Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 08-08-17 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 2017 7:00 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Given INVOCATIONIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson Present ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Smith, Thompson None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—JULY 11, 2017 Minutes of the July 11, 2017 Planning RECOMMENDATION: Commission meeting. That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the July 11, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Minutes of the July 11, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted Reso. No. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-25, DESIGN REVIEW 2016-21 4347, as amended. AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2017-01 APPLICANT: Galaxy Oil Company 303 North Placentia Avenue Fullerton, CA 92831 PROPERTY OWNER: Geoff Moore Mutual Liquid Gas & Equipment Co., Inc. 17117 South Broadway Gardena, CA 90248 LOCATION: 1001 Edinger Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 15301, Class 1 and 15332, Class 32. Minutes—Planning Commission August 8,2017—Page 1 of 17 REQUEST: A request to establish an ancillary service station at an existing liquid industrial auxiliary fuel supply operation located at 1001 Edinger Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4347, approving Conditional Use Permit 2016-25 and Design Review 2016-21 to establish an ancillary service station at an existing liquid industrial auxiliary fuel supply operation (UP-6$-266) at 1001 Edinger Avenue, and Lot Line Adjustment 2017-01 to combine three (3) parcels on the subject property. Aguilar Presentation given. Thompson Thompson asked for clarification with regards to the public right-of-way (ROW) for Newport Avenue and when it is extended to the south, and connected to Edinger Avenue, that the proposed ROW design does not require any takings from the parcel(s) being considered. Aguilar Aguilar stated Thompson was correct. The Newport Avenue extension will be realigned and will not go through the subject property. Mason Mason had a question regarding commercial vehicles being attracted to the proposed station. Aguilar Per Aguilar, there were no concerns in this regard from the Public Works department. She will follow up and'check on the traffic analysis. Kozak Kozak asked about access to the proposed station and if access will occur through the existing entry from Edinger Avenue onto the subject property. Aguilar Aguilar stated that access will occur through the existing entry from Edinger Avenue. 7:10 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing section. Mr. Joaquin Rice spoke in favor of, and is involved with, the project and has worked in the city of Tustin for over 10 years. Mr. Rice stated a gas station in this area would be beneficial for that route. Mr. Jeff Moore, owner of Mutual Propane and developer of the project, was in favor of the item. Mr. Jim Kaopolus, owner/CEO of Galaxy Oil Company, responded to Mason's question regarding traffic. Galaxy Oil Company conducts their own traffic analysis, which includes patterns and demographics of the area. He also noted this is not a full service station, but an automated station and Minutes—Planning Commission August 8,2017—Page 2 of 17 is not anticipated to take the volume of a full service station. The analysis demonstrated there will not be any appreciable traffic in that area. Mr. Kaopolus also stated that the proposed service station does have the ability to take both commercial and public customers. He noted the following: benefits to the consumer will include offering a three (3) tier pricing station (top tier brand product for cash price) and savings for consumers using debit cards, which would be a six (6) cent reduction in the gas price. Mr. Harry Heady, Heady Design, provided technical information and commended Jessica Aguilar for her efficient assistance with the project. Thompson Thompson expressed concern with the fighting and asked about the security system. He suggested reducing the glare from the lighting, which could potentially affect neighbors to the north of the site. Thompson also suggested security cameras be an added condition to the resolution. Mr. Kaopolus's response to Thompson's concerns with the security on site generally included: cameras will be installed throughout the subject property; there will be monitoring 2417; and the company created the software; and the maintenance crew will receive text alerts (within 30 seconds) for anything that occurs on the subject property (i.e. "drive-off', failure to system, and then another system will tum on); Mr. Kaopolus had no problem with an added condition to the resolution related to security. He also mentioned that even though it is an automated site, there is staff overseeing the overall operation. Smith Smith asked Mr. Kaopolus if "drive-off' meant when someone drives off with the hose still in the gas tank. Mr. Kaopolus responded in the affirmative. Mason Mason requested clarification on what is written in the Conditions of Approval, versus the amendment being proposed. Thompson Thompson reiterated his desire for a security camera in place