HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 9-27-16 MINUTES ITEM #1
REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
7:02 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lumbard
ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard
Commissioners Mason, Kozak, Thompson
EXCUSED ABSENCE: Smith
Thompson Thompson introduced the Young Leaders Group associates from ULI in
attendance.
None. PUBLIC CONCERNS
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
September 13,
2016 Minutes, as RECOMMENDATION:
amended.
That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the September
13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting as provided.
Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason, to approve the Minutes
of the September 13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, as amended.
Motion carried 4-0-1.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
Adopted Reso. 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2016-01; ZONE CHANGE 2016-
Nos. 4325, 001; SUBDIVISION 2016-03 / TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17993;
4326, 4328, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2016-002; AND DESIGN REVIEW
4327 2016-004 FOR A SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING 6.81 ACRE LOT
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 140 FOR-
SALE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
APPLICANT: Intracorp So Cal-1, LLC
4041 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 250
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PROPERTY
OWNER: Van Buren Plaza, LLC
PO Box 16562
Beverly Hills, CA 90209
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 1 of 13
LOCATION: 420 W. Sixth Street & 320-694 S. B Street
ENVIRONMENTAL:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance
with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Article 6 of California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.
REQUEST:
1. General Plan Amendment 2016-01: amend the General Plan Land
Use designation from Industrial (1) to Planned Community
Residential (PC Residential).
2. Zone Change 2016-001: change the zone from Planned Industrial
(PM) to Planned Community (P-C).
3. Subdivision 2016-03/Tentative Tract Map 17993: a subdivision of
an existing 6.81 acre lot for condominium purposes to construct
140 for-sale residential units.
4. Development Agreement 2016-002: facilitate the development of
the 6.81 acre site and accept public benefits.
5. Design Review 2016-004: site design and aesthetics of the
proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission-
1.
ommission:1. Adopt Resolution No. 4325 recommending that the City Council
find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for
General Plan Amendment 2016-01, Zone Change 2016-001,
Subdivision 2016-03/Tentative Tract Map 17993 for condominium
purposes, Development Agreement 2016-002 and Design Review
2016-004 for the proposed project.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 4326 recommending that the City Council
approve General Plan Amendment 2016-01 to change the
property's General Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial (1) to
Planned Community Residential (PC Residential).
3. Adopt Resolution No. 4328 recommending that the City Council
adopt Ordinance No. 1472 for Zone Change 2016-001 to change
the zoning from Planned Industrial (PM) to Planned Community
(P-C).
4. Adopt Resolution No. 4327 recommending that the City Council
approve Subdivision 2016-03/Tentative Tract Map 17993 and
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 2 of 13
Design Review 2016-004 to subdivide the existing parcel for
condominium purposes to accommodate the construction of 140
for-sale residential dwelling units and adopt Development
Agreement 2016-002 to facilitate the development of the 6.81 acre
site and accept public benefits.
Binsack Binsack reiterated to the Commission of the City's goals and plans for the
Downtown area which generally included: this project is one of the more
significant private investments in Old Town (with the exception of
Ambrose Lane and Prospect Village) in decades; the City received
various comments and input from residents and business owners wanting
to promote development and businesses in the Old Town area; input was
received from the Downtown Commercial Corridor Specific Plan
Workshops, as well as the Tustin Center New Beginnings studies; the
desire is to stimulate the Downtown area and to get more people into the
Downtown area; various capital improvement grant projects; narrowing
Main Street; establishing parklets on EI Camino Real and Main Street;
the provision of mixed-use; and the City has worked with this applicant to
ensure the compatibility with the historic development across the street
as well as workforce housing.
Thompson Thompson recused himself from Item #2 since he resides near the
project area.
Dove Presentation given. Dove informed the Commission of the list of names
of telephone calls she received, for the record, as follows: Connie Chic,
Grace Flores, Mark McCorder and an unknown caller. The callers
expressed concern about parking, traffic, noise, pollution, crime and
overall they were not in favor of the project. Several emails and letters
were also received, which were provided to the Commission at the dais.
