Staff provided two of the three required notices for the project and the
item is being continued in order to provide adequate time to complete
the third notice of the project pursuant to State law.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission continue their consideration of GPA
2015-01, TPM 2015-139, CUP 2015-21 and DR 2015-10 to January
12, 2016, to provide adequate public notice of the project prior to the
public hearing.
There were no members of the public with questions or concerns, therefore
no need to open up the public hearing for this item.
Altowaiji Altowaiji recused himself from the item since he has conducted business, in the
past, and will continue conducting business with the property owner.
It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Smith to continue the item to the
January 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-1.
Adopted Reso. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-03
No. 4306, as
amended.
REQUEST:
A request to establish and operate a church use on the ground floor of
an existing commercial building and joint use parking to accommodate
the use at 560 W. 1 st Street.
APPLICANT/ Dennis Montgomery
PROPERTY OWNER: D&M Painting
1759 N. Batavia Street
Orange, CA 92865
ENVIRONMENTAL:
This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1)
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4306 approving
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-03 to establish and operate a church
use on the ground floor of an existing commercial building located at 560
W. 1St Street and authorize joint use parking.
Swiontek Presentation given.
Minutes—Planning Commission December 8, 2015—Page 2 of 10
Binsack Binsack informed the Commission of her discussion with Kozak, prior to the
meeting. She clarified and requested a modification to one of the conditions
which generally included that the "church area" could occupy all of the ground
floor area with the exception of the 949 square foot retail tenant space which
fronts on First Street; and staff would recommend a modification to Condition
3.2 to provide that clarification.
Thompson Thompson referred to the parking demands within the Parking Analysis
provided. He asked about the church use component with regards to the
seating within the sanctuary. Thompson also inquired on the governing aspect
of the parking and how the number 32 parking spaces were derived.
Swiontek Swiontek's response to Thompson's question generally included: Referred to
the Tustin City Code (TCC); the sanctuary is the most intense use so if the
offices were to be operated at the same time as the church, staff would take
that into account as well, as far as the number of parking spaces; and per the
parking analysis, simultaneous use cannot occur within the parking on-site.
7:21 p.m. Public Hearing opened.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: Mr. & Mrs. Marco
Avalos; Jessica Aguas; Monique Kaihewaly; Sharon Teter; Mr. & Mrs. Scott
Elgin; Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Montgomery; Frank Ortega; Esther Salas; Matt
Montgomery; Alicia Cardona; and Linda Saunderson.
Ms. Aumielle Compton, resident, had questions/comments which generally
included: How the church use would impact the City financially; current
businesses in the area already generating tax revenue; she asked if the church
would be contributing to the community financially; and she did not feel the
church would make a difference in today's society (i.e. promiscuity,
homelessness, violence, etc.).
The Commission's comments/questions for the applicant generally included:
Requested the history on the locations of Mr. Montgomery's church; questioned
the services outside of the church; conducting children's services at parks in
Tustin; and community outreach.
Mr. Montgomery's response to the Commission's questions generally included:
Brief background on his church's start in the City of Orange, then Tustin; he
stated he always generates revenue; he is a jobs creator; reason for children's
services taking place in Tustin parks is because the children cannot travel to
Orange where services are currently being held; and that he has provided a
"couple of people" a meal but he is not giving out food or clothing on a regular
basis. Mr. Montgomery requested a modification to the church hours operation
to include evenings when offices are not operating.
7:51 p.m. Public Hearing closed.
Further deliberation ensued among the Commission, which generally included:
Using the facility on days other than the days listed in the CUP, specifically
Minutes—Planning Commission December 8, 2015—Page 3 of 10
Condition 3.1 in the resolution; positive comments regarding the project; how
the church use would affect the community, street frontage being maintained
per the First Street Specific Plan; and the parking concern.
Binsack Per Binsack, the hours listed in the resolution were due to the Demand Analysis
and that a modified request was given to Swiontek and the Commission. She
recommended that the Commission leave the hours as they were presented
and give staff the opportunity to take a look at the applicant's request as well as
give the traffic engineer the opportunity to do an analysis. As long as there is
not a negative impact (enough parking spaces at any given time) it would allow
City staff the opportunity to make modifications pursuant to Conditions 3.1 and
1.1.
It was moved by Altowaiji, seconded by Lumbard, to adopt Resolution No.
