Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 02-13-18 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 2018 7.09 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Smith INVOCATIONIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard, Thompson EXCUSED ABSENCE: Commissioner Mason PUBLIC CONCERNS: Mr. John Nielsen, former City Mayor, spoke in opposition of Item #3 (due to his schedule he was unable to stay to provide public comment when the item will be heard). His comments/concerns generally included: he served eight (8) years on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Board and noted his role with regard to affordable housing; concern the ordinance would deter developers from building infill projects in Tustin (specifically in the Red Hill Specific Plan); concern that the Tustin Legacy was excluded from the proposed ordinance which does the opposite of what it is intended to do; fees collected will never pay for enough affordable housing in Tustin; artificially inflates the cost in end-user pricing for market-rate housing; the proposed ordinance is a tax on new market housing; adoption will force developers to negotiate to pay fess for the land; and adoption will create less incentive for landowners to sell. Binsack Per Binsack, staff recommended that Items #2 and #3 be taken out of order. The Commission collectively agreed. Mr. Bill Chou, contractor for OB Square (local restaurant), spoke on behalf of the restaurant owner who had a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requesting to extend the restaurant hours. He would like the item to be revisited regarding business hour extension on the project. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—JANUARY 23, 2018 January 23, 2018 Minutes, as RECOMMENDATION: amended. That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the January 23, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Minutes of the January 23, 2018 meeting, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. Minutes—Planning Commission February 13, 2018--Page 1 of 15 PUBLIC HEARING: 3. ORDINANCE NO. 1491, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING The item was Ordinance No. 1491 would add Chapter 9B to the Tustin City Code continued to the entitled "Inclusionary Housing." The proposed ordinance would March 27, 2098 require developers of residential or mixed-use developments that Planning would create twenty (20) or more new, additional, or modified dwelling Commission units to make up to fifteen (15) percent of the total dwelling units meeting. created available as affordable units targeted to specific income levels. Of these affordable housing units, six (6) percent must be made available to very low-income households, four and one-half (4.5) percent must be made available to low-income households, and four and one-half (4.5) percent must be made available to moderate- income households. Alternatively, twelve and one-half (12.5) percent of the total dwelling units in the residential project may be made available at an affordable housing cost, provided that seven and one- half(7.5) percent of these units are made available to very low-income households, and five (5) percent are made available to moderate- income households. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4358, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1491, adding Chapter 9B to Article 9 of the Tustin City Code relating to Inclusionary Housing. Craig Presentation given. Lumbard Lumbard inquired about the in-lieu fee and explained to the Commission why he was not in favor of the in-lieu fee. He also disclosed speaking with John Nielsen, Steve LaMotte and Adam Wood (BIA) prior to the meeting. Kendig In response to Lumbard's question, Kendig stated that the in-lieu fee would be established via a City Council resolution. Thompson Thompson informed the Commission that his employer is a member of BIA and that he is not a participant nor does he have any income therefore he does not have a conflict with this item. He also disclosed telephone conversations with Adam Wood (BIA) and Les Card, John Nielsen in advance of the meeting and wanted to make sure that staff had the same information he had at the dais. Thompson stated that Adam Wood handed Thompson a handout, which was from the City, but was not in the agenda packet. Kozak Kozak echoed Thompson's comments. Smith Smith disclosed speaking with Mr. Nielsen, as well as email correspondence with Adam Wood leading up to the meeting. Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 2 of 15 7A7 p.m. Opened the Public Comments Section. Mr. Adam Wood, BIA, spoke in opposition of the proposed ordinance. His comments generally included: he believed the proposed ordinance would not address the affordable housing issue; will be burdensome for builders; BIA has not had the opportunity to meet with City staff (i.e. study sessions, roundtables or workshops); concern there is no "grandfathering" opportunities within the proposed ordinance for housing projects being taken into consideration; and concern that the proposed ordinance would actually make housing more expensive. Mr. Matt Buck, California Apartments Association (CAA), provided a brief background on the CAA and spoke in opposition of the proposed ordinance. He expressed concern that the proposed ordinance would create fess housing, since it will be more expensive for developers to build. Mr. Tony Capitelli, Government Affairs Director for Orange County Realtors, spoke in opposition of the proposed ordinance. His general concerns included: a family would need to make $155K a year to afford a median priced home in Tustin; home prices increased in other cities where inclusionary zoning policies were passed; there may be more affordable units, but if development overall decreases, then units will be more expensive; and the potential for higher taxes on homeowners and renters. Mr. Tim Shaw, Mayor