7:45 p.m. Public Comments Opened.
Mr. Peter Lauener, applicant, provided a graphic presentation showing
the highlights of the project.
The following individuals spoke in opposition during the Public Comments
portion of the meeting: John Garay, Linda Jennings, Mark Wilken, Libby
Pankey, R.J. Schwichtenberg, Madeleine Spencer, Stephen Jones,
Nancy Shumar, Jackie Young, Pauline Chu-Collins, William Collins, and
Jason Clarke.
Concerns generally included the following: the legitimacy of the traffic
impact report; parking; proposed two (2) car garages being used for
storage versus parking; lack of community outreach; design of
development; public notices not received by all who opposed; B Street
parking/traffic issue; traffic; businesses being displaced in thirty (30) days;
re-zoning; historic building; storing cars on Main Street; health and safety
(i.e. pollution, hazardous materials, lead-based paint); increase in
occupancy; aesthetics; impacts to parking in the Old Town area; area will
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 3 of 13
be deteriorated; suggested "nose-in" parking on B Street; increase in
water usage/water restrictions; tree removal; suggested there be a
representative from Old Town on the Commission; increase in noise;
development does not fit community; density too high; increase in crime;
traffic impact onto Newport Avenue, Main Street and Sycamore Avenue;
and proposed project design looks like Irvine.
The following individuals spoke in favor during the Public Comments
portion of the meeting: Sherri Gust, Lindburgh McPherson, and Tiffany
Miller.
Comments generally included: much needed development for Old Town;
will bring more businesses and customers to Tustin; need more people to
frequent Old Town; too many undeveloped and vacant parcels; if not
supportive of development, more parcels will remain vacant for years;
and tax payers should be able to park on public streets.
Mr. Lauener's response to the comments generally included the
following: community outreach was provided to the Chamber of
Commerce, local residents, the Historical Society and the Tustin
Preservation Conservancy; with regards to the parking, ample parking will
be provided in the project; the homeowner's association will enforce
garage parking and may not be used for storage; and the applicant is
assisting the owner with tenant relocation.
Konnie Dobreva, JD, EPD Solutions (environmental consultant) provided
a response regarding the alleged potential hazards and historic buildings
on site — Phase 1 and Phase 2 soil testing were conducted as part of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed site does not have any
hazardous materials remaining. There are no issues with the transport of
hazardous materials for this proposed project. There are no impacts to
sensitive uses (i.e. residents, schools). A historical study was conducted
and the buildings onsite are 45+ years old and historic records were
checked (within '/4 of a mile of the project site). There are no associated
historic impacts.
9:18 p.m. Public Comments Closed.
The Commission discussed the Commission's role, City Council's role,
and the Commission's appointment by City Council.
Kozak requested comments from staff with respect to parking, specifically
the Main Street area and what impact the proposed project would have to
Main Street parking and parking in the area.
Saldivar Saldivar's response to Kozak's question with regards to parking generally
included: Predominantly, parking impacts along Main Street has to do
with multi-family units; does not anticipate any parking issue with the
proposed project since there will be additional on-site parking; any
provisions/CC&R's will enforce the parking and the use of the garages;
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 4 of 13
Lumbard Lumbard addressed the major concern of parking and stated that the City
Council is currently working on parking and traffic concerns to
neighborhoods. Timing is an issue; however, this proposed project does
not necessarily impact the traffic in the area.
Mason Mason asked staff about speeding (speed bumps) and traffic in the area
and who that question should be directed to.
Binsack To answer Mason's question, Binsack stated that if the proposed project
legally operates the way that it should, then there should not be a
negative impact. What residents are experiencing is a code enforcement
issue that is spilling over from mainly Tustin Acres, other multi-family
developments, or single-family residences where there are non-permitted
additional units that have overcrowding conditions which resulted in
additional cars that cannot be accommodated onsite. Staff has been
working with Tustin Acres to get the residents and guests to park onsite.
The City (Public Works) would have to look at parking on more of a
master plan perspective on public streets and Community Development
in private communities. The Police Department is already working on
some of the issues on Pacific Street.
