HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 2-28-17 MINUTES ITEM #1
REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
(MEETING LOCATION: CLIFTON C. MILLER COMMUNITY CENTER)
FEBRUARY 28, 2017
7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER.
Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Smith
ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard
Commissioners Kozak, Mason, Smith, Thompson
None PUBLIC CONCERNS.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —JANUARY 24, 2017
Minutes of the
January 24, 2017 RECOMMENDATION:
meeting, as
amended. That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the
January 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting as provided.
Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Minutes
of the January 24, 2017, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Smith
abstaining.
Directed staff to 2. 2016 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT AND ANNUAL
forward the MITIGATION MONITORING STATUS REPORT FOR FEIS/EIR
Annual Report to FOR MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
the City Council
for consideration.
California State Law requires that each city adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical
development and any land outside its boundaries which bears
a relationship to its planning activities. In essence, the City's
General Plan serves as the blueprint for future growth and
development. As a blueprint for the future, the General Plan
contains policies and programs designed to provide decision
makers with a basis for all land use related decisions.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission review and authorize staff to
forward the General Plan Annual Report on the Status of the
Tustin General Plan and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status
Report to the City Council for consideration.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 1 of 13
Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason, to direct staff to
forward the General Plan and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status
Report to the City Council for consideration. Motion carried 5-0.
Directed staff to 3. MASSAGE ORDINANCE No. 1462 UPDATE
receive and file
the report.
A staff report is being transmitted summarizing and reporting to
the Commission on the elements of Ordinance No. 1462 related
to massage establishments after adoption in September 2015.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission receive and file this report.
Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason, to receive and file
the report. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
7:05 p.m. Opened Public Hearing Item #4.
Adopted Reso. 4. CODE AMENDMENT 2017-001, AMENDMENTS TO TUSTIN
No. 4335. CITY CODE REQUIRED BY PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 64
Code Amendment (CA) 2017-001 would amend the Tustin
City Code (TCC) as required by the passage of Proposition
64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (the "Act"). CA 2017-001
would amend the TCC so that it does not prohibit activity
and/or uses that are expressly permitted pursuant to the Act.
CA 2017-001 would expressly prohibit marijuana dispensaries
in all zoning districts.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Proposed CA 2017-001 (Ordinance No. 1478) 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 4335,
recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance
No. 1478, amending TCC Sections 3141, 3152, 9270c and
9297 relating to the regulation of marijuana activity in the City.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 2 of 13
Jason McEwen, Presentation given.
Deputy City
Attorney.
Thompson Thompson's comments/questions generally included: clarification
regarding the City's inability to regulate the purchase of marijuana, but
the City can regulate the sale of marijuana; and he questioned the
recommended ordinance pertaining to the City regulating the sale of
marijuana being implied in the regulation.
McEwen McEwen stated Thompson's clarification question is correct. In
general, McEwen stated that the City cannot regulate the purchase of
but only the sale of marijuana. He also stated that the ordinance would
redefine a marijuana dispensary to include sale, distribution,
cultivation, etc.
Smith Smith's question was regarding the amendments removing
components of the Tustin City Code to comply with by State law.
McEwen In response to Smith's question, McEwen provided a brief overview of
the item and stated in general: the City is not expressly authorizing
activity; and the State law decriminalizes the activity. The legislature
determines what constitutes criminal acts under the State law.
7:25 p.m. Public Comments Opened/Closed.
The Commission further discussed in general: the passing of
Proposition 64 and its effect on cities; the focus of the amendment and
the Commission's role; the City Council could consider reasonable
regulations; and the municipal code requirements compared to State
statute.
McEwen McEwen further commented on indoor cultivation of marijuana in a
private residence and that the City Council could consider reasonable
regulation on that activity.
Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Smith, to adopt Resolution
No. 4335. Motion carried 5-0.
7:30 p.m. Closed Public Hearing Item #4.
7:30 p.m. Opened Public Hearing Item #5.
Adopted Reso. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-06
No. 4334, as
amended.