of La Habra/Government Affairs Director for the Pacific West Association, spoke in opposition of the item and his comments/concerns generally included: housing affordability is a significant issue in Southern California region; adding a fee on housing, with the idea of making housing more affordable, is "ridiculous"; inclusionary housing would create a small number of affordable units but the burden is on everyone else; suggested the Commission and staff work with the BIA members; the fundamental problem is "lack of supply";; suggested reducing fees for housing; change zoning/density; there will be less of a need for footage for retail space; and that staff should look at other areas for housing. Ms. Patty Conover, Director of Government Affairs for the O.C. Business Council, spoke in opposition of the item and her, comments/concerns generally included: Orange County is in a "housing crisis"; zoning regulations, arbitrary requirements for inclusion of affordable units, and market rate projects worsens the problem; referred to an article from the Wall Street Journal with regards to the negative effects of inclusionary housing; housing would still get built but with higher" market rate prices; referred to other communities data which shows that builders will either plan projects below the proposed twenty (20) unit trigger or simply pass the losses of the required sub-market rate units onto the remaining market rate units in the project which increases market rate housing costs; and she urged staff to conduct a data driven analysis of the impacts of inclusionary housing in other jurisdictions before making a decision. Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 3 of 15 Mr. Francisco Barajas, O.C. Taxpayers Association, spoke in opposition of the item and his comments/concerns generally included: this would be a tax increase on housing production which would increase market price housing costs; suggested the City look at adding more density bonus; expedite the planning process; and reduce fees required to build affordable products. Mr. Eric Heguchi, resident, spoke in opposition of the item and his comments/concerns generally included: inclusionary housing will stifle economic development and growth in the downtown Red Hill area; an increase in affordable units will be negligible or any proceeds to an affordable housing fund will also be negligible; he stated that the proposed ordinance would not be applicable to the Tustin Legacy area; encouraged the City to partner with the "right developers" to continue the affordable housing units; the staff report did not include the transitional housing shelter (O.C. Rescue Mission); and the City should look to the Tustin Legacy area as a source to fulfill the RHNA requirements and not implement the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rick Martinez, realtor, spoke in opposition of the item and his comments/concerns generally included: inclusionary housing would bring more traffic and cars. Ms. Pamela Sapetto, was representing an application the City has had on file since 2014, spoke in opposition of the item and her comments/concerns generally included: the proposed ordinance does not address her current application; she wanted to address the fairness of applying the proposed ordinance to the applications; she concurred with the comments/concerns previously stated with the exception of there being no exceptions with any projects on file; typically when these types of ordinances are adopted, most cities provide an exclusion, exemption, or a modified fee for projects on file because they have not had the opportunity to calculate the cost of the development on that project; other cities with similar ordinances grant an exemption to projects on file, reduced fees were applied that was negotiated at the time of approval; she did not understand why the City wants to double the fees for rental housing versus for sale housing; applying the fee to the former redevelopment areas (i.e. Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan and the Red Hill Specific Plan) she felt would discourage development, mixed-use and multi-family projects which is "counterintuitive to what we really want to achieve"; and she asked that the City provide an exemption or a reduction in fee for any projects on file. Mr. Ryan White, resident/member of the Board of Directors at BIA, spoke in opposition of the item and he felt that the proposed ordinance would "force" market rate builders to build a type of housing they are not used to building. Smith Smith had comments/questions to those who spoke previously. He asked how the demand of affordable housing models are impacted by international purchasing and the fact that the Southern California market is a destination market for the entire world. Smith also inquired as to why there is a consistent development of ongoing units in the City of Irvine Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 4 of 15 despite the fact there was an inclusionary ordinance put into effect in their city. In response to Smith's question, Mr. Capitelli stated that in Orange County, approximately fifteen (15) percent of our housing market are international purchases. He added that his Association is actively working with the State Assembly and State Legislation that would encourage sellers to sell to first time home buyers rather than all cash buyers and investors from international purchasers. In response to Smith's question regarding the City of Irvine, Ms. Sapetto stated that she was involved with the entitlements of several units in Irvine and she provided examples of the City of Irvine's IBC conditions that promoted inclusionary housing. The amount of development a developer could build was limited by the amount of intensity assigned to each parcel. If a developer wanted to build additional units, they would need to buy the development intensity; however, if inclusionary housing was provided, the City of Irvine got a twenty-five (25) percent bonus and would not have to buy the development intensity which was selling for thirty-six (36) dollars a square foot. Due to the cap that was placed, the amount of units that could be built and the bonus density units were not counted under the cap. Mr. Shaw reiterated that the Pacific West Association, of Realtors (PWAR) position is to oppose mandatory inclusionary zoning. If there is a voluntary program where the developer afforded a density bonus and there was an option for them, then the PWAR would not be opposed. Smith Smith then asked about the City's "study session" that occurred two (2) years prior, covering the same issue, and asked if the BIA had an opportunity to participate in that session. He asked the BIA members in the audience if they could comment on the housing market and at what point did the housing market "break", from an affordability perspective, and if there are any observations on what is underlying. Mr. Adam Wood's response to Smith's question on the housing market being "broken" generally included: CEQA reform; many lawsuits have been filed that have nothing to do with environmental concerns but more related to NIMBY pressure or change in character in their neighborhood; development statewide has "shut down"; and studies show fees are significantly higher in Southern California than any other state, which increases the cost of construction. Mr. Capitelli also added that in Orange County, people are staying in their homes an average of twenty (20) years rather than the former six (6) to seven '(7) years. Another factor is low inventory of affordable housing (currently 1,700 available units in Orange County vs. 9,200 were available in 2008). Smith Smith asked if there is any level of density that would enable a developer in the Irvine/Tustin market to build something that would;qualify as affordable under the standard definition that the State recognizes. Minutes—Planning Commission February 13, 2018—Page 5 of 15 Mr. Adam Wood's response to Smith's question was that there is a diminishing return as to the height of buildings. California State Building Codes require different materials to be used at certain building heights; therefore it adds significantly to the cost (i.e. when five (5) to six (6) stories are constructed). Ms. Sapetto returned to the podium and provided additional input with regards to the City's General Plan density limit of twenty-five (25) dwelling unit per acre cap. She explained that even if there is a twenty-five (25) percent bonus density, a person is getting approximately forty (40) units an acre or a dwelling unit count which she stated would "never be enough" to encourage inclusionary housing. Ms. Sapetto mentioned the inclusionary housing units built in the City of Irvine notwithstanding the housing market, and they were "Type 5 wrap" which they did meet the threshold of being able to provide affordability and can only go as high as eighty (80) dwelling units per acre. If trying to encourage inclusionary housing, staff would have to look at certain areas in the City of Tustin for higher density than twenty- five (25) dwelling units per acre. Smith Smith referenced Ms. Sapetto's statement of "making inclusionary housing affordable" and as an example, if there was no inclusionary housing but eight-hundred-dollar ($800) per month rental units or three-hundred- thousand-dollar ($300K) for-sale housing units, would there be enough density to achieve the cost of land and other factors that go into the construction. Ms. Sapetto added that Mr. Wood answered Smith's question previously. Mr. Matt Buck, CAA, added another aspect to the density question which are parking requirements and that is the challenge. Households are finding it is less expensive to own one (1) car rather than two (2) cars and they will use other means of transportation. Mr. Buck suggested reducing parking regulations which will drive density. 8:21pm Closed the Public Hearing Item. Thompson Thompson thanked everyone in the audience for attending and providing their input. He stated that more time is necessary in order for staff and the Commission to answer the many questions previously asked. Thompson was confused by the data presented. He did not understand how the numbers justify the recommendation for where the City is going. The City needs to substantiate equity in the Tustin Legacy as well as look at the value of the land. Thompson asked how the City will change land use regulations. He asked about RHNA's minimum threshold and how it plays into the City's target. Thompson suggested another workshop with those in attendance at the meeting. Lumbard Lumbard voiced his concern that the City is trying to solve a problem that is world-wide, not just Tustin. He asked how the City allocated the Vintage property without having this ordinance in place. Lumbard knows everyone would like housing to be more affordable and that adding fees may deter Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 6 of 15 I people from moving to Tustin. He noted that the City is providing affordable housing without an ordinance. Lumbard was unsure if the ordinance would really assist since there are other pieces to the puzzle that staff can consider other than the inclusionary zoning item. He does not want to lose momentum to the development already in progress in Old Town and elsewhere. Lumbard asked for more data to support this proposed ordinance. "The City is not going to make housing more affordable by making it more expensive". Kozak Kozak stated that it is obvious there is a need for affordable housing, there is an affordability crisis and the mandatory inclusionary housing ordinance will increase the cost of housing. He added that mandatory requirements may have an adverse impact restricting the supply of new housing. Kozak added that it would also raise the cost to housing in general