HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 06-13-17 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, Lum and, Thompson
Sworn in by Mayor 1. SWEARING-IN CEREMONY FOR CHAIR SMITH, CHAIR PRO
Dr. Bernstein. TEM K ZAI , & COMMISSIONER LUMBARL
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 ed 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 neer projects proposed in this
years CIP, as well as carry-over projects from prior years.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
EI TAL:
Environmental documentation and/or clearance for most projects
have leen 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 1
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4848 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 -o.
7:06 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing section of the Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CIDP) 2017-07 TO EXTEND THE
HOURS of OPERATION FOR A KARA KE MUSIC STUDIO T
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 Ido
.SDS Total Design Solution
318 3 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90019
PROPERTY
OWNER: Richter Farms Trust
Interpacific Asset Management co.
5505 Garden Grove Bird., Suite 150
Westminster, CA 92688
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301, Class 'I
pertaining to ening facilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4842
approving CIDP 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.
Doge Presentation given.
Thompson Thompson asked when the applicant opened his business. He also
asked that prior to this business, if he applicant haat done business in
Minutes—Planning Commission June 13,201 —Page 2 of 15
Tustin 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 purr
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 12�h and nothing had been reported.
Lumbard Lumbard referred to the proposed conditions and asked staff if there are
six substantiated calls for service, apes it automatically revert to the
original hours and would the City still have the authority within the CCP
to modify those hours if there are less than sic 6 calls for service.
obak In response to Lulard'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 extremely serious issues, but
not six , then staff would have the discretion to bring the item back to
the Commission.
717 p.m. Opened the Public Comment Section of the Item.
70.17 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 Lurnbard'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 1
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 staffs 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 go-day
period, which would complete the typical sic 6 month review period on
their performance.
Smith Smith was also in agreement with the comments previously made by his
fellow commissioners.ioners. 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. ( lotion carried -o.
Binsack Binsack confirmed with the Commission that the item would be placed
n the Consent Calendar in the form of report at a future meeting.
Smith previously stated moving Item ##7 before Item #5.
REGULAR BUSINESS
. TUSTIN HISTORIC REGISTER NOMINATION —WILSON HORSE
— 1 48 NORTH B STREET
Owners of historic homes or commercial ial 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 219, 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 ` Iilson mouse - 1 923" as the most appropriate historical
name and date of construction of the property.
Minutes---Planning Commission,lune 13,2017—Page 4 of 1
Dove Presentation given.
Thompson Thompson rade favorable comments and offered to approve the
nomination.
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. illus. Alas also thanked Dove for her assistance with the
nomination.
Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason to approve the
nomination of 148 north E 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
-o.
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:
. TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ENT 2015-- 1,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-02, AND FINAL
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
A request for MCAS Tustin Specific Plain Amendment 2015-01 to
allover 2,212 additional homes and 1,755,306 fever square feet of
nonresidential building space at Tustin Legacy and to introduce
new mixed-use urban and mined-use transit land uses in the project
area. General Plan Amendment 2015-02 would include minor tent
amendment to ensure consistency with the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment.
APPLICANT: City of Tustin
Soo centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
LOCATION: Tustin Legacy (Formerly MCAS Tustin)
Minutes—Planning Commission June 13, 2017—Page 5 of 1
ENVIRONMENTAL:
On Janu'ary 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
-
approving a supplement to the FEISEIFfor the extension of Tustin
Punch 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 EIF . The FEIS EII , along with its addenda and supplement,
is a Program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act
CEA . The FEISEIF , addenda and supplement considered the
potential environmental impacts associated with development on
the former MCAS, Tustin.
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 CEA 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:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 4339, recommending that the City Council
finds the FSEIR for General Plain Amendment (GPA) 2015-02 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2015.01 i
adequate.
2. Adopt Resolution olution No. 4340, recommending than the City Council
approve GPA 2015-02 for minor tent amendment to ensure
consistency with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment 2015-
01;
Minutes—Planning Commission June 13,2017—Page 6 of 1
r
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 2,21
additional homes and 1,755,306 fever square feet of
nonresidential building space.
insack, Will om Binsack thanked the Commission for their efforts in reviewing the
PlaceWorks documents within the report, as well as all parties involved including:
Place Yorks, 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 Siontek, etc. Presentation
given by Binsack on the background, villkorn on the notification and
comments from agencies, Karen Gully on the plan, and Nicole Horse 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 i
looking ahead. Thompson also stated that if the information is not in the
Specific Pian documents, he suggested integrating what is in the staff
report into the Specific Plan documents.
illkolm In response to Thompson's questions, Willkorn referred to Page 7 of the
staff report (Table 2) which provided the statistical summary of the
adopted Specific Flan compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as to
ghat 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 builtle isting developments.
illkorn added that with regards to the environmental, there i
information related to what has been built and ghat is being proposed to
capture the existing and proposed conditions.
inack 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 aloes not modify the
Tee 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 shovers what was approved, what was constructed, and what is
regaining. Binack 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—Plarnning Commission June 13,2017—Paige 7 of 1
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 Ko ak'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 dune 1, 2017, if there was any closure
expected from the feedback based on staff's response that their needs
have been met.
Ilillkom In response to Mason's question, Willkom, stated that under the CEQA
laver, the agencies that responded generally have ten (1 0) 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 Pubic 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 roving to
PA 15; concern with ghat would become of PA 15; and he referred to
Footnote #6 and hover community senior housing is considered
commercial.
ial.
Ms. Shelly Madison, resident of Tustin Field i., spoke in opposition of the
item and her concerns generally included* housing development as well
s 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 .arras not notified by her HOA of this
item.