since it would be an unmanned facility. Mr. Kaopolus further reiterated the redundancy of the system and his confidence in the system. Per Mr. Kaopolus, the City of Placentia will be using the same monitoring system on a service station in their city in the near future. Smith Smith referred to Item 2.3 of the Conditions of Approval as opposed to a 2417 monitoring system. Mason Mason mentioned the two (2) aspects of security: cameras which are monitored 2417; and staff on site from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Minutes—Planning Commission August 8, 2017—Page 3 of 17 Aguilar Aguilar reconfirmed Mason's statement, that in addition to the security cameras, the City is requiring there be on-staff security personnel during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Smith Smith asked the Commission to consider adding Condition 2.10 which would outline a 24-hour monitoring by camera. Kozak Kozak asked Mr. Kaopolus about his review on the traffic and left-hand turns into and out of the subject property and if there was any concern. Mr. Kaopolus stated that currently, a person would have to pass the property then make a U-tum to return to the service station. He also stated there will be future discussion on opening the median up to make it smoother for both sides of traffic. 7:24 p.m. Closed the Public Comments section. Mason Further comments from Mason included parking impacts and how the Commission would know if there were problems with parking. Binsack Binsack said City staff would monitor the parking impacts and if there is an issue, then they would address that concern with the applicant, as done with most conditional use permits. If no issues, then they would not address. Lumbard Lumbard was in support of the project. He made favorable comments to staff, as well as the applicant. Thompson Thompson was in support of the project. Again, he suggested amending Condition 3.6 of the Resolution adding information regarding the security camera system and shielding the lights. 7:27 p.m. Re-opened the Public Comments section. Mr. Moore clarified that the existing service station is regulated by eighteen (18) different federal entities, including Homeland Security. The proposed service station already has security cameras that are compliant with Homeland Security. 7:28 p.m. Re-closed the Public Comments section. Kozak Kozak echoed his colleagues' previous comments/concerns as well as favorable comments for the project. Lumbard Lumbard asked if the Commission adds conditions on security cameras and lighting to a gas station within the city boundaries, if it would set a precedent for other gas stations in the future. Kendig In response to Lumbard's statement, Kendig stated that it is not a precedent that would be binding in any respect on this Commission or Minutes—Planning Commission August 8,2017—Page 4 of W Council because this amendment is being applied to a unique circumstance of this lot and each gas station would be considered individually. Smith Smith also made favorable comments for the applicant. He also concurred with Thompson's concern on the security camera and lighting. Binsack Binsack suggested language be added to the modification of Section 3.6 of the Conditions of Approval. She stated that the City does require photo- metrics and it does not allow for spillover of lighting and glare, which is part of the Tustin City Code (TCC). Binsack recommended an additional sentence to Section 3.6 which would state "prior to the issuance of a building permit, an on-site security and camera plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Tustin Police Department" to ensure there are no conflicts with any other agencies. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Smith, to adopt Resolution No. 4347, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Thompson Thompson recused himself from Item #3 since he and his wife own property near this project. Adopted Reso. No. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2017-08 AND DESIGN REVIEW 4346. 2017-006 APPLICANT: Michael Fox Foxlin Architects 392 Camino de Estrella San Clemente, CA 92672 PROPERTY OWNER: Joanna Baker EJM Properties 11021 Winners Circle, Suite 200 Los Alamitos, CA LOCATION: 330 EI Camino Real ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. REQUEST: A request to remodel the interior and modify the exterior of an existing one-story commercial building to a retail store/tea shop & cafe with outdoor seating; to establish an alcoholic beverage sales establishment in conjunction with a bona fide eating establishment and to satisfy required on-site parking (six (6) parking spaces) through the Old Town Parking Exception program. Minutes--Planning Commission August 8,2017—Page 5 of 17 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4346 approving Conditional Use Permit 2017-08 and Design Review 2017-006 to authorize modification of an existing commercial building to a retail store/tea cafe with on-site beer and wine (ABC License Type 41), an outdoor restaurant seating area, and a parking exception of six (6) parking spaces for the property located at 330 EI Camino Real. Demkowicz Presentation given. Kozak Kozak asked if the project was conditioned to screen the rooftop equipment that is currently unscreened. Demkowicz Demkowicz responded stating there is additional screening that will be added to the rooftop with the coping and the block and it would also be required and included in a specific condition of the resolution. 7:40 p.m. Opened the Public Comments section. Mr. Mark Wilken, resident of Tustin, provided a brief background of his childhood living in Tustin. He was not in favor of the proposed architecture and style and claimed the proposed design would "destroy the history" of the building. Mr. Wilken suggested it be a mix of different architecture and styles, and that it should be preserved. Alflo Rossetti, family member of the Roma D' Italia restaurant, was in favor of the new project. His comments/concerns generally included: concerns with the Old Town Parking Study (p. 10 of the agenda packet) specifically, the statement of "significant parking resources"; surprised by the Parking Study stating there is ["endless parking along El Camino"]; he asked how the allocation of parking spaces came about along EI Camino Real; he referred to the CUP, and asked about the minimum amount of food sales as far as whom, from the City, is responsible for auditing those sales and when does the audit occur; and how the parking study and overnight parking for the residents will be impacted along EI Camino Real if and when the residential permits become effective. Mr. Michael Fox, architect, responded on the public comments which generally included: the project is a retail place primarily for brides and wedding showers; parking at the outdoor area of the caf6 is a visible active covered space; and the design committee was receptive to criticism and made changes prior to approval in order to maintain the character of the building. 7:49 p.m. Closed the Public Comments section. Smith Per Mr. Rossetti's questions, Smith asked Binsack to elaborate on the date of the parking study in order to provide further detail on the current parking program. Minutes—Planning Commission August 8, 2017—Page 6 of 17 Binsack As per Binsack's recollection, the City commissioned a parking study approximately in 2006 or 2007 for the Downtown area looking at the Parking Overlay District (POD), which is not just Main Street and EI Camino Real corridor. At that time, the study covered a number of private on-site spaces as well as public spaces (for inventory only). The City does not use the private spaces for public purposes, but only looked at the number of public spaces which included all on-street parking, water well site, Stevens Square site, etc. and there were approximately 700 spaces in that area that could be allocated for public use. City staff is currently updating the parking study in conjunction with the Downtown Commercial Core Plan (DCCP) and is proposing to expand the POD to be consistent with the boundaries of the DCCP area (First Street — to the north, Newport Avenue — to the east, the freeway to the west) but excludes any of the residential area. Binsack further explained, as per the allocation, the City used to allocate on a one-to-one basis in Stevens Square, on-street or within the Public Works Yard. The Fee Program the Commission would be considering this evening, which was adopted a few years ago, is for the maintenance of the approximate 700 parking spaces. When the City no longer has parking spaces to allocate, the Commission will need to consider other mechanisms. When a significant development comes up, the maintenance fee will no longer be acceptable. The City would need to provide on-site parking, pay a true in-lieu fee in order for the City to consider a parking structure or something along those lines. As to the question on the food versus alcohol percentage, Binsack mentioned the following in general: currently, the City does not generally allow traditional bars; the City primarily allows bona fide eating establishments which require fifty-one percent (51%) food and forty-nine percent (49%) alcohol, which is the general application for the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC), plus ABC allocates certain licenses and it is a condition the City imposes through the CUPs; the City has had issues before where that is not the case; the City can request or require gross receipts; and the City will be exploring modifications to the ABC guidelines and ordinances, which will be brought to the Commission towards the end of 2017. Mason Mason made favorable comments on the project and community. She was in favor of the project as well. To address Mr. Wilken's concern with the fagade of the building, Mason asked staff to re-state to the Commission as to the process they went through with the architect to determine the fagade and how it would fit in with the rest of the community. Binsack Per Mason's previous question, Binsack stated the following in general: in the event the owner was desirous of leaving the fagade the way it was, they could have; when there is a significant alteration that is proposed, the City refers to the Commercial Design Guidelines, which the Council and Commission considered, in looking at any infill development to ensure it is compatible to the commercial area; there is no set style in the commercial area (i.e. western store front — Zama Tea, the Black Smith building, the Tustin Unified School District, American Grub, etc.); the City shares the guidelines with applicants to give them ideas as to what may be compatible with the area, then it is reviewed by staff at the City's Design Review Minutes—Planning Commission August 8,2017—Page 7 of 17 meetings; there are some character defining architectural enhancements to the existing facility and there are some things City staff would not encourage (i.e. exposed rooftop mechanical equipment), unless it was going to be a true architectural feature; and as per the interior and what is being proposed, there are significant enhancements. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff if they reached out to the Tustin Preservation Conservancy (TPC) or the Tustin Area Historical Society (TAHS) or if they were involved at all or if they identified this building as being historically significant to the community. He was in favor of the design of the building, from a historical element, the project itself, and commended the Kelly family. Demkowicz In response to Lumbard's question, Demkowicz stated the City did not contact TPC or TAHS since the property is not historic. Kozak Kozak acknowledged Mr. Wilkins comments and his passion for the building. Per the Commercial Design Guidelines, this project is a great example of the guidelines. He made favorable comments for Morning Lavender and to the Kelly family as well. As for the parking, Kozak stated that Stevens Square parking structure is under used. He suggested a plaque to recognize the building as a former Kelly shop. Smith Smith shared the comments previously made by his fellow commissioners. Parking is a constant challenge and staff is well aware. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Lumbard, to adopt Resolution No. 4346. Motion carried 4-0-1. Thompson recused himself from the vote. REGULAR BUSINESS: Directed staff to 4. WORKSHOP -- TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT- return with a OF WAY modified option for Commission The purpose of this workshop is to provide a comprehensive report to consideration at a the Planning Commission in advance of a public hearing that future meeting prior describes three (3) specific code amendment options addressing the to notification and regulation of temporary signs in the public right-of-way (ROW) in light hearing publication. of the United States Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ; and to obtain additional public input and direction from the Commission. Reekstin Presentation given. Binsack Binsack provided further insight to the Commission that if the direction is to proceed with Option One [allowing signs in the public ROW with limited duration] or Option Two [allowing signs in the public ROW with no limit on duration], staff feels the City should conduct a more significant direct mail notification to those businesses and/or residences that might be impacted the most (i.e. those that have parkways that abut the public ROW). It could Minutes--Planning Commission August 8, 2017—Page 8 of 17 also be a scenario where individuals are able to post signage that either the residences or the business owner do not concur with but are not able to remove that signage from an area they are actually required to maintain. Binsack also stated that it would be difficult if after the fact, the City adopts an ordinance and then there is a sign that someone wants removed and the City informs them an ordinance has already been adopted which protects the signs in place. Since the Reed case, the City has not been enforcing its ordinances as to temporary signs, except for those that create a public hazard to pedestrians or motorists. The City has been receiving complaints due to the significant proliferation of temporary signs, and the appearance of city's arterials is deteriorating. Binsack felt that if the Commission went in the direction of approving Options One or Two, things would not improve in the arterials or the public ROW's and residential areas. Reekstin Reekstin informed the Commission of the three (3) separate emails he received on this item, which were provided to the Commission. The Tustin Area Council for Fine Arts and Tustin Community Foundation oppose Option Three [all temporary signs prohibited in the public ROW]. Smith Smith referred to one (1) of the emails being from "nextdoor.com" and he did notice in the emails that the matter was posted by the City Manager's Office via the nextdoor.com website. Reekstin Reekstin stated that the matter was also posted on the City's website and other channels. He also mentioned that staff did outreach to as many individuals as possible. Ms. Gretchen Whisler, president of the TAHS, respectfully opposed Option Three. She mentioned TAHS's annual fundraiser, held once per year, the Home and Garden tour in Old Town, and that the TAHS depends on their street signs and social media, in order to get the word out on their annual fundraiser. The fundraiser helps maintain the TAHS museum, pay for office staff, office supplies, and fund school programs. Ms. Whisler said the street signs are collected within two (2) days of the fundraiser so as not to clutter the city. Mr. Tim Shaw, Government Affairs Director of Pacific West Association of Realtors, looks forward to partnering with the City to help make a good sign ordinance. He speaks to realtor offices to remind realtors to remove their signs when their open house is over. Mr. Shaw recently assisted the city of Yorba Linda with revising their sign code. He asked that the City allow for temporary signs in the public ROW and that they not be allowed in medians, sidewalks or any area obstructing a motorist's line of sight. Mr. Shaw expressed concern with the maximum number of signs being ten (10) per listing. He requested it be one (1) sign per directional turn. Mr. Shaw was in favor of having some type of identifier on each sign with the company or person's name and phone number and was also in favor of signs in the parkways. Minutes—Planning Commission August 8, 2017—Page 9 of 17 Smith Smith asked Kendig if the Commission is allowed to engage in questions the previous speakers asked. Kendig Kendig stated that it would be the Chair's prerogative to question those speakers' previous comments and/or questions. Mason Mason had clarifying questions with regards to "public event signs" and how they are designated and placed. She asked if they are limited to how many signs they can place or limited to only what the City sponsors. With Option One [allowing signs in the public ROW with limited duration] and Option Two [allowing signs in the public ROW with no limit on duration] versus Option Three [all temporary signs prohibited in the public ROW], Mason asked why there was not more of a mid-range option since Options One and Two seem to be similar. Lumbard Lumbard's comments generally included: if the City bans all signs, then those that are complying with the City's current ordinance (i.e. non-profit organizations and realtors) are being punished. Lumbard thinks it is more of an enforcement issue and if the "identifiers" are being considered in any of the options. He asked if the City is exempt from these rules for City sponsored events (i.e. the banner over Main Street). Lumbard was reluctant to prohibit all signs and wants our streets and medians to be clean. Lumbard suggested staff look at what other cities are doing in order to implement the best practices in the community. Binsack Per Binsack, in response to Lumbard's question on the "identifiers", the City would still require identifiers on the signs. With the ordinance, for those not complying by using identifiers, the "presumed beneficiary of the sign", would be the identifier. Thompson Thompson's questions/concerns generally included the following: track record of hate messages or signs that make us all feel uncomfortable; would like to know what the policies and ordinances are for the surrounding cities (i.e. Irvine, Santa Ana, Orange); Option Three jail temporary signs prohibited in the public ROW] — Broadway in the Park, Annie signs being placed on his property or is there spillover restriction stating a permit is needed; need to be careful with what is regulated in the public ROW and residential properties; if Option One [allowing signs in the public ROW with limited duration] and Option Two [allowing signs in the public ROW with no limit on duration] are employed, can a private property owner remove the sign or does the City have to remove (what kind of enforcement would be required then); and, can the City reserve certain parkways for signage as opposed to all streets. Kozak Kozak's questions/concerns generally included the following: impacts on the non-profit organizations; city events, real estate, political signs as far as enforcement on the length of time they are up; not prepared to eliminate all regulations or even go with Option One [allowing signs in the public ROW with limited duration] or Option Two [allowing signs in the public ROW with no limit on duration]; and he also had concern with the spillover affect the Minutes—Planning Commission August 8,2017—Page 10 of 17 potential sign ordinance can have on the neighboring cities. Smith Smith asked at the previous workshop, if the City would consider hiring a private contract company that could administer a sign program for the City and have it be a self-funding program and if there is any other city working with this type of company. Smith asked Mr. Shaw for the majority of cities in Orange County that do not allow signage how real estate agents operate in those cities in order to comply with those rules. Binsack In response to Smith's question on a private contract company, Binsack stated that she was not aware of any other city working with one. Mr. Tim Shaw's response to Smith's questions generally included that virtually every city's sign ordinance goes unenforced and it is never brought up to that city. He cautioned the Commission when looking at other cities, to look at cities that have revised their sign ordinance since Reed vs. Gilbert and again mentioned the City of Yorba Linda. Internal enforcement is done if a realtor is not abiding by the rules. Per the time limit, realtors would need seventy-two (72) hours to remove signage and is more than accommodating. Smith Smith asked Mr. Shaw about the city of Yorba Linda's proposal and why he