Lumbard Lumbard stated that this project is part of an overall plan for the
community (i.e. traffic and changing roadways) to get more residents into
Old Town. There is a broader strategy. There were three (3) associated
public workshops. This was a conclusion/solution from the City Council
wanting to move forward with similar developments. Lumbard requested
clarification on water needs for new development.
Kozak Kozak stated that the Draft Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan
designates this project area for residential housing.
Mason Mason inquired about Old Town and the boundaries and commented on
the project's aesthetics. She had favorable comments with the project's
aesthetics.
Willkom Willkom stated that the Water Department did review the project and that
there is available water to accommodate the project. With the Governor's
Executive Order related to water, the City has adopted a Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance. All new developments are equipped with water
efficient appliances and with water efficient appliances; there would be
less water usage than in older homes.
Art Valenzuela, Valenzuela provided a brief description of the Urban Water Management
Water Services Plan (prepared every (5) years) and that the Water Department looks at
Manager what the uses are, future growth (i.e. population increase)which would be
infill, and the project is compatible with the urban water management to
serve this development. Drought and water restrictions (Stage 2) - the
proposed project will have less watering. The City is looking long-term
with regards to the drought.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 5 of 13
The Commission further commented on the following in general: they
agree with the recommendations from staff; favorable comments
regarding moving from an industrial to a residential development; bulb out
is traffic calming; they encourage the project be built out expeditiously;
staff should consider a traffic plan with the community; sound wall;
community park; properties along 6t" and B Streets - suggested staff and
the applicant work together with respect to some cosmetic additions to
increase the architecture's interest; this first project is good for the overall
plan of the area; suggested a communication plan with the neighborhood
(i.e. traffic and parking) and communicate to the City Council; and the
Commission would like a report back with regards to the communication.
Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Mason, to adopt Resolution Nos.
43257 43267 4328, and 4327, as amended. Motion carried 3-1-1.
Binsack Binsack asked the Commission if it would be their desire to receive a
summary of the concerns and recommended action as an additional item
that the City Council study the matter.
Recess Meeting to reconvene at 9:13 p.m.
Adopted Reso. 3. THE FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY: GENERAL PLAN
Nos. 4320, CONFORMITY, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2016-0017
4321, 4322, CONCEPT PLAN 2016-001, DESIGN REVIEW 2016-001,
4323, 4323, as SUBDIVISION 2016-02 / VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
amended. 18003, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-01, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2016-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-15,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-23, MINOR MODIFICATION
(MM) 2016-01 AND MINOR MODIFICATION (MM) 2016-02 TO
CONSTRUCT A PHASED COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT
LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY THIRTY-EIGHT (38) ACRE SITE
WITHIN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREAS 9-12 OF THE MCAS
TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (NEIGHBORHOOD E). THE
PROJECT WILL BE A CREATIVE OFFICE USE CAMPUS WITH A
RETAIL USE (FOOD HALL) AND CONFERENCE CENTER WITH A
TOTAL OF 870,000 SQUARE FEET. PHASE 1 WILL CONSIST OF
APPROXIMATELY 390,440 SQUARE FEET AND CONTAIN TEN
(10) SEPARATE BUILDINGS AND A PARKING GARAGE. PHASE
2 WILL CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 479,560 SQUARE FEET
AND CONSIST OF CONSIST OF EIGHT (8) SEPARATE
BUILDINGS AND A PARKING GARAGE.