4306, as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
Adopted Reso. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-27
No. 4302
REQUEST:
To authorize a reduction of off-street parking via joint-use/shared parking
that would allow for the conversion of up to 6,700 s.f. of office to
restaurant and retail uses at 13102-13152 Newport Avenue.
APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER:
Mike Lin Robert Ko
Nai Capital Ko's Packers Square Inc.
1920 Main St., Suite 100 747 S. Lemon Ave.
Irvine, CA 92614 Walnut, CA 91789
ENVIRONMENTAL:
This project is categorically exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section 15301
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4302 approving
Conditional Use Permit 2015-27 to authorize a reduction of off-street
parking requirements through joint use/shared parking to accommodate
the conversion of up to 6,700 square feet of office space to retail and
restaurant uses for Packers Square located at 13102 — 13152 Newport
Avenue.
Beier Presentation given.
Thompson Thompson suggested an agreement that ties the shared parking use be put in
place since the property consists of four (4) separate lots, and there being one
(1) owner of all four(4) lots should the owner sell one of the lots.
Minutes—Planning Commission December 8, 2015—Page 4 of 10
Beier In response to Thompson's suggestion, Beier's response generally included:
There is currently no deed restriction binding the four(4) lots together; however,
Resolution No. 4302 would be recorded to each of the four (4) lots; the
Agreement to Conditions Imposed would also link the four (4) lots since they
function together and are part of one (1) common lot.
8:08 p.m. Public Hearing opened.
Ms. Aumielle Compton asked if the retail and food service jobs were the only
jobs available or if there would be other possibilities to bring higher wages to
business centers in Tustin.
Willkom In response to Ms. Compton's questions, Willkom stated that the center has
multiple types of uses such as retail, restaurant, a medical office, and specialty
office uses (variety of income).
Ms. Margaret Zatyko, resident, spoke in opposition of the item and her
concerns generally included: The negative impacts the restaurant would bring
including (i.e. overflow parking in surrounding neighborhoods - Tustin Heights,
specifically her street which is permit parking only); noise; trash; homeless; she
has worked with the City's Code Enforcement on many occasions; and asked if
the tenants would have a permitted area for trash.
Thompson Thompson asked staff to explain Condition 2.2 in the event conditions change
at the center.
Binsack Binsack referred the Commission to the Demand Analysis which was based on
all uses occurring at the same time and ensures there is not an impact;
however, if something changes over time, if certain uses become extremely
successful, and do have an impact, the City has the capability of reconsidering
approval and that the tenant would have to take action immediately to fix the
impact (i.e. valet parking, considering varied hours, etc.). Staff has dealt with
this type of situation before so the issues can be addressed. Binsack stated the
City has a noise ordinance in place, which is standard and requires that
applicants comply with the TCC (which addresses trash). With regards to the
Tustin Heights concern, Code Enforcement is working diligently to assist the
development to come into compliance and to alleviate the impacts to the
community to the south of Tustin Heights. Revocation of a permit would be the
last resort. The resolution also includes an annual review of the CUP to ensure
the project is working well.
Thompson Thompson mentioned the many CUP's that have been revoked (various
reasons) since he has been on the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mike Lin, applicant, real estate agent, stated the center has been largely
vacant for several years. He is bringing in quality tenants (restaurant, dance
school, health care facility, and a grocery store and Vietnamese restaurant
coming soon) and he stated that once the vacant spaces are filled, then the
homeless issue should stop. Mr. Lin is looking forward to filling up the center to
bring Packers Square to where it once was decades ago to add to the
community.
Minutes—Planning Commission December 8, 2015—Page 5 of 10
Smith Smith asked the applicant about the traffic study being exclusively focused on
the parking lot (i.e. if research has been done on overflow parking impacting
surrounding streets).
Mr. Lin did not believe the traffic engineers researched the overflow parking or
peak times being that half of the center is vacant.
Thompson Thompson mentioned going to Ruby's restaurant in that center and never
having trouble finding a parking.
8:19 p.m. Public Hearing closed.
Kozak Thanked the neighbors and others for their input on concerns. He had
favorable comments with regards to the comments from staff being integrated
into the Demand Analysis included with the staff report.
Lumbard Lumbard's comments generally included the City's goals to revitalize the center
and is confident staff will keep an eye on this project to ensure the neighbors
are not affected negatively by the incoming businesses. Good
addition/improvement to the city.
Thompson Thompson's main concern would be the parking and how it is being
monitored/regulated.
It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Lumbard to adopt Resolution No. 4302.