A request to amend the Jamboree Plaza Master Sign Plan to
update signage design, simplify design criteria, and clarify
allowable project and tenant signage within the Jamboree Plaza
Center.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 3 of 13
APPLICANT: Cecilia De Heras
Action Property Management
2603 Main Street, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92614
PROPERTY OWNER: Jamboree Plaza Owners
Association
c/o Action Property Management
2603 Main Street, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92614
LOCATION: 2887 Edinger Avenue through 3097
Edinger Avenue
ENVIRONMENTAL:
This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311
(Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4334
approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2016-06 to authorize
the amendment of a master sign plan for the Jamboree Plaza
Planned Community development, which deviates from the
standards contained within the Tustin City Sign Code.
Hutter Presentation given.
Mason Mason requested that staff provide an overview of the amendments
presented at the dais.
Hutter Hutter provided an explanation of the amendments with the Conditions
of Approval to Resolution No. 4334 that were provided at the dais.
Kozak Kozak asked about Condition 2.5 of the resolution with regards to Sign
Type A and the height. He also referred to staff's recommendation to
lowering the height and if it would increase the actual size of the sign.
Hutter In response to Kozak's question, Hutter stated it is not anticipated that
the sign configuration, as to the size, would be affected. The pedestal
would not be as high.
7:40 p.m. Public Comments Opened.
Mr. Bill Henigsman, representing the Jamboree Plaza Owners
Association, stated he is in agreement with Resolution No. 4334 and
asked to discuss the following: directional signage; the center (and
Metrolink) has heavy traffic and passerbies have difficulty looking for
business addresses within the center which leads to accidents; the
biggest problem is when traffic stops in the entry median; poor visibility
due to there being only one (1) entrance; and Mr. Henigsman
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 4 of 13
requested extra height for directional signs.
Kozak Kozak asked Mr. Henigsman if there would be a more effective sign to
direct people and more of a wayfinding rather than just arrows pointing
to addresses on the left and to the right of the property.
Mr. Henigsman stated he observed the property numerous ways to
see how they could put signage that would be visible to people as they
enter the property, but there is no landscaping area or additional area
and Metrolink is directly in front of the property.
Thompson Thompson asked staff about their recommended signage and if all the
signs are interior to the project site or if there was any external
exposure to the project site.
In response to Thompson's question, Mr. Henigsman stated all signs
are interior with there being 30 feet from the time a person drives into
the property to look at the current sign and if a person turns in too
early, they miss the sign.
Smith Smith's questions for Mr. Henigsman generally included: his concern
with the "line of sight" for a higher sign and its potential impact of
drivers not seeing it; he asked if Mr. Henigsman could foresee the
enhanced signage opportunities that would be allowed in the
modification on the actual buildings; and if Mr. Henigsman felt the
enhanced signage would benefit potential tenants and their
occupancy.
Mr. Henigsman's response generally included: his proposed sign
would be designed so that it was not too massive that it would cause a
line of sight problem; if the sign were designed to be slim, he felt it
would eliminate the concerns he previously stated; being that there are
several addresses and since several tenants are at the rear of the
property, a person cannot visually see them; and additional signage
would benefit the tenants in the rear of the property and would
eliminate tenants being "missed"when people drive by.
Mason Mason asked for clarification on the directional signs A and B and
asked if Mr. Henigsman agreed with the amendments. She asked
about his request with regards to the height of eight (8) feet being a
solution to the concerns previously stated. Mason also asked Mr.
Henigsman if he was amenable with the directional signs remaining at
four(4) feet.
Mr. Henigsman believed it to be a "happy medium". He also stated
that six (6) or seven (7) feet for Sign A would provide great visibility. It
would also benefit prospective tenants coming into the center to the
right location. Mr. Henigsman was in agreement with the other
directional signs being four(4) feet.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 5 of 13
Ms. Cecilia De Heras, the applicant and property manager, also shared
with the Commission, her concerns, which were also previously stated
by Mr. Henigsman. Ms. De Heras stated she has been contacted by
other tenants on the property stating difficulty getting their clients onto
the property because they are unable to locate the business. She
spoke in favor of the directional signs needed. Ms. De Heras also
mentioned she is working on adding new numbers for the addresses to
the buildings.
8:14 p.m. Public Comments Closed.