APPLICANT: Flight Venture LLC
Attn: Matt Howell
114 Pacifica, Suite 370
Irvine, CA 92618
PROPERTY OWNER: City of Tustin
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 6 of 13
LOCATION: NW Corner of Armstrong Avenue and Barranca
Parkway
ENVIRONMENTAL:
On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On
December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76
approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin
Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of
Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the
FEIS/EIR. And, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the
FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR, along with its Addenda and Supplement,
is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the
potential environmental impacts associated with development on the
former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. An Environmental
Checklist has been prepared for the proposed project is consistent
with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is determined not to result
in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes
or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified
significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and addendum. Moreover, no
new information of substantial importance has surfaced since
certification of the FEIS/EIR and addendum.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 4320, determining that the location,
purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an
approximately thirty-eight (38) acre site within a portion of
Planning Area 9-12, Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan for the development of a commercial mixed use
project is in conformance with the approved general plan.
b. Adopt Resolution No. 4321 recommending that the City
Council adopt Ordinance No, 1471 approving the
Development Agreement 2016-001 to facilitate the
development and conveyance of an approximate thirty-eight
(38) acre site within the boundaries of MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan. The Development Agreement was intended to further
the purpose and intent of the General Plan and Specific Plan,
and FEIS/FEIR and will ensure the orderly implementation of
infrastructure and development. The Development
Agreement includes a schedule of performance and
obligations that ensure adequate local infrastructure
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 7 of 13
programs are in place to support the proposed development.
c. Adopt Resolution No. 4322 recommending that the City
Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 18003 to
subdivide an approximately thirty-eight (38) acre site into
twenty-one (21) numbered lots for the development of an
870,000 square-foot commercial mixed-use project.
d. Adopt Resolution 4323 recommending that the City Council
approve Concept Plan 2016-001 for the development of an
870,000 square-foot phased commercial mixed-use project
and ensure necessary linkages are provided between the
development project, the integrity of the specific plan and
purpose and intent of the neighborhood is maintained, and
applicable City requirements are identified and satisfied,
Design Review 2016-001 for design and site layout of Phase
1, Conditional Use Permit 2016-02 for joint-use parking for
Lots 1-10 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 18003, Conditional
Use Permit 2016-23 for mechanical equipment to exceed the
maximum allowable building height, Minor Modification 2016-
01 for a ten (10) percent reduction in parking for Phase 1 and
Minor Modification 2016-02 for a ten (10) percent increase in
building height for Building Type A.
e. Adopt Resolution No. 4324, recommending that the City
Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2016-01 for on-site
consumption of alcoholic beverages and Conditional Use
Permit 2016-15 for live entertainment in conjunction with the
operation of the food hall for Building D
Demkowicz Presentation given.
Thompson Thompson questioned the building height and asked if the buildings that
are going to be higher than standard, for staff to comment on John
Wayne Airport's (JWA) regulations/requirements. He also asked about
the noise mitigation study, relating to flight patterns and the noise that
planes generate onto the buildings, and if that included the air traffic
above the buildings as well as the attenuation standards as part of the
building. Thompson also asked about Resolution No. 4323 and
intersection improvements and the City of Irvine's input that they will
continue to monitor collaboration. He inquired if there are off-site
intersections improvements within the original CEQA documents that
approved the Tustin Legacy or are we increasing "turn pockets".
Thompson referred to Page 766 of the staff report — he asked if the
intersections are being exasperated or are they within the limits of the
original CEQA document and how it would affect the neighborhoods. He
also asked about the parking study and why it deviates from City
standards. Thompson requested clarification on the ten (10) percent
reduction. He inquired about the standard Condition language that states
the City can check periodically to ensure the applicant is being consistent
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 8 of 13
with operating with the Conditions of Approval. Thompson asked for
additional clarity on how the massing and pedestrian flow on the project
site relate to everything around it (i.e. greenbelt park area on the
west/east side) and what is expected to occur on the other side of
Armstrong and how it compares to the vertical massing on the south side
of Barranca. He referred to tying the District to the linkages.
Willkom Willkom responded that the off-site intersection improvement with the
Specific Plan was considered in the EIR/EIS. The height standards within
the vicinity are 180 feet and the request for a ten (10) percent increase
will not penetrate the flight path for JWA.
Demkowicz To answer Thompson's question on the noise mitigation study,
Demkowicz confirmed that the study included vehicular and airport noise.
Willkom In response to Thompson's question on the intersection improvements,
Willkom stated that majority of street improvements are planned for the
Specific Plan and certain improvements are a result of the project design.
