Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-ATTACHMENT B - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AND RESOSATTACHMENT B Draft Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2017 and Resolution Nos. 4339, 4340 and 4341 (without attachments) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2017 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER. Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Mason, Lumbard, Thompson Sworn in by Mayor 1. SWEARING-IN CEREMONY FOR CHAIR SMITH, CHAIR PRO Dr. Bernstein. TEM KOZAK, & COMMISSIONER LUMBARD None. PUBLIC CONCERNS Smith Smith asked the Commission if they were in agreement to hear Item #7 prior to hearing Item #5, which they were. Approved the CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —APRIL 25, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the April 25, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, as provided. 3. FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FINDING OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The Planning Commission is required to review the projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and verify their conformance with the General Plan. The City Council will soon be adopting the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 budget and appropriate funding for the ensuing year CIP projects. There are new projects proposed in this year's CIP, as well as carry-over projects from prior years. ENVIRONMENTAL: Environmental documentation and/or clearance for most projects have been completed. Environmental documentation for the other projects will be prepared or initiated prior to start of construction. Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 1 of 15 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4343 finding the proposed FY 2017-2018 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the California Government Code. Motion. It was moved by Thompson and seconded by Lumbard, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. 7:06 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing Section of the Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-07 TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR A KARAOKE MUSIC STUDIO AT 14561 & 14571 RED HILL AVENUE A request to extend the hours of operation of a karaoke music studio within a 5,000 square foot tenant space at an existing large retail center located at 14561 & 14571 Red Hill Avenue. APPLICANT: Sung Hak Ko JDS Total Design Solution 3183 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90019 PROPERTY OWNER: Richter Farms Trust Interpacific Asset Management Co. 5505 Garden Grove Blvd., Suite 150 Westminster, CA 92683 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301, Class 1 pertaining to existing facilities. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4342 approving CUP 2017-07 to extend the hours of operation for a karaoke music studio in an existing 5,000 square -foot tenant space located at 14561 & 14571 Red Hill Avenue. Dove Presentation given. Thompson Thompson asked when the applicant opened his business. He also asked that prior to this business, if the applicant had done business in Tustin Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 2 of 15 before and if there was a standing reputation. Thompson referred to the conditions within the report and asked if they were the same conditions from the previous report, with the exception of the change in hours. Dove Dove stated that the business opened on March 6, 2017, and that they are new to the City of Tustin and have an existing business at another location outside of Tustin. She included that there have been no official complaints through the Tustin Police Department Dove also stated that the only thing eliminated within the conditions had to do with plan conditions. Mason Mason asked Dove to confirm there have been no calls since the submission of the agenda packet. Dove In response to Mason's question, Dove spoke with the Tustin Police Department on June 12th and nothing had been reported. Lumbard Lumbard referred to the proposed conditions and asked staff if there are six (6) substantiated calls for service, does it automatically revert to the original hours and would the City still have the authority within the CUP to modify those hours if there are less than six (6) calls for service. Bobak In response to Lumbard's questions, Bobak stated that there is always authority and a specific condition that allows the staff to bring the item back to the Commission if there are any concerns. If there were significant concerns, for example, four (4) extremely serious issues, but not six (6), then staff would have the discretion to bring the item back to the Commission. 7:17 p.m. Opened the Public Comment Section of the Item. 7:17 p.m. There were no public comments; therefore the Public Comment Section was closed. Thompson Thompson made favorable comments to the applicant and the business. Lumbard Lumbard's comments/concerns generally included: he mentioned the original application, the restricted hours so as not to have one business open that did not match the hours of the surrounding businesses; the impact it might have on the neighborhood; his concern with noise level with the extension of hours and more people at the business late, which is what the City was trying to avoid; he had hesitation to allow it wholesale without the expectations being more likely going to have complaint calls; and Lumbard was prepared to support the extended hours with the assurance that if there were issues, then the item would be re-evaluated. Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 3 of 15 Mason Mason concurred with Lumbard's concerns in terms of the area and decision made prior and that she was in favor contingent upon the ability to re-evaluate should there be disruptions. Kozak Kozak agreed with staff's recommendation, particularly in light of the new Condition within the Conditions of Approval submitted by Dove. He requested that staff report back to the Commission, after a 90 -day period, which would complete the typical six (6) month review period on their performance. Smith Smith was also in agreement with the comments previously made by his fellow commissioners. He mentioned giving the applicant flexibility instead of giving up rights, but give the Commission the ability to return back to a more controlled position if noise becomes an issue. Motion. Smith moved to adopt Resolution No. 4342, with the caveat that in three (3) months' time, that the Commission receive a report back from staff. It was seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 5-0. Binsack Binsack confirmed with the Commission that the item would be placed on the Consent Calendar in the form of report at a future meeting. Smith previously stated moving Item #7 before Item #5. REGULAR BUSINESS: 5. TUSTIN HISTORIC REGISTER NOMINATION —WILSON HOUSE — 148 NORTH B 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 Plaque Program. The current property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Norman Alas, are nominating the property at 148 North B Street for addition to the Tustin Historic Register Plaque Program. The property owner nomination is being brought forward to recognize that the building is a significant example of the Colonial Revival architectural style in the City of Tustin and was constructed in 1923. The Wilson House is an appropriate name based on the original owners, Mr. and Mrs. J. L. Wilson, who purchased the property on August 29, 1923. The Conservancy and Historical Society have both indicated their concurrence with the proposed name and date of the property. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the nomination of 148 North B Street to the City's Historic Register Plaque Program and select "Wilson House - 1923" as the most appropriate historical name and date of construction of the property. Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 4 of 15 Dove Presentation given. Thompson Thompson made favorable comments and offered to approve the nom ination. Mason Mason also made favorable comments and agreed with Thompson. Lumbard Lumbard made favorable comments regarding the historic program and was also in support of the nomination. Smith Smith echoed his fellow commissioners' comments and commended the property owners for the upkeep of their home. Kozak Kozak also echoed his fellow commissioners' comments as well as commending the property owners. Carson Alas, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Alas, thanked the Commission for their support. Mrs. Alas also thanked Dove for her assistance with the nom ination. Motion. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason to approve the nomination of 148 North B Street to the City's Historic Register Plaque Program and select "Wilson House — 1923" as the most appropriate historical name and date of construction of the property. Motion carried 5-0. Smith Smith and Lumbard recused themselves from Item #6 being that they live in the Tustin Legacy area. Kozak to Chair the item. PUBLIC HEARING: 6. TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-02, AND FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT A request for MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 2015-01 to allow 2,212 additional homes and 1,755,306 fewer square feet of nonresidential building space at Tustin Legacy and to introduce new mixed-use urban and mixed-use transit land uses in the project area. General Plan Amendment 2015-02 would include minor text amendment to ensure consistency with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. APPLICANT: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: Tustin Legacy (Formerly MCAS Tustin) Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 5 of 15 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 MCAS, Tustin. A Final Supplemental EIR #2 (FSEIR) for the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment has been completed. The FSEIR analyzed impacts to eight environmental topical areas: air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services (schools), transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Pursuant to Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines, the changes proposed by the project would not result in any new environmental impacts, or increase the severity of environmental impacts. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution No. 4339, recommending that the City Council finds the FSEIR for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2015-02 and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2015-01 is adequate. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4340, recommending that the City Council approve GPA 2015-02 for minor text amendment to ensure consistency with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment 2015- 01; Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 6 of 15 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4341, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1482 for Specific Plan Amendment 2015- 01 by changing the mix and layout of land uses, introducing mixed-use transit and mixed-use urban, and allowing 2,212 additional homes and 1,755,306 fewer square feet of nonresidential building space. Binsack, Willkom Binsack thanked the Commission for their efforts in reviewing the & PlaceWorks documents within the report, as well as all parties involved including: PlaceWorks, City staff, especially the project management of Justina Willkom, as well as others including Doug Stack, Ken Nishikawa, Krys Saldivar, John Buchanan, Jerry Craig, Ryan Swiontek, etc. Presentation given by Binsack on the background, Willkom on the notification and comments from agencies, Karen Gully on the plan, and Nicole Morse on the environmental documents. Thompson Thompson referred to the staff report with regards to the development that has already occurred, but in the Specific Plan document he asked if there is a summary of what is already on the ground versus what is looking ahead. Thompson also stated that if the information is not in the Specific Plan documents, he suggested integrating what is in the staff report, into the Specific Plan documents. Willkom In response to Thompson's questions, Willkom referred to Page 7 of the staff report (Table 2) which provided the statistical summary of the adopted Specific Plan compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as to what has been built or approved or entitled, and the remaining to be built. She further stated that the Specific Plan is a regulatory document that typically does not contain the number of built/existing developments. Willkom added that with regards to the environmental, there is information related to what has been built and what is being proposed to capture the existing and proposed conditions. Binsack Binsack also added, that the Specific Plan is a regulatory document, similar to the Tustin City Code (TCC) or the Zoning Code, and when the City approves a development project in the city, staff does not modify the TCC or the General Plan to identify that a project has occurred somewhere. She further explained that as part of the EIR process and the Mitigation Monitoring Report updates on the Tustin Legacy, which are brought to the Commission and the City Council on an annual basis which shows what was approved, what was constructed, and what is remaining. Binsack included that in order to modify the Specific Plan document, staff would have to go through a public hearing and amend the document which is why through the Mitigation Monitoring program, staff is able to provide updates to the Planning Commission and the City Council annually. Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 7 of 15 Thompson Thompson's expressed concern with trying to understand what was remaining because he felt it was difficult to understand since there are now 6,500 units that are proposed but it appears half of the units are already built. He suggested adding this information in an appendix or footnote. Binsack Binsack asked if the Commission was desirous, staff could incorporate Table 2 from the staff report, into the Specific Plan document. Kozak Kozak asked if what she stated would require an amendment or modification to any of the recommended actions. Binsack In response to Kozak's question, Binsack informed him he could make that recommendation to the City Council, the adopting body. Mason Mason asked about the agencies that reached out to City staff with concerns, where staff responded June 1, 2017, if there was any closure expected from the feedback based on staff's response that their needs have been met. Willkom In response to Mason's question, Willkom stated that under the CEQA law, the agencies that responded generally have ten (10) days to respond, prior to final action. She included that as of the meeting date, other than the two (2) agencies that provided comments, which were provided to the Commission, other agencies had not responded further. 8:15 p.m. Opened the Public Comments Section. Mr. Tab Johnson, resident and board member of Columbus Square, in general voiced his comments/concerns with the following: the notification process (i.e. community boards affected by the project) before the Specific Plan is adopted; he was unaware of community meetings; he requested an additional review period; concern with removing critical mass from Planning Areas (PAs) 13, 14 and moving to PA 15; concern with what would become of PA 15; and he referred to Footnote #6 and how community senior housing is considered commercial. Ms. Shelly Madison, resident of Tustin Field I, spoke in opposition of the item and her concerns generally included: housing development as well as the change in the number of housing units; traffic studies; new housing development (Amalfi Apartments) looks like "public housing"; concern with density; crime rate will increase; overbuilding parking; she would like to see more jobs; the city needs police sub -stations (central, north and south); increase in homeless population; increase to already overcrowded schools; and said she was not notified by her HOA of this item. 8:29 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 8 of 15 Binsack In response to the concern with notification, Binsack stated that the City did hold multiple public workshops, with the first workshop occurring in 2013, which was when the City Council asked staff to undertake an effort to determine the various mix of land uses that made the most sense and the most successful going further and to ensure the City did not breach in any environmental threshold. She stated that not everybody is going to live and work in that community but that there is also a desire to try to encourage a comprehensive community. Binsack referred to the Flight (creative office) as an example which the City Council and the Planning Commission approved this past year. She added that the desire is to ensure there are places that people will be working there and will have the opportunity to live within that community (i.e. to reduce the amount of traffic congestion). The goal is create a sustainable masterplanned community. Binsack also said there were at least three (3) other public workshops held in 2014 and 2015 (i.e. The Chamber, ULI, Tustin Academy) and all documents were provided on the City's website. As for the public hearing, City staff went above and beyond, which is required by State law, and as far as the legal notification, Binsack recognized not everybody reads the newspaper, which is why the larger notification of the newspaper included all of the existing established communities. Staff also provided postings at all major entrances of the Tustin Legacy. Lastly, Binsack stated that the Commission would be the recommending body to the City Council, typically 30 days later with two (2) hearings before the City Council. Thompson Thompson asked if the notices were sent to the HOA's. Binsack Binsack stated that State law identifies if it is over a certain number of individuals that are to be notified, it allows for an alternative way of providing notification. Again, staff went over and above that requirement and did provide HOA notification. Kozak Kozak asked about traffic and circulation. He asked staff to explain how those areas were analyzed and at what depth, other than relevant studies. Nicole Morse, PlaceWorks, stated that they looked at the original traffic analysis and then hired Stantec to prepare a traffic study to look at the build out of the proposed Specific Plan. She also stated that all of the mitigation measures that were