Lumbard Lumbard asked staff that if the Commission were to approve the Sign
Plan, as amended, with the exception of Sign A, would staff be able to
handle administratively without the Commission analyzing the sign
heights, since the Commission is not a sign expert and in order to
avoid the applicant having to return to the Commission for approval for
one (1) sign. He also stated that the Commission is in agreement with
90% of the signs within the agenda report.
Binsack In response to Lumbard's question, Binsack stated that staff could
work with the applicant on the modification to the heights with direction
from the Commission.
Lumbard Lumbard presented an option to the Commission: direct staff to work
with the applicant on Sign A and approve the rest.
Binsack Binsack stated that Lumbard's option would be acceptable, but staff
would have to modify the resolution in order to not identify an absolute
height solution for the Commission's consideration.
Kozak Kozak presented an option as well: direct staff to modify Section 6 of
the Conditions of Approval to allow/direct staff to work with the
applicant and the sign engineer to establish an agreed upon maximum
height for Signs A and B.
Thompson Thompson's input generally included: referenced the difficulty finding
anything in the industrial center; not a matter of aesthetics; should
have street exposure, property owners should have leeway on
signage; he was in favor with the applicant's request to raise the sign
height with the understanding that the pylon sign remain at the height
staff recommended of 40 feet.
Lumbard Lumbard's final comment was that the Commission should only be
addressing what staff has recommended as well as the applicant
agreement with staff's amendments, with the exception of Sign A.
Smith Smith questioned staff's recommendation to change Sign A from eight
(8) feet to four (4) feet in height and if it was motivated by a line of sight
concern or other factors. He asked if Binsack concurred with the
narrow sign making it less of a line of sight competitiveness and less of
a concern. Smith also asked if the basis of the four (4) foot height
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 6 of 13
standard was so that a pedestrian could be seen behind the sign.
Binsack In response to Smith's question and Thompson's comments on speed,
Binsack's comments generally included: four(4) feet is the line of sight
standard for a pedestrian vehicle (slightly higher for a SUV); typically
when in a parking lot area, a person is not driving fast; she did not feel
the sign needed to be extremely high because then it could change the
City's standard; six (6) feet is within reason given the unique
circumstance; and the four (4) foot standard is based on a person
sitting in a car.
Mason Mason concurred with Lumbard's previous statements with regards to
amending the resolution.
Kozak Kozak recommended that Section 2.4 of the Conditions of Approval be
amended to change the height from four(4) feet to six (6) feet and staff
could work with the applicant on Signs A and B.
Binsack Binsack further clarified that six (6) feet in height would be acceptable
for both Signs A and B. If the Commission decided to amend Section
2.4, then the findings would need to be amended as well in order to
work with the applicant.
Two (2) motions were presented:
It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Thompson to approve
Resolution No. 4334, with direction to staff to amend Conditions of
Approval Section. 2.4, with a maximum sign height of six (6) feet and
modify the Findings to allow staff to work with the applicant. Kozak
and Thompson were in favor. Lumbard, Mason, Smith opposed. 2-3.
Motion failed.
It was moved by Mason, seconded by Lumbard to not change the
language and to leave the height up to staff for Sign A, and to work
with the applicant to find a safe solution.
Motion: The final motion was moved by Mason, seconded by Lumbard, to
approve Resolution No. 4334, as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
8:14 p.m. Closed Public Hearing Item #5.
8:14 p.m. Opened Public Hearing Item #6.
Adopted Reso. 6. CODE AMENDMENT 2017-002 (ORDINANCE NO. 1479) —
No. 4337. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Code Amendment 2017-002 proposes to amend Article 9
Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code, related to accessory dwelling
units (formerly referred to as second residential units), in
compliance with State law.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 7 of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The proposed code amendment 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. 4337,
recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft
Ordinance No. 1479, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the
Tustin City Code to-
1)
o:1) Continue to allow new accessory dwelling units of up to
600 square feet in size on any residentially zoned lot in the
Cultural Resource (CR) District regardless of lot size;
2) Allow new accessory dwelling units on residential lots of at
least 10,000 square feet in size in other residential areas
of the City; and,
3) Allow new accessory dwelling units within existing single-
family dwellings and existing accessory buildings in all
single-family zones, pursuant to State law.
Reekstin Presentation given.
8:25 p.m. Opened/Closed Public Comments.