In response to Thompson's question on the ten (10) percent reduction,
she referred to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan which allows ten (10)
percent deviation with respect to parking. The requested ten (10) percent
reduction included the joint-use parking analysis and the Transportation
Demand Management strategies: (i.e. carpooling, bike usage, pedestrian,
between one planning area to another, etc.). To answer Thompson's
question on the Metrolink service, the Conditions do not require the
developer to provide shuttle service to the Metrolink Station. When staff
looked at the project, they looked at the close proximity of the Metrolink to
the project site. Willkom stated that there is opportunity for people to ride
the train, walk through the linear park that is proposed within the specific
plan, or ride their bikes. The TDM requirements is a plan which will be
reviewed by Public Works which will include a bus route, and other
alternative transportation, along with carpooling and provision of shower
facilities (encouraging bicyclists), along with several other provisions staff
can take a look at. Willkom stated that the massing (development across
Armstrong to the east) for Planning Area D will allow buildings as high as
one-hundred-eighty (180)feet. With the relation to the City of Irvine to the
south, there is a new hotel development approval by the City of Irvine and
it consists of a five (5) story building. On the west side of Red Hill
Avenue, within the City of Santa Ana jurisdiction, adjacent to the
Candlewood Suites, the City of Santa Ana has approved a twelve-
hundred (1,200) unit housing development and mixed-use and would also
be a five (5) story building. Willkom stated that in comparison to the
surroundings, the proposed project is well within the massing of the area.
As per the linkages, the specific plan has a provision for a Concept Plan
which would require the developer to demonstrate linkages to include
pedestrian, bicycling within the project site and throughout the Specific
Plan. As proposed, the applicant has demonstrated all of the linkages
Thompson was asking about and she referred Thompson to a condition
(Pedestrian Access easement to the linear park).
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 9 of 13
Saldivar Per Thompson's question there are three (3) access points to Armstrong
Avenue and Barranca Parkway and as shown in the Specific Plan.
Nothing additional. How many lanes they should have or pocket sizing
was not evaluated in the original environmental documentation. This is
analyzed at the project level. The Specific Plan looked at the level of
service and the intersection of Aston/Barranca Parkway was a minor
intersection that was analyzed.
Binsack Binsack referred Thompson to the exhibits previously presented by staff
and the applicant and mentioned the proposed project being a creative
office with high ceilings, which was why additional building height was
needed. In addition, the exhibits within the presentation showed linkages
(Barranca Parkway and Armstrong / Linear Park)within the project site as
well. The exhibits showed the pedestrian linkages and the bike path that
currently exists on Barranca Parkway.
Willkom Willkom referred Thompson to the Specific Plan which includes the
linkages concept and a bike path concept which shows connections
throughout and within the Specific Plan. In the future when development
is going to occur in Planning Area D (east of Armstrong), staff will ensure
that the applicant implements what is envisioned within the Concept Plan
for linkages.
Lumbard Lumbard added that the Concept Plan for linkages would occur in Phase
2 of the project. He also suggested that when Phase 2 occurs, there
needs to be a design review.
Binsack Binsack's responses generally included: Planning Area D south
development; still far off of significant development; requiring the linkages
to the District would require legal findings and cannot associate that with
the development being proposed; the reason a Concept Plan is required
for each development proposal.
Thompson Thompson suggested future collaboration on how the linkages would
occu r.
Lumbard Lumbard questioned the amendments provided at the dais, specifically
Resolution Nos. 4322 and 4324 (identical changes), Conditions 1.2 and
1.3 and making sure the projects move forward in a timely manner. He
also asked why the "one year' review date was no longer required.
Willkom In response to Lumbard's concern, Willkom stated the following in
general: the Condition related to timing of development is written to
match the Development Agreement which the City has negotiated with
the applicant and the longer timeframe is related to the conveyance of the
property for the development. She also stated that there are some
minimum horizontal improvements included within a certain timeframe
along with several provisions to ensure that the project moves forward.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 10 of 13
Binsack Binsack also clarified the off-site and on-site improvements and
circulation. An analysis of this project was completed, in relation to the
original EIS/EIR, the addendum and the supplemental documents, and
the determination was not a significant departure from those original
approvals and it is consistent with the EIS/EIR as long as the project site
improvements are made along with the development.