Motion carried 4-0-1. Altowaiji abstained from the vote.
Adopted Reso. 5. CODE AMENDMENT 2015-005 (ORDINANCE NO. 1466) — MEDICAL
No. 4307. MARIJUANA
REQUEST:
Proposed Draft Ordinance No. 1466 to expressly prohibit marijuana
cultivation, processing, delivery, and distribution in all zoning districts in
response to the "Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act"
("M M RSA").
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The proposed Code Amendment is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15060 (c) (2) (the activity will
not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change
in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as
defined in Section 15378) because it has no potential for resulting in
physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
Minutes—Planning Commission December 8, 2015—Page 6 of 10
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4307,
recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No.
1466, amending Tustin City Code (TCC) Sections 9270c and 9297 to
expressly prohibit marijuana cultivation, processing, delivery, and
distribution in all zoning districts.
Lumbard Lumbard disclosed that he was attached to the major Narcotics Unit at the Los
Angeles District Attorney's Office in 2009 and one of the attachments included
in the staff report was worked on by an individual he worked with, but he did not
work on the report himself or have any input or confer with this individual on the
report.
Reekstin Presentation given.
Thompson/ Thompson asked for clarification on all zoning districts and what is precluded
Altowaiji (i.e. entire city, open space, parks, residential).
Reekstin Per Reekstin, even an "unclassified" area would be part of all zoning districts. It
includes all properties within the city. Residential is also included.
Smith Smith also asked for clarification to the "act of delivery" of marijuana and how is
the City using the Land Use Policy to regulate wholesale delivery to a private
residence or retail to a dispensary. Smith asked if the prohibition on delivery is
being addressed as a land use issue and how.
Reekstin In response to Smith's question, Reekstin explained that a delivery would be a
business that is delivering marijuana in the city of Tustin but it would not prohibit
someone who lives in Tustin to go into another city to obtain the marijuana for
their own use under State law. The ordinance does not specifically address
that.
Bobak Bobak reiterated the following: the ordinance prohibits delivery within Tustin
(real properties) subject to zoning regulations; she will be working with staff on
an amendment to the draft ordinance before it goes to the City Council to also
modify the City's business license regulation to regulate businesses, in general,
to insert the same prohibition but since it is not a land use issue it does not
have to be considered by the Commission; this would provide more protection
even though it is currently covered now in the ordinance; the City's regulation
would also cover non-retail delivery (i.e. primary care provider to a qualified
patient); the State regulations exempt qualified patients and care providers; the
ordinance would not apply to deliveries through Tustin that do not originate in
Tustin or end in Tustin (i.e. delivery from a primary care provider in Irvine to
Orange); and the City would not have the ability to regulate that type of
transaction.
Altowaiji Altowaiji stated if a patient (or a family member) wanted to purchase marijuana
and bring it to their home it is not clear in the proposed ordinance. He asked if it
would be clarified in the future ordinance or if the ordinance would remain as is.
Altowaiji also asked about cultivation for a person's use at home.
Bobak Bobak's response to Altowaiji's questions generally included: If a qualified
patient goes out and purchases medical marijuana at a dispensary it is not
considered a delivery; under the City's code provision, the dispensary could not
Minutes—Planning Commission December 8, 2015—Page 7 of 10
be located in Tustin, but if the qualified patient were to go to a dispensary in
Santa Ana, Irvine or Orange, to purchase marijuana then take it home, it is not
considered a delivery. Bobak further stated she did not foresee that being an
issue; if the code is modified, as staff is recommending, then it could possibly
be a code enforcement violation which is why it would be added to the business
regulation; the code would be clear stating delivery would be prohibited then it
would be up to enforcement if someone is violating the law; with regards to the
State law, cultivation is exempt from the requirement of getting a State license
but State law allows cities to continue to regulate cultivation (a city can prohibit
an individual from cultivating their own marijuana); and the ordinance prohibits
any cultivation of marijuana within Tustin.
8:37 p.m. Public Hearing opened.
Ms. Aumielle Compton spoke in opposition of this item being that she is a
medical marijuana patient. Her comments generally included: stated it is a
"blanket ban criminalizing patients" as herself; felt the agenda had a negative
connotation to it; referred to her surrounding establishments selling alcohol
being a negative; mentioned pharmaceutical drugs being the reason for her
disabilities and the reason for her using medical marijuana; used Colorado as
an example of increased revenue because of medical marijuana; stating the
City is taking away her right to use medical marijuana; and it is safer for her to
grow her own marijuana.