thought it was effective. As per the seventy-two (72) hour limit, he asked if it was typical for real estate signs to go up and down in the public ROW for realtors. Per Mr. Shaw, the city of Yorba Linda is allowing signs in the public ROW with the exception of prohibiting signs in the medians, on sidewalks, on light poles and he thought it was a reasonable approach that would still allow a realtor to place their signs in a way that was respectful of everyone within the community. Mr. Shaw stated his realtors do not want signs out overnight so if they have an open house on Saturday and Sunday, they are encouraged to remove the signs Saturday night and put them back up Sunday morning. Lumbard Lumbard wanted to address the public and clarify the reason why this item was on the agenda. Reed vs. Gilbert states that cities cannot regulate signs based on content and currently the City's Sign Code regulates signs based on content which means the City is compelled to change the Sign Code based on the Supreme Court's ruling. If the City does not change the code, the City could be sued. The City is looking at ways to make the Sign Code constitutional and not regulated based on content. Lumbard also mentioned that the City already prohibits signs in medians, sidewalks and utility poles. The matter is really a time-based approach disallowing all signs. Lumbard asked how staff arrived with the number of commercial signs allowed being ten (10). As to the forty-five (45) day duration for political signs, he asked how staff arrived at that number and if other cities do the same. He also asked if staff consulted with any non-profit organizations or other businesses in town that put signs up to see if the number of signs is reasonable for them. Minutes—Planning Commission August S, 2017—Page 11 of 17 Reekstin Per Reekstin, staff arrived at ten (10) signs by looking at what would be considered reasonable for these types of signs (i.e. real estate open house, garage sale signs) to a number that would be sufficient for the average number of turning movements (i.e. the signs would not be directing people completely across town, but from the general vicinity of the event. Staff is not proposing a limit on the number of non-commercial signs. Regarding the duration, it is very similar to what the City currently allows. Binsack In response to Lumbard's question, Binsack referred to Mr. Machado's email requesting a forty-five (45) day limit. With respect to the number of signs being ten (10), it would be for the commercial and/or temporary signs. If everybody gets 10, 20, 30, there would be many signs in a relatively limited area of a parkway, if every organization/business/individual takes advantage of locating a sign. It then becomes a proliferation of signage clutter then nobody is able to read any of the signs. Binsack further stated the desire was to try to limit the number that would be allocated to any given entity. The concern is once the number of signs is allocated, the City will be upholding that number. She also stated that the City does not have an issue with enforcement of signs, clearly signs are now allowed in the public ROW, the enforcement is much easier if the Commission allocates Options One [allowing signs in the public ROW with limited duration] or Option Two [allowing signs in the public ROW with no limit on duration] or some variation of one of those two (2). It would take more effort to do this and individuals placing their signs may get frustrated because they may get blocked. If the Commission allocates twenty (20) signs the other ten (10) might be removed, if the City does the strict enforcement. Enforcing is not the issue. The issue is if the City wants to allocate the resources to do just that. Lumbard Lumbard stated that the City will use a reasonable approach in order to address the issue of sign blight and massive proliferation on sidewalks and intersections. Thompson Thompson asked about Binsack's reference to the notification process. If the Commission goes with Options One or Two, there would be some additional notification. For that reason, along with all of the other questions, Thompson was uncomfortable taking a position and would like to give staff additional time to provide further detail on some of the things previously mentioned and discussed. Smith With reference to Lumbard's previous statements, Smith asked Binsack about the City still enforcing all of the rules related to the location of signs to the extent they violate current policies or the City stops enforcing content based signs or if it would put the City in violation per the Supreme Court's decision. Binsack Per Binsack, if there are signs that are blocking any kind of traffic sign, median or sidewalk, then the City will enforce it. Other than that, the City is generally not enforcing the temporary sign ordinances. Minutes—Planning Commission August 8,2017—Page 12 of 17 Smith Smith further asked of staff, if it is possible to set a short duration time limit on commercial signs and treat those entirely differently than residential and non-profit signs. What is not proposed is no commercial signs would be allowed certain days of the week. Kendig To answer Smith's final question, Kendig stated that it is not possible to treat commercial signs differently than residential or non-profit. The Commission can regulate commercial signs differently than non- commercial, but the Commission cannot treat commercial signs more favorably than non-commercial signs. Reekstin In response to Smith's questions, Reekstin informed the Commission that Option One [allowing signs in the public ROW with limited duration] and Option Two [allowing signs in the public ROW with no limit on duration] are being proposed. Also, the proposal shown in the staff report is that those signs would be allowed only on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Kozak Kozak asked about public outreach and if there is some way that the staff could ask the non-profit organizations, by outlining the timeframe, placement and the removal of signs, to get them to buy into the proposed ordinance before moving forward to City Council. If the non-profit organizations could state what they support rather than what they do not support, it would be of importance to the Commission. Binsack In response to Kozak's question, with the exception of the timeframes, Options One and Two would allow signs where they are allowed to locate now. Binsack stated that outreach to the non-profit organizations can be done as well. Lumbard Lumbard referred to the table within the staff report— he is not interested in prohibiting all signs for the various reasons discussed previously. Non- profits, free speech, do need to allow the City to have some enforcement for non-commercial signs too; especially signs that are offensive to the community and Option Two has no limit on duration for those, which he is opposed to. Lumbard was in favor of Option One. Mason Mason concurred with Lumbard's previous comments. She also added that the Commission needed to make sure to address what the real issue is which is the sign blight and not necessarily the legal issues and to not forget what the Commission's current position is. Mason suggested another option in terms of timing and enforcement on non-commercial signs (45 days and no signs at all). She concluded that the enforcement detail would be beneficial in the next discussion in terms of what is sent out to the community, as options. Thompson Thompson concurred with Mason's suggestion on either creating another option or modifying Option Two. Minutes—Planning Commission August 8, 2017--Page 13 of 17 Binsack With all of the comments/suggestions the Commission made previously, Binsack formulated the Commission's consensus as follows: Option Three [all temporary signs prohibited in the public ROW] is not an option; possible modification of both Option One [allowing signs in the public ROW with limited duration] and Option Two [allowing signs in the public ROW with no limit on duration]; or that City staff develop another option and bring it back to the Commission, not necessarily in the form of an ordinance, but just the provisions presented with the staff report so that staff can go back to the non-profit community; and another public notification to individuals that may be affected (businesses that front on public streets, parkways) and may be impacted more significantly than individuals that live on properties on private streets. Smith Smith was in agreement with Binsack's consensus since there is a desire not to come to a broad conclusion. He was in favor of Option One. Kozak Kozak asked Binsack that in the report that is brought back to the Commission, to include checking with other cities that do have an ordinance in place which has addressed Reed vs. Gilbert. If the Commission is going to pick a number other than the "45 days", to make sure that number is feasible for communities as well. Smith Smith re-opened one (1) area in question which is the idea of defining areas in the city where we would actually allow signage to be posted. As opposed to stating certain areas are allowable for signage, the option could state no signs allowed in a certain ROW. Smith asked if it would that be viable to enforce and if it gives the Commission the capacity to reduce the areas of sign blight in the community. Binsack Binsack's response to Smith's questions generally included: .the City can enforce signs allowable in certain areas, as well as having no signs allowable in other areas; whether or not people will abide by those rules Binsack believed they would not; if major arterials are identified as an allowable area, and other public streets signs are not allowed, the smaller streets are not as visible and people will place signs there anyway since it is a public ROW; what is feasible — where staff identified signs can be located between twenty-five (25) and 300 feet of an intersection; and she felt grouping the areas where signs are allowed reduces sign blight versus picking and choosing which streets allow signs. Smith Smith asked the Commission if they were interested in restricting certain areas for signs. Thompson Thompson further stated, "there is a very compelling argument that over three-fourths (314) of the cities in Orange County restrict signs altogether". He is looking at containment and what is it that the City can learn from other cities. Not that he is favor of this, but it "should be kept on the table and then hopefully when comparing the options, something will stand out with what feels more comfortable for our community and our city". Minutes—Planning Commission August 8,2017—Page 14 of 17 Binsack In response to Thompson's statement, Binsack's concern was with the notification because there are some areas where signs are located that do not impact individuals because it backs onto an arterial and there are some areas where people who live on those streets are impacted (i.e. parkways inundated with signs all of the time and will be inundated with signs going forward). Smith Smith commented further on how Mr. Shaw handled professionals in his company in terms of areas where signage is not allowed and yet there are signs. He also asked Binsack about her experience with other city staff professionals within Orange County where they do not enforce and if she observed their experience with enforcement behavior. Binsack Binsack stated she had experience personally since she has worked in multiple jurisdictions where signs are not allowed in a public ROW. For the most part, rules were enforced. Around the political elections signs would be in the public ROW, cities would get inundated and a determination is made as to whether or not to enforce that requirement. Tustin has a significant number of illegal signs posted. Reekstin Per Reekstin, City staff has looked at the sign ordinances in all thirty-four (34) cities, conducted outreach, and it is difficult to find cities that have changed their sign codes since the Reed case because most cities do not feel the necessity to if they prohibit signs in the ROW, and do not worry about signs on private property as is not necessarily a.priority. The City of Irvine adopted an ordinance and implemented a provision which only applies to commercial signs but they have to be based in Irvine and not be able to have a permanent sign. Staff did look at other cities and felt the options provided to the Commission was the best approach but can certainly provide more information and follow the Commission's direction to fine tune it. Smith Smith's closing comments generally included the Commission's consensus as follows: • interested in an additional Option Three • eliminate the current proposed Option Three (all temporary signs prohibited in the public ROW) • additional outreach to the non-profit community Mason Mason's closing comments generally included: • leave Option Three • eliminate Option Two (allowing signs in the public ROW with no limit on duration) • find a timing and number median that is closer to Options Three Thompson Thompson concurred with Mason's suggestions. Kozak Kozak concurred with Mason's suggestions. Lumbard Lumbard concurred with Mason's suggestions. Minutes—Planning Commission August 8, 2017—Page 15 of 17 Binsack With all of the Commission's final thoughts, Binsack informed the Commission that the following would occur from their direction: • staff will try to craft the options so that they are clear what the differences are and also the rational for each option • staff to bring the amended options back to the Commission first, to ensure they have what the Commission suggested • once the Commission has reviewed/approved, staff will include in the proposed ordinance then provide direct notification • conduct a public hearing before the Commission • make a recommendation to the City Council STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack None. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Thompson Thompson thanked those folks who sponsored the foster care camp which he was part of in July. He attended the following events: • 7118: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee • 7124: Association California Governments of Orange County -- Transportation Forum • 7131: Harvard Business School — "Negotiation and Decision Making" Mason Mason thanked staff for their time and effort on the Signs discussion. End of summer concert series at the Concerts in the Park on August 9, 2017. Mason attended Concerts in the Park July 26, 2017 and August 2, 2017. Lumbard Lumbard attended the following: • 7118: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee • Italy trip Happy Anniversary Mr. and Mrs. Lumbard! Lumbard shared an article from the Western City magazine (Page 31) "Protecting Your Professional Reputation Online" by Ryder Todd Smith. Kozak Kozak thanked staff for their hard work on the agenda items. He attended the following events: • 7112: Patriots Day Program (next program will be 9120) • 7118: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee • 7121: Comedy Night at Tustin Ranch Golf Course sponsored by Tustin Chamber of Commerce and the Tustin Exchange Club fundralser for Veterans Smith Smith thanked staff for their efforts on all of the staff reports presented. Minutes—Planning Commission August 8, 2017—Page 16 of 17 9:24 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regulair meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at 7:00, p,im. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. 4111 WDER T6DD SMITH Chairperson '-Et-IZ4BFTH A. BISACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Planning Commission August 8, 2017—Page 17 of 17