Thompson Thompson commended staff on the agenda report.
Mason No comments.
Kozak Kozak also commended staff on the agenda report.
Smith Smith asked if the item were to move forward, units could be added to
existing homes without many restrictions. He also mentioned parking
issues, as well as accessibility to bus stops. Smith referenced his own
Homeowner's Association, along with adding units and the impacts
there would be with parking.
Reekstin Reekstin confirmed Smith's statement. This project would create an
opportunity for many additional housing opportunities. With regards to
parking restrictions, certain cases would require parking, but many
others would not be able to.
Lumbard Lumbard asked staff in general: under State law, if the City could ban
accessory dwelling units altogether. He also mentioned that the City
had very little authority, per the State's guidelines.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 8 of 13
Reekstin In response to Lumbard's question, the City would have to allow
accessory dwelling units to existing homes and can regulate which
areas the City would allow new attached or detached accessory
dwelling units. Under the State law, it is the intent to provide additional
housing opportunities as possible. Reekstin stated there would be
several opportunities for existing buildings. He also discussed
examples of different options.
Thompson Thompson referred to the Table (Page 336) of the agenda report with
regards to the actual number of units outside of the Cultural Resource
District.
Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Smith, to adopt Resolution
No. 4337. Motion carried 5-0.
8:35 p.m. Closed Public Hearing Item #6.
8:35 p.m. Opened Item #7.
Adopted Reso. 7. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM) 2016-149
No. 4336, as CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2016-24
amended. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2016-018
APPLICANT: Habitat for Humanity of Orange
County, Inc.
2200 S. Ritchey Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
PROPERTY OWNER: City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
LOCATION: 140 South A Street
REQUEST-
1.
EQUEST:1. TPM 2016-149 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF AN
APPROXIMATELY 7,405 SQUARE FOOT SITE
CONSISTING OF ONE (1) NUMBERED LOT FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF TWO (2) SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS.
2. CUP 2016-27 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CONDOMINIUMS IN THE R3 ZONING DISTRICT AND
DEVELOPMENT OF A MAIN BUILDING IN EXCESS OF
ONE (1) STORY AND/OR TWENTY (20) FEET IN
HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF A R-1 ZONED
PROPERTY, PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA OF THE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 9 of 13
3. DR 2016-018 FOR THE DESIGN AND SITE LAYOUT
OF TWO (2) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
CONDOMINIUMS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15315
(Class 15) and 15332 (Class 32) of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the
California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act) pertaining to in-fill development.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4336
approving Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 2016-149, Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) 2016-27, and Design Review (DR) 2016-
018, authorizing the subdivision of an existing 7,405 square-
foot lot for condominium purposes, consisting of one (1)
numbered lot, for the development of two (2) detached single
family dwelling units and related site improvements.
Beier Presentation given.
Smith Smith asked Beier about the easement for the Southern California
gas line.
Beier Beier referred to the site plan showing the easement being in the
public street.
8:47 p.m. Opened the Public Comments.
Mr. Ed John, resident at 130 South A Street, spoke in opposition of
the item due to the following concerns: inaccurate property line (he
stated the fencing had been in place many years) and boundaries;
he noted the trees caused damage; he asked if he needs to bring the
item back with his facts to the next Commission meeting on March
147 2017; Mr. John would like to work with City staff to answer his
questions; and currently there is a parking issue.
Lumbard Lumbard informed Mr. John of the Commission's procedures.
Mr. Larry Brose, Vice President of Habitat for Humanity, was in
agreement with staff's changes to the Conditions of Approval. With
regards to Mr. John's statement on the property line, when the
property is conveyed to Habitat for Humanity, they will have a legal
description of the entire property. As far as the wall/fence between
the two (2) properties, it would be built on the property line and will
not encroach onto the neighbor's property. Mr. Brose also thanked
staff for their efforts and he asked about the March 14, 2017 date.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 10 of 13
Lumbard With regards to Mr. John mentioning the March 14, 2017 date,
Lumbard stated if the item were to be continued, it would be heard at
that Commission meeting.
Tina Blenz, resident, addressed the Commission, generally
regarding discrepancies on the City's mapping and GIS system. Due
to a concern that Ms. Blenz was disrupting the meeting, the
Commission took a recess.