8:43 p.m. Public Hearing closed.
The Commission's deliberation generally included: The impact of who controls
what (City vs. State) and would the City retain its authority with business
licensing and if not approved, then the State would be the sole authority for
regulating marijuana; if the item presented is considered an outright ban of
marijuana; it is an ordinance that regulates any marijuana activity which is
illegal under Federal code; the City should help address medical marijuana use
among individuals the Commission would like the City to retain the authority;
request modification with regards to delivery/cultivation for those medical
marijuana patients who have prescriptions; the need to protect local control;
empathetic to liberty/freedom of choice for those with medical conditions; asked
that options be added to the motion; extensive amount of information was
provided in the staff report; an ordinance needs to be put in place for the future
should the City want to regulate; further explained the public hearing and
deliberation process to Ms. Compton.
Bobak Bobak's response generally included: Per cultivation and distribution, either the
City or the State would be in control, depending on how the Commission and
City Council voted on the item; if the City does not adopt a regulation or ban,
then the State would assume that the City has no interest in participating in the
process and the State would become the sole licensing agency; if the City
adopts regulations, then before a person can get a license from the State, a
person would have to demonstrate a license from the City; if the City decides to
ban altogether, then the City would notify the State and the State would deny
any license applications; the proposed ordinance would preserve the local
control for the time being and allow staff time to further study the regulations as
opposed to an outright ban; the Commission could direct staff to communicate
their concerns with regard to individual uses of medical marijuana and land use
issue (cultivation) to the Council and ask the Council to direct staff to come
back with options; the City currently has a permissive zoning code which means
if a use is not expressly identified in the code as a permitted use, it is deemed
prohibited; the new State law states if a city wants to ban cultivation, an
Minutes—Planning Commission December 8, 2015—Page 8 of 10
expressed provision is necessary in the code that bans or regulates it; and
Bobak informed Ms. Compton that the item would be taken to the Council and
she would have an opportunity to speak then and/or provide something in
writing being that she chose to continue speaking out of order after the public
hearing.
Binsack As a point of clarification, Binsack stated the following: Referred the
Commission to the TCC's provision that any illegal use under State or Federal
law are prohibited in the city; rights are not being taken away from anybody—
the prohibition was already included in the TCC; originally, an ordinance was
not being taken forward because the City assumed that that prohibition was
sufficient; and the proposed ordinance would expressly clarify the prohibition.
It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Altowaiji to adopt Resolution No. 4307
with the added request to communicate to the Council the Commission's
concerns with individual liberties to cultivate and/or receive marijuana for their
own medical use. Motion carried 5-0.
STAFF CONCERNS:
Binsack Happy holidays! Merry Christmas!
Smith Thanked the business community for the lights in downtown Tustin.
Lumbard Lumbard echoed Smith's comments on the lights in the downtown. He
attended the following:
12/1: Mayoral Changeover–Congrats to Mayor Nielsen and Mayor Pro
Tem Bernstein
12/4: Christmas tree lighting
Lumbard announced his son, Wyatt James', arrival!
Kozak Kozak attended the following:
11/19. Mayor's Thanksgiving breakfast and the groundbreaking of the
Armed Forces Reserve Center
11/30: Old Town Lighting ceremony
12/1: Mayoral changeover(congratulated Mayor Nielsen and Mayor
Pro Tem Bernstein
12/4: Christmas tree lighting
Thanked staff and his fellow Commissioners for their excellent work throughout
the year. Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukah!
Altowaiji Altowaiji echoed comments previously made. He attended the Mayoral
changeover and congratulated Mayor Nielsen and Mayor Pro Tem Bernstein
and thanked former Mayor Puckett for his service. Happy holidays everybody!
Thompson Thompson echoed comments previous stated. Attended the following:
11/13: BIA dinner
11/18: O.C. Business Council event
Minutes—Planning Commission December 8, 2015—Page 9 of 10
11/19. Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast
12/1: Mayoral Changover — congratulations Mayor Nielsen and Mayor
Pro Tem Bernstein and former Mayor Puckett for his service!
12/4: Christmas tree lighting
Congrats to Wyatt's debut! Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Happy
Hanukah! Kudos to staff as well.
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
9:08 p.m. ADJOURNMENT:
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for
Tuesday, December 22, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at
300 Centennial Way.
Minutes—Planning Commission December 8, 2015—Page 10 of 10