which is counterintuitive to what the City is trying to achieve. He recommended working with affordable housing developers throughout the City (i.e. Jamboree Housing) to discuss what we want our city to look like going forward. Kozak suggested the City approach a voluntary program that includes incentives as a collaborative effort. He commended staff and the City Council for working diligently towards the RHNA goals. Smith Smith asked Craig if there is a projection on the number of affordable units that staff thinks this ordinance would generate. He also asked at what point the City went to the Vintage project with the inclusionary housing requirement (after or during the re-zone). Smith asked if twelve and one- half (12.5) percent of the 1,400 units would qualify and how many areas can support over 20 units. Craig Craig's response to Smith's question generally included: there are 1,400 potential units in the Red Hill Specific Plan and Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan areas that are not there currently that offer an opportunity to create affordable housing on-site or an in-lieu fee and the Vintage project is going forward because they re-zoned from industrial to residential; the same with Red Hill and the Downtown areas by allowing re- zoning; if nothing is done then those 1,400 units will be market rate; with regards to the re-zoning in the Vintage project, the inclusionary housing requirement was at the beginning of the entitlement process; to answer Smith's question on the opportunity sites in the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan area: EI Camino Plaza, two (2) to three (3) acres at the Prescott property, Old Town Farmer's Market, vacant site adjacent to the Armstrong nursery, Larwin Square; in the Red Hill Specific Plan: Red Hill Plaza and Red Hill mixed use project. Overall, one could either pay twelve (12) to fifteen (15) percent inclusionary or pay an in-lieu fee; and as for the Vintage project, the in-lieu fee was approximately 1.8 million dollars. Smith To clarify Craig's previous comments, Smith stated that there would be approximately 180 units that would be inclusionary units that would qualify as affordable. He add that in all probability, developers would likely choose to pay the in-lieu fee as opposed to adding housing onto developments which those funds would go into a housing authority fund then be used to leverage other funds to theoretically generate more housing elsewhere. Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 7 of 15 Craig Per Craig, the City is requesting the in-lieu fee in recognition of not putting a tax burden on a developer but instead trying to limit that burden. He added that the in-lieu fee would not be a "one for one". Thompson Thompson was still questioning the numbers and provided an example stating that if there were twelve-hundred(1,200) units needed, whether twelve and one-half (12.5) percent or fifteen (15) percent, approximately 150 to 180 units would be created. He added that nothing follows unless another area of town is reconstructed (i.e. a high rise building). Thompson stated that per the RHNA goals for the next seven (7) years, there will be approximately 500 units. He asked how the Commission would solve what the City is doing. Smith Smith's response to Thompson's last question was that this would be a "step to a solution, not to the entire solution". He also had the same questions and concerns as Thompson. Lumbard Lumbard asked for clarification within the proposed ordinance (Page 5- b9922 exemption "a") with regards to "grandfathering" and "exemptions". If an application has not been deemed complete, it would not be exempted from the proposed ordinance. Kendig To answer Lumbard's clarification question, Kendig stated that when the application is deemed complete, which is towards the beginning of the process, as opposed to when the entire application has been approved. if the application is deemed complete by the planning staff, before the effective date of the proposed ordinance that exemption would apply to that project. Smith Smith asked Craig if there were potential down sides with the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Craig In response to Smith's last question, Craig stated that adding the fee would be the down side which will raise the cost of housing, yet Greenwood house prices increased without any fees like the inclusionary because of the market demand. Binsack Binsack spoke on the RHNA question and concern with the numbers. Currently, there is a certified housing element which means the City has the current housing needs number. She added that in the event the Downtown Commercial Core Plan and the Red Hill Specific Plan are eventually approved with additional numbers, the City will receive additional RHNA allocation numbers which will drive up the City's numbers which means the City's affordable requirements will increase as well. The State will assume, since the City is producing more housing, the City should be producing more housing for all income levels. Binsack stated that the City has to meet the affordable housing obligation, whether it is through inclusionary housing fees or density bonuses. Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 8 of 15 Smith Smith stated that Sacramento is incentivizing the City not to approve any additional housing for the sake of not having to suffer an additional RHNA allocation. He asked staff about the prior study session on the same issue and if there was a recording of it. Smith thanked Craig for setting aside time to discuss the issues before the Commission meeting. Binsack Binsack informed Smith that she believed that the prior session was recorded and that a copy would be retrieved for him via the City Clerk's office. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff to pay attention to rent control properties where landlords and building owners are dis-incentivized on the upkeep of the rent control properties (i.e. aesthetics and other improvements are ignored based on the lack of income). Lumbard referred to Kozak's comment regarding the voluntary portion of the inclusionary zoning and felt there is room for an option in combination with a number of other steps. He was most uncomfortable with the mandatory nature of the proposed ordinance and would feel more comfortable with the "optional" being added to the proposed ordinance. Smith Smith's final question was that if the item were tabled or was not approved, if the City Council could move forward with the item regardless of what the Commission does. Binsack To answer Smith's question, Binsack stated that the Tustin City Code (TCC) requires that the Commission hold a hearing and make a report of its findings to the City Council. The alternative is to "not" make a decision and that would be the Commission's recommendation to the City Council if they chose to do that. Binsack asked that the Commission allow staff time to draft a resolution reflecting the Commission's findings to the City Council. Lumbard Lumbard asked Binsack if the Commission could either vote to approve as recommended, with slight amendments recommended by the Commission, to either deny or not take any action. The other option would be to continue the item. Kendig Kendig stated that the TCC requires that a recommendation be made and if a recommendation is not made or communicated within ninety (90) days from the notice of this hearing (February 1st), then the Commission is deemed to have recommended the item. Thompson Thompson recommended the Commission continue the item for four (4) weeks, or as determined by staff, to go through this collaborative process and to answer the questions raised at the meeting and/or those previously in discussions with staff. Smith Smith asked for further clarification. He asked that if the Commission voted to continue the item, if that would be considered a recommendation if it is beyond the ninety (90) day response period. Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 9 of 15 Kendig Per Kendig, the item can be continued during the ninety (90) day period by the City Council. If the Commission wanted to extend the item beyond the ninety (90) days, they would need the City Council's approval. Lumbard Lumbard also pointed out that a lot of time and effort has been put into the item and he did not think an additional month or two (2) would shift that drastically. Procedurally, if the Commission votes to approve the item and if the City Council decided they wanted to consider other items, could they continue the item? He also asked that if the Commission voted not to approve the item, could the City Council do the same thing. Smith Smith voiced his concern with comments his fellow Commissioners previously stated and that this is one (1) element, even if modified, it is a component of a broader discussion about the many challenges the City is facing. Thompson Thompson was unsure as to what Smith previously stated. He clarified that the Commission discussed affordable housing and how to either incentivize that or create a funding mechanism. Kendig Kendig referred to the TCC which specifically states that the "Planning Commission shall make a report of its findings and its recommendations with respect to the proposed amendment". While discussions and workshops on other topics may be informative to that topic, the Commission is directed to address the recommendation on the proposed ordinance. Smith Smith added, which means it is only this amendment as it is written as presented to the Commission. Kozak Kozak asked Kendig for clarification as to the Commission being restricted by the TCC to either a "yay" or"nay" on the recommended action. Kendig Kendig stated that the recommendation can be more nuanced than "yay" or "nay" but the findings, per the TCC, "shall make a report of its findings and its recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment". Lumbard Lumbard's motion was to deny the ordinance as recommended based on the discussions that the inclusionary zoning is mandatory and is considered in isolation without the other tools that perhaps the City can change in the TCC to incentivize building. He was against that approach and believed there are opportunities to look at alternatives. Thompson Thompson's motion was to continue the item and have staff add further refinement to the approach that includes collaboration with the BIA members present that evening and refine the recommendation to something that could include a host of options.that could have more meaningful vibrancy of what the City is trying to achieve that is long-term and agreed upon with the Economic Development Department. Thompson would rather recommend something that is workable than deny the item. Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 10 of 15 Lumbard Lumbard asked what the impact would be if the item were denied approval versus continuing the item. He asked if the City Council has the authority to do what they want regardless of the recommendation. Kendig Kendig stated that the key distinction between Lumbard and Thompson's motions is that Lumbard would make a recommendation and then the City Council might consider options. Thompson is suggesting an approach where staff would return to the Commission with options that might be considered then the Commission would decide what recommendation to make which would then go to the City Council. Smith Smith was open to continuing the item in order to learn more on the broader economic issues that are driving the many concerns (i.e. study session). Kozak Kozak asked if staff could weigh in on what amount of time is needed to look at the additional answers to the additional questions and return to the Commission. Binsack Binsack stated that staff could attempt summarizing issues and concerns discussed. Staff could look at