8:59 p.m. Closed the Public Comments.
Meeting recessed.
9:05 p.m. Reconvened meeting.
Lumbard Lumbard wanted to address Mr. John's concerns and asked staff
what the options are for this item (i.e. 1. Continue item in order to
gather additional information, 2. Deny project, 3. Approve project).
He asked that staff contact Mr. John at a later date to explain what
his options are.
Binsack In response to some of the concerns mentioned by Mr. John,
Binsack's comments generally included: the Commission could
continue, approve, or deny the item; staff will reach out to Mr. John
and the applicant to discuss the issues; the property will need to be
surveyed; the City will not approve any development that is on
anyone else's property other than the project's property; and when
the City conveys the property, it will be conveyed to the project
property with clear title.
Lumbard Lumbard also informed Mr. John of the appeal process.
Thompson Thompson mentioned the City's process further as far as property
lines are concerned as well as it being stated within the agenda
report; landscape provisions (Section 9 of the Conditions of
Approval); verification on whether or not the trees shown on the
exhibit are the current trees or new trees; and suggested staff
provide more clarity to Mr. John with regards to the wall by adding a
condition (Section 7 of the Conditions of Approval) which addresses
a temporary wall, as well as a new wall to be constructed per the site
plan.
Willkom Willkom referred to the Tentative Parcel Map (Attachment C) within
the agenda report and clarified the trees to remain at the property.
Smith Smith asked Thompson to clarify the Commission's position that the
existing fence must be removed and a temporary fence be installed.
Mr. John interjected and stated his issue is not with the current
temporary fence, but with the proposed wall as well as the damage
the current trees have caused.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 11 of 13
Binsack Binsack suggested staff modify Section 9.5 of the Conditions of
Approval and add language that would state the applicant shall
coordinate and/or consult with the adjacent neighbors with respect to
permanent fencing where they may share in the cost of permanent
fencing without the Commission making that determination in order
to address Thompson's question.
Lumbard Lumbard also added that staff speak with the neighbors about past
or existing financial impacts to their property.
9:21 p.m. Public Comments Closed.
Mason/Kozak Both Mason and Kozak thanked Mr. John for his comments and
concerns. They also thanked Habitat for Humanity for working with
the City on this project.
Smith Smith further asked about setbacks and possible impact of lot lines.
Binsack In response to Smith's question on the possible lot line issue, staff
will ensure the property is surveyed and it meets the plan the
Commission approves.
Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Mason, to adopt Resolution
No. 4336, as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
9:23 p.m. Closed Item #7.
None. REGULAR BUSINESS:
STAFF CONCERNS:
Binsack No comments.
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Mason No comments.
Kozak Thanked staff for all agenda items. Kozak attended the following:
• 1/27: Mayor's Dinner
• 2/1: FAA Workshop on Southern California Metroplex
• 2/11: Tustin Exchange Club Bingo
• 2/21: Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop
• 2/25: Tustin Community Foundation's "Sip, Stroll & Swirl"
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 12 of 13
Thompson Commented on the RHNA Goals and the tremendous progress and
the accomplishments for the City. Thompson attended the following:
• 1/27: Mayor's Dinner
• 2/16: Civil Engineer's Awards Dinner
• 2/28: ADHOC Committee
Thompson shared an article from CNBC with regards to the "California
Infrastructure" and referenced drought regulations.
Smith Smith attended the Tustin Community Foundation's "Sip, Stroll & Swirl"
event on 2/25 with favorable comments on the community and local
merchants.
Lumbard Lumbard attended the following events:
• 2/2: ACC-OC Leadership Reception
• 2/8: Tustin Chamber Breakfast
• 2/16: Interviewed for the Tustin Senior Center Needs
Assessment
• 2/21: City Council/Planning Commission Workshop
• 2/22: Citizen Participation Committee CDBG Block Grant
Program
• 2/25: Tustin Community Foundation's "Sip, Stroll & Swirl"
Thursday, March 2, 2017 — Old Town Parking Forum in the Clifton C.
Miller Community Center.
9:29 p.m. ADJOURNMENT:
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled
for Tuesday, March 14, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Clifton C. Miller
Community Center at 300 Centennial Way.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 28, 2017—Page 13 of 13