8:29 p.m. dosed the Public Comments Section.
Minutes—Planning Commission June 13,2017—Pare 8 of 1
a
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 lure and work in that community but that there is also a desire to try to
encourage a comprehensive community. Binsack referred to the f=light
(creature 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 lure 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 201 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 lav, 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 seat 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, Place Yorks, stated that they locked 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. Dorso 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.
Minutes•--•Planning Commission June 13, 2017—Page 9 of 1
Ms. horse stated that Mason was correct. She included that
PlaceWorks had to look at another traffic analysis to see how the
distribution of traffic would change because even though there was ars
increase in total number of trips, there was not a re-distribution because
of the neva 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 Pian. Saldivar stated that there were no significant impacts at
prat 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 Flan.
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.
insack 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 than 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 started 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 I illkom stated that the analysis shows the build out would be 2035.
*39 p.m. Kozak Re-Opened the Public Comments Section.
Minutes—Planning commission June 13,2017—Page 10 of 1
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 sane procedural standards as private
developers would, as far as notification.
8:43 p.m. beak 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 plan; traffic being a key issue and a part of the history of the Specific
Plan; he stated it was interesting 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
regarding traffic; he embellished on the mobility and connectivity of the
area, and referred to the South Coast Plaza as a model and the bridges
that connect from the street; discussed regional planning and potential
pathways that could occur in the future between the area and the
Metrolink as well as John Wayne Airport, and used Tustin Ranch h F d
as an example of such connectivity; referred to the Katherine Spur bike
trail as a "bad example" thatwasn't rapped; discussed grater
conservation and provided the example that 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, they
should 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 terra and
there will be opportunities for amendments. She referred to SPA Section
5.2.4 `1 ori mitment to tape 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
programmatic ,vaster 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 tine 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-
reside ntia[
on-
re identia[ omrmercial 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 nodes of transportation; he stated it
would be appropriate for the Commission to take the three 3
recommended actions under consideration and would entertain a
Minutes—Planning Commission June 13,2017—Page 11 of 1
motion, with the comments from Thompson indicative of reporting back
previously mentioned by his fellow Commissioners
Thompson Thompson was in support of Kozak's recommendation, with some
qualifications, which were discussed earlier on clarification in the
document to shover ghat has been completed so far and what is
remaining, as it relates to the amendment. He asked staff hemi to
embellish the aspect of mobility and land use in future considerations.
Also, if the City Council could consider having a pathway added that i
not defining a project but it its 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 its 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 noir 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 EI .
Binsack Einsack'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. rayl 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 crake 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 sioner comment that
was made and a concern identified at the hearing; the Commission
could make a recon m ndation 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 CI A's.
Miinu#es—Planning Commission dune 13,201 —Page 12 of 1
Collectively, the Commission rade favorable comments to the team and
the presentation.
Motion: It was moved by Doak, on all three 3 recommended actions,
seconded by Thompson with Binsack's 3 features of clarification. Motion
carried 3-0-2.
9:02 p.m. Stopped Meeting for a Brief Recess.
9:12 p.m. Resumed Meeting.
Both Lurnbard and Smith returned to the dais to continue with the
meeting.
. 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 2017-994 proposes to amend Article
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.ion. It was moved by Mason, seconded by Lumb rd, 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
-o.
STAFF CONCERNS:
Binsack Binsack congratulated Smith, Kozak and Lumbard on their re-
appointments.
Minutes—Planning Commission June 13, 2017—Page 13of 15
i
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Asn Mason commended Wilikorn and the team for a job well done on the
Specific Ilan Amendment item. She attended the following events:
0 4/29: Cops, Cars & Coffeehosted by Tustin P.D.
• 11: Tustin plight at the Los Angeles Angeles Stadium
5/18: Compl&ted Harassment Prevention Training
• : 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.
: Tustin's state of the pity 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:
e 5/2-5/4: ULI Conference in Seattle, WA
0 8: Home and Garden Tour
0 5/18: OCTA Technical Innovation and Ad Hoc Committee
e 6/8: Tustin' State of the City Address
4: Tustln's Chili Cook-Off
Thompson congratulated his fellow Commissioners on their re-
appointments.
Binsack Binsack stated that the Heves 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 therm the
nomination would be forwarded to the Commission (the Cultural
Resources body) and will be added to the Commission's agenda on July
1 11h 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 Eli
Supplemental. He also congratulated his fellow commissioners on their
re-appointments. Kozak attended the following events:
4/29: Tustin Exchange Club Casino alight for the
Veterans
Minut s—Planning corn mission Jure 139 2017—Page 14 of 1
0 5/6 Tustin Exchange Club, Kentucky Derby fundraiser
for Veterans
Street Naming, Dedication in Honor of Ralph Plum,
U.S. Navy
5110 Officer Wally harp, Annual Memorial
5/1 Il Californi'a, Preservation Foundation Historic
Preservation Workshop — Pasadena
6/4, Tustin's Chill Cook-Off
Tustin's State of the Gity Address
Kozak asked everyone to, send their, thoughts and prayers, to Coun�c,il
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 Limbar on, theirintme
re-ap nts and
p,o,
thanked his fellow Commissioners for re-appoinfing him., He attended
the following, events."
Cops, Cioft,e & Cars
o 6/8: Tustin's State of the City Address
ADJOURNMENT-
The next regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission Us scheduled for
Tuesday, June 27, 2017, at, 7.,00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300
Centennial Way.,
Ryb, ER, T066 SMITH
Chairperson
.........
. .........
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK,
Planning Commission Secretary
Minutes—Planning Commission June 13, 2017—Page, 15,of 15,