10:20 p.m. Opened Public Comments.
Matt Howell (Lincoln Property Company) thanked the Commission for
allowing him to present this project, as well as thanked staff for all of the
work put into the project. He provided a brief background on Lincoln
Property Company and their history of building mixed-use office buildings
and campuses throughout the U.S.
Mark Montonaga, partner of Rios Clementi Hale Studios, presented a
graphic presentation of the proposed project. There were several
renderings, including landscaping along Armstrong Avenue and Barranca
Parkway, which will include drought tolerant plants.
10:27 p.m. Closed Public Comments.
Thompson Thompson's comments generally included: the significant scale of the
proposed project; the creative office space; he asked that staff consider
amending the parking language in Resolution No. 4322 to include
language that states the Community Development Department and/or the
Director can revisit and reassess since it is a City project and therefore
should exercise the same diligence that the City does when the
development is not tied into City property; and future collaboration (i.e.
pedestrian linkage, moving sidewalk, bike path, shuttle stops, etc.) to
avoid people from getting into their cars once they have parked, so that
they can get to the District.
Mason Mason agreed with the creative aspect of the design of the project, along
with the businesses the project will attract. She made favorable
comments regarding the thoughtfulness on the history of the community
being incorporated into the project. Mason also concurred with
Thompson regarding parking. She suggested amending the
recommendation regarding how the applicant would build paired parking
into Phase 2.
Kozak Kozak echoed comments previously made by his fellow Commissioners.
He also had favorable comments on the modern architectural design and
open office space of the project. Kozak also thanked the applicant for
investing in the City of Tustin.
Lumbard Lumbard thanked staff, the applicant, for incorporating Tustin's legacy
and history (MCAS) into the design of the project. Lumbard reiterated the
concerns with the parking and linkages and wanted to be sure the
dialogue continues with staff and the applicant.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 11 of 13
Binsack Binsack referred the Commission to Condition 1.8 (Page and 824) of their
packets to show that the Conditions do allow the Community
Development Department and/or Director to review the CUPS on an
annual basis. As per the parking, staff can require the adjustment of
hours of operation, provision of additional parking, and the engagement
of parking attendants which is the standard condition staff includes on all
Conditions of Approval. Binsack also referred to the Concept Plan (Page
741) stating that there will be an additional design review for Phase 2 and
staff will be working with a future developer for D South to assure the
linkages, as well as bikeways are maintained and/or established.
Adopted Reso. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Thompson to adopt Resolution
Nos. 4320, Nos. 4320, 4321, 4322, 4323, and 4324, as recommended and amended
4321, 4322, and to also incorporate the last comments made with regards to the
4323, and 4324, linkages language. Motion carried 4-0-1.
as amended.
10:27 p.m. Closed Public Hearing.
None. REGULAR BUSINESS
None. STAFF CONCERNS:
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Mason None.
Kozak Kozak thanked staff and the applicants for their hard work on both
projects presented. He presented the following:
9/21: JOCTA Riverside Transportation Commission Tour of the 91
Project
9/22: Planning Officials Forum at the Nixon Library
Thompson Thompson attended the following events:
9/20: OCTA Advisory Committee Meeting on Bicycling/Pedestrian
Activities
9/21: Cal State Long Beach — Thompson provided a presentation on
their Professional Development Series
9/22: Planning Officials Forum at the Nixon Library
Other seminars attended (recreational use and marijuana in neighboring
cities).
Lumbard 9/14: Tustin Chamber of Commerce Breakfast— Kozak thanked staff for
the many other projects happening throughout Tustin and their
hard work.
9/24: ACC-OC trip hosted by the Metropolitan Water District to tour Bay
Delta
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 12 of 13
10:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT:
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for
Tuesday, October 25, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at
300 Centennial Way.
Closed in memory of Al Enderle.
Minutes—Planning Commission September 27, 2016—Page 13 of 13