HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM #1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFO. ITEM #1
Revisions to the December 12,2017 PC Minutes
Pages 7 and 11
Mason Mason commented that after reviewing the Commission meeting minutes from
the prior meeting, there seemed to be concern regarding alcohol service and
hours of operation from the residents and public. She also made comments
on the restaurant industry. Mason also concurred with Lumbard's previous
statement on "piece-mealing". She stated that although there have been no
reported issues with the establishment, adding beer and wine without an
established restaurant causes concern. Mason added that the applicant
continues providing audited numbers when the Commission has asked for
receipts. She mentioned that the applicant had expressed concern with
driving traffic to the area. Mason suggested adding conditions that any
reported issues, noise, etc. from the public and the Tustin Police Department
be immediately reviewed by staff, along with review of the CUP.
Smith In response to Mason's comments, Smith stated that the elements still remain
intact (six (6) calls) which remains in place as a threshold for staff to review
the CUP. He also mentioned that if the applicant violates any of the
conditions within the resolution, then the Director of Community Development
can review further and make a decision whether or not to revoke the CUP.
Thompson Thompson also had concern with the number of applications the applicant has
submitted. He also felt reassured that the applicant would not submit another
application. Thompson agreed-syrnpath ized with Mr. Henderson's concerns
that the establishment weutd could become a "nightclub", and the proximity 0
the-e,stablIshment along with the concern of the establishment's proximity to
the residential area. if the Commission approves the application, Thompson
was in favor of adding a condition (to Condition 2.12) that requires staff to
return to the Commission with any updates or reports on the establishment.
Kozak Kozak did not have any further comments.
Smith Smith's final comments generally included: he was in favor of the application;
he made favorable comments on there being no issues reported on the
establishment; and he was in favor of Thompson's suggestion on adding a
condition.
Lumbard Lumbard's further commented on paying attention to the precedent that the
hours of operation and liquor license are set in line with the Red Hill Corridor.
Kozak In response to Thompson's previous suggestion, Kozak asked staff to provide
a report to the Commission, as done with previous CUP's, in six (6) months
rather than amending the proposed resolution.
Binsack Binsack referred the Commission to Condition 1.5 which is in regards to an
"annual review" and suggested including "that CUP 2017-16 shall be reviewed
within six (6) months..." and that if there were any issues, staff would notice
the item for revocation.
Motion: It was moved by Smith, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4357, as
amended. Motion carried 4-1. Lumbard dissented.
Binsack Binsack reminded the Commission and public of the ten (10) day appeal
period, should anyone oppose the item.
Minutes—Planning Commission December 12, 2017—Page 5 of 11
Binsack Binsack stated that a 55 year housing agreement is typical for low to
moderate income housing agreements in Tustin and if the property is
converted to commercial use, it cannot return to residential status.
Bobak Bobak added that it is standard to take a non-conforming use and convert it to
conforming. She stated that a conforming use cannot be reverted to the non-
conforming use and that the housing agreement would also become void if
converted to commercial use.
8:05 p.m. Public Hearing Opened.
Ms. Seda Yaghoubian spoke on behalf of the applicant and her
comments/concerns generally included: she asked the Commission to
approve the CUP; the applicants major concern is related to Condition No. 2.3
regarding the affordable housing requirement; the applicants believe the
condition is "disproportionate" to their request to continue the residential use
of the historic house; the applicants requested the Commission approve the
CUP without Condition No. 2.3 and to "treat their request with fairness"; Ms.
Yaghoubian asked the Commission to "consider the fact that the applicants
are not developers but gas station owners"; she provided additional
background information on the applicants gas station and it being the main
source of income for the family; the owners have lost all income from the
residents that have lived at the property in the last 16 months; "a formal
affordable housing agreement would create an unnecessary burden by adding
a complex and logistical administrative compliance framework that the owners
should not have to be subjected to"; the residential property has continually
been used as a residence since the 1920's for low and moderate income; and
Ms. Yaghoubian added that the applicants have been working with staff to
address the many issues (engineering, architectural issues, etc.).
Doug Ely, architect, assisted the owner of the property in the preparation of
the rehabilitation plans. His comments generally included: if the property was
converted to a commercial building (i.e. dentist office) it usually involves
relocating windows and doors which leads to other issues in terms of
compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards (S.I.S.) for historic
preservation; in his opinion, the best use of this property is to keep it as a
residence; Mr. Ely agreed with Ms. Yaghoubian with the burden of affordable
housing limitations on the property; the S.I.S. really limits what can and cannot
be done with the property; the size of the property will limit the actual use; and
affordable housing is usually a percentage of a much higher density
development.
8:12 p.m. Public Hearing Closed.
Thompson Thompson's comments generally included: he agreed with the statement of
having 100 percent affordable housing requirement being burdensome if
being treated as a development proposal, but this is not a development
proposal; this is a mitigation to resolve a situation that has been ongoing for
many years; staff has worked hard and insightfully to come up with a way to
allow the residential non-conforming use to continue because it should have
been removed 40 years ago; 4—is URf, a.r-to-he Fest of the—d-evetepen
�; sees it as a solution, not a burden; and Thompson was in favor of
Minutes- Planning Commission December 12, 2017-Page 9 of 11