identified in the original EIR apply also to the proposed Specific Plan. Ms. Morse included that all of the intersections that were studied showed no new impacts, and there were no new mitigation measures required. Mason Mason asked for further clarification in terms of the traffic and density through the traffic study, and if PlaceWorks saw a material increase or decrease in the traffic patterns during that time based on what was approved prior. Ms. Morse stated that Mason was correct. She included that PlaceWorks had to look at another traffic analysis to see how the distribution of traffic Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 9 of 15 would change because even though there was an increase in total number of trips, there was not a re -distribution because of the new mix of land uses between residential and non-residential. Saldivar Krys Saldivar, Public Works, further explained that staff and PlaceWorks compared the modified Specific Plan with the adopted Specific Plan, which was their criteria in determining significant impacts. She explained to the Commission that if they were to look at the traffic analysis today to 2035 build out, there will be an increase in traffic, but as far as what the City is obligated to do during this traffic study is to determine the impacts due to the changes that staff is proposing to the Specific Plan. Saldivar stated that there were no significant impacts at what was analyzed previously. Kozak Kozak commented that the mix or patterns of traffic would change but not the overall traffic average daily travel, etc. Saldivar Saldivar explained that the non-residential trips do not change but with the increase in the number of units, it would increase the overall trip generation for the Specific Plan. Thompson Thompson commented on what Binsack stated previously, referring to the number of units being considered and the original non-residential units, and finding a better balance between the two (2) along with the studies that have been done. Binsack In response to the comments previously made on the senior project being identified as a commercial use, Binsack explained that it is not reflective as being similar to the Coventry, which was located at Columbus Square. She added that the senior project, as a commercial use, is more of a congregate care facility, which can be considered commercial use versus a residential use even though individuals reside there. It operates more as a commercial facility versus a residential facility. Binsack further stated that in some instances, it can be considered "half and half", it just depends on how independent living occurs at a facility such as that. The City would make that determination if such a facility were to come in for a presentation. As per the comment regarding the need for a police sub- station, Binsack stated that the City/Police Department are currently considering a police sub -station in the near future. Mason Mason asked for the time period for the community. Willkom Willkom stated that the analysis shows the build out would be 2035. 8:39 p.m. Kozak Re -Opened the Public Comments Section. Mr. Johnson further commented that he understood staff has met the legal requirements, as well as going above and beyond, but he feels the City should be following the same procedural standards as private developers would, as far as notification. Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 10 of 15 8:43 p.m. Kozak Closed the Public Comment Section. Thompson Thompson thanked the two (2) residents for speaking. In general, he commented on the following: the feedback received and how it fits into the picture; needs a better understanding of what is forthcoming; traffic being a key issue and a part of the history of the Specific Plan; he mentioned the City of Irvine suing the City of Tustin in the past, and to come to a resolution of what the traffic impacts are and he was surprised to see that today's comments from the City of Irvine were simply "clarification", there's no lawsuit pending; agreed with the comments the two (2) residents stated previously; embellishing the mobility and connectivity and referred to the South Coast Plaza as a model and the bridges that connect from the street; regional planning and a pathway that could occur in the future (Metrolink & John Wayne Airport & Tustin Ranch Road) as far as the circulation pattern; referred to Katherine Spur as a "bad example"; suggested a linear park future potential connection that could serve as a link to the airport; water conservation — when communities grow, the demand for water actually falls even though there are more units so he suggested staff collaborate with Irvine Ranch Water District, and when the City is proposing these water features in the community, have a recycled component to them. Mason Mason suggested an opportunity for the public to provide input into the Specific Plan. She stated that when the developers come in to propose to the communities, the public will have an opportunity to provide input as we build out over time. Mason included that addressing the needs of the community and that it is meaningful for Tustin over the long term and there will be opportunities for amendments. She referred to SPA Section 5.2.4 "commitment to take input from the public" and to make sure the community is heard and is vocal. Kozak Kozak's comments generally included: he sees the document as a programmatic master plan for the purpose of identifying the types of development, uses, to reposition the available, developable land that is currently available on the Tustin Legacy, and reposition that land and the developments that would be entitled so that they meet market demand, is a complete community, and is reflective of Tustin through 2035; he appreciates the comments from the two (2) residents that spoke; the mixed-use concept is something that is aimed at the current and future homebuyers of the millennial generation; the reduction of the non- residential/commercial uses will be balanced out through the individual projects and entitlement proposals that will be coming through and staff will be looking at each individual proposal to fit into the Specific Plan, as well as the connectivity to other modes of transportation; he stated it would be appropriate for the Commission to take the three (3) recommended actions under consideration and would entertain a motion, with the comments from Thompson indicative of reporting back previously mentioned by his fellow Commissioners Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 11 of 15 Thompson Thompson was in support of Kozak's recommendation, with some qualifications, which were discussed earlier on clarification in the document to show what has been completed so far and what is remaining, as it relates to the amendment. He asked staff how to embellish the aspect of mobility and land use in future considerations. Also, if the City Council could consider having a pathway added that is not defining a project but it is a pathway that could support a future project (i.e. linear parkway). Thompson again mentioned the water conservation aspect. Also, that staff make it clear when the next public workshop is and to continue to go above and beyond on the notification process. Mason Mason had favorable comments on the presentation and the presenters. Again, she addressed the audience as to the residents who spoke their concerns. Mason also commended the entire team for doing a "stellar" job. She asked if there is an aspect between now and before the item is presented to the City Council on an education forum for the community to address concerns as we continue developing the area. Kozak Kozak asked Bobak if the Commission could direct staff to provide those comments to the City Council, and if the Commission is nearing or over the scope of the E I R. Binsack Binsack's response to the comments/concerns previously made generally included: she referred to Table 2, which identifies the summary of where the City is and where the City is potentially going and incorporating the suggested comments Thompson made previously into the Specific Plan; multi -mobile systems on a regional basis and identifying a transportation system (i.e. rail line) on a map would be beyond the scope of this item and the City Council did this at the last strategic plan workshop meeting and discussed updating the City's General Plan and that would be the appropriate time for the City to take a look at this; she told the Commission they could make a recommendation to the City Council identifying they would like staff to take a look at moving forward; water conservation/efficiency — is a necessity and would be incorporated into any water feature proposed in the future and could also include that as a Commissioner comment that was made and a concern identified at the hearing; the Commission could make a recommendation on additional notification between now and whenever the item is taken to the City Council and staff could also reach out via social media in a more significant way, provide additional postings (i.e. City's website) as well as reach out in a more significant way to the various HOA's. Collectively, the Commission made favorable comments to the team and the presentation. Motion. It was moved by Kozak, on all three (3) recommended actions, seconded by Thompson with Binsack's 3 features of clarification. Motion carried 3- 0-2. Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 12 of 15 9:02 p.m. Stopped Meeting for a Brief Recess. 9:12 p.m. Resumed Meeting. Both Lumbard and Smith returned to the dais to continue with the meeting. 7. CONTINUANCE OF CODE AMENDMENT 2017-004 On June 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ, and determined that categorizing signs based on their content violated the First Amendment. In response to this decision, most cities nationwide have reviewed their existing sign codes to determine if they are in violation of the First Amendment. Code Amendment (CA) 2017-004 proposes to amend Article 9 Chapter 4 of the Tustin City Code, related to temporary signs on private property and in the public right-of-way, in accordance with a 2015 United States Supreme Court decision. CA 2017-004 was properly noticed for a June 13, 2017, public hearing. However, based on the complexity of this issue and the potential legal ramifications, a continuance is requested. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission table their consideration of CA 2017-004 to provide sufficient time for staff to conduct additional research and to provide public hearing notification for a re -noticed public hearing to those most potentially impacted by the proposed CA. Motion. It was moved by Mason, seconded by Lumbard, to table the item in order to provide sufficient time for staff to conduct additional research and to provide public hearing notification for a re -noticed public hearing to those most potentially impacted by the proposed CA. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack congratulated Smith, Kozak and Lumbard on their re- appointments. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason commended Willkom and the team for a job well done on the Specific Plan Amendment item. She attended the following events: • 4/29: Cops, Cars & Coffee hosted by Tustin P.D. • 5/11: Tustin Night at the Los Angeles Angeles Stadium Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 13 of 15 • 5/18: Completed Harassment Prevention Training • 6/4: Tustin's Chili Cook -Off Mason congratulated her fellow Commissioners on their re -appointments. Lumbard Lumbard congratulated his fellow Commissioners on their re- appointments and thanked everyone for his re -appointment. He attended the following events: • 4/29: Cops, Cars & Coffee hosted by Tustin P.D. • 6/8: Tustin's State of the City Address • 6/14: Flag Day Thompson Thompson commended staff on the presentation. He requested that the Hewes House item be included on the Commission's next Planning Commission agenda. Thompson attended the following events: • 5/2-5/4: ULI Conference in Seattle, WA • 5/6: Home and Garden Tour • 5/18: OCTA Technical Innovation and Ad Hoc Committee • 6/8: Tustin's State of the City Address • 6/4: Tustin's Chili Cook -Off Thompson congratulated his fellow Commissioners on their re- appointments. Binsack Binsack stated that the Hewes House commendation is a Federal designation (National Register of Historic Places) and that the Mayor did write a letter to the Historic Preservation Office informing them the nomination would be forwarded to the Commission (the Cultural Resources body) and will be added to the Commission's agenda on July 11th which will provide the Commission's consideration in plenty of time before taken to the City Council for their consideration. Kozak Kozak congratulated staff and the team on the SPA and EIR Supplemental. He also congratulated his fellow commissioners on their re -appointments. Kozak attended the following events: • 4/29: Tustin Exchange Club Casino Night for the Veterans • 5/6: Tustin Exchange Club Kentucky Derby fundraiser for Veterans • 5/7: Street Naming Dedication in Honor of Ralph Plum, U.S. Navy • 5/10: Officer Wally Karp Annual Memorial • 5/11: California Preservation Foundation Historic Preservation Workshop — Pasadena Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 14 of 15 • 6/4: Tustin's Chili Cook -Off • 6/8: Tustin's State of the City Address Kozak asked everyone to send their thoughts and prayers to Council Member, Chuck Puckett, on his speedy recovery from open heart surgery. Congratulations to Robert Machado and Susan McIntosh who on June 9th were selected as the Tustin Area Man & Woman of the Year. Smith Smith congratulated Kozak and Lumbard on their re -appointments and thanked his fellow Commissioners for re -appointing him. He attended the following events: • 4/29 • 6/8: 9:25 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Cops, Coffee & Cars Tustin's State of the City Address The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission Tuesday, June 27, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Centennial Way. Minutes — Planning Commission June 13, 2017 — Page 15 of 15 is scheduled for Chamber at 300 RESOLUTION NO, 4339 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUPPLEMENTAL #2 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN ("FEIS/EIR") FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 2015-02 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 2015- 01. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That as the economic climate improved in 2013, the City embarked on a re -visioning effort to bring focus back to development of the remaining City -owned lands. The re -visioning process resulted in a decision by City Council to update the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (formerly MCAS Tustin Specific Plan) to address desired changes in the mix of uses, development regulations and building form, and implementation of open space, circulation, and other infrastructure for the remaining project area. B. That to facilitate the re -visioning and implementation of the remaining land at Tustin Legacy, Specific Plan Amendment 2015- 01 and General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2015-02 are necessary. C. That collectively, GPA 2015-02 and SPA 2015-01 constitute a "project" that is subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.). D. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program Final Environmental Impact State ment/E nvi ronmenta I 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 #1 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 Resolution No. 4339 GPA 2015-02 and SRA 2015-01 Page 2 environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Tustin. E. That the City determined that a Supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 is required for the proposed project, circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and held an EIR scoping meeting on March 10, 2015, to determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report #2 (DSEIR). Comments received during the 30 -day public review period, from April 2, 2015, to May 4, 2015, are included in the DSEIR as Appendix B of the DSEIR. F. That the DSEIR for the SPA 2015-01 and GPA 2015-02 analyzed impacts to nine environmental topical areas: air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services (schools), transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. G. That on March 16, 2017, the City issued a Notice of Availability/Completion of the DSEIR and provided the public with 45 days review period beginning on March 17, 2017, and ending on May 1, 2017, H. On .June 1, 2017, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report #2 (FSEIR) was released for public review and comment. The Final SEIR provides the required written responses to each comment received on the DSEIR pursuant to CEQA. On June 1, 2017, the responses to comments were distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the DSEIR. I. That the program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin along with its Supplemental and Addenda are incorporated herein by reference. J. In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, FSEIR consists of the following which are incorporated herein by reference: 1. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) or a revision of the Draft; 2. Comments and recommendations received on the DSEIR; 3. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the DSEIR; 4. The responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. Resolution No. 4339 GPA 2015-02 and SPA 2015-01 Page 3 K. That the Planning Commission has considered the FSEIR, prior to making recommendation to the City Council on GPA 2015-02, SPA 2015-01. L. That GPA 2015-02 and SPA 2015-01 would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts that were identified in the FEIS/EIR and these impacts are overridden for the reasons set forth in the previously adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached to Resolution 00-90. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby recommend that the City Council find and certify that the FEISIEIR as revised by Final Supplement #2 for GPA 2015-02 and SPA 2015-01 attached hereto as Exhibit 1 has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 13th day of June, 2017. votx'�L�� YD ODD SMITH Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4339 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13 day of June, 2017. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Kozak, Mason, Thompson (3) Lumbard, Smith (2) RESOLUTION NO. 4340 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 2015-02 FOR MINOR TEXT AMENDMENT TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMNET 2015-01. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That as the economic climate improved in 2013, the City embarked on a re -visioning effort to bring focus back to development of the remaining City -owned lands. The re -visioning process resulted in a decision by City Council to update the Specific Plan to address desired changes in the mix of uses, development regulations and building form, and implementation of open space, circulation, and other infrastructure for the remaining project area. B. That to facilitate the re -visioning and implementation of the remaining land at Tustin Legacy through Specific Plan Amendment 2015-01, a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for minor text amendment to ensure consistency with the proposed Specific Pian is necessary. C. That the proposed text amendments are minor in nature and involves clean up items. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not change the goals and policy of the Tustin General Plan. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on June 13, 2017, by the Planning Commission. E. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program Final Environmental Impact StatementtEnviron mental Impact Report (FEISIEIR) 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 FEISIEIR 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 FEISIEIR and, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEISIEIR. The FEISIEIR, along with its Addenda and Supplement, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEISIEIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Tustin. Resolution No. 4340 GPA 2015-02 Page 2 A Draft Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) for the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment has been completed. Pursuant to Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines, the changes proposed by the project would not result in any new environmental impacts, or increase the severity of environmental impacts. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2015-02 attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 13th day of June, 2017. AYL'T�ODD SMITH Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4340 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of June, 2017. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Kozak, Mason, Thompson (3) Lumbard Smith RESOLUTION NO. 4341 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 2015-01 TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT, CONVEYANCE, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF TUSTIN LEGACY NEW VISION CONCEPT, The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That as the economic climate improved in 2013, the City embarked on a re -visioning effort to bring focus back to development of the remaining City -owned lands. The re -visioning process resulted in a decision by City Council to update the Specific Plan to address desired changes in the mix of uses, development regulations and building form, and implementation of open space, circulation, and other infrastructure for the remaining project area. B. That SPA 2015-01 calls for a range of residential product types and education, commercial, commercial/business, entertainment/recreation, and park land uses. The overall purpose of amending the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan is to provide comprehensive direction — in terms of revisions to development regulations, design guidance, and implementation of open space, circulation, and other infrastructure — for the remaining project area owned by the City of Tustin, while implementing the goals and policies of the City of Tustin General Plan, C. That SPA 2015-01 would change the mix and layout of land uses to be constructed in the project area. Land uses in Planning Areas 1--7 and 20- 22 would remain the same. The mix and layout of land uses in Planning Areas 8-19 would change under the proposed project. Compared to the Adopted Specific Plan, the Specific Plan Amendment would allow 2,212 additional homes and 1,755,306 fewer square feet of nonresidential building space. D. That SPA 2015-01 (Ordinance No. 1482) will be consistent with the Tustin General Plan, as amended by GPA 2015-02. That the proposed SPA 2015-01 will further the goals and policies for the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area as follows: Land Use Element: 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city-wide urban design. Resolution No. 4341 GPA 2015-02, SPA 2015-01 Page 2 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master -planned development. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on June13, 2017, by the Planning Commission. F. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEISIEIR) 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 FEISIEIR 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 FEISIEIR and, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEISIEIR. The FEISIEIR, along with its Addenda and Supplement, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEISIEIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Tustin. A Final Supplemental #2 EIR (FSEIR) for SPA 2015-01 and GPA 2015-02 has been completed. Pursuant to Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines, the changes proposed by the project would not result in any new environmental impacts, or increase the severity of environmental impacts. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1482 approving Specific Plan Amendment 2015-01 attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 13th day of June, 2017. kM4�_ Y TODD SMITH Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4341 GPA 2015-02, SPA 2015-01 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } CITY OF TUSTIN } I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4341 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of June, 2017. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: Kozak, Mason, Thompson (3) PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: Lumbard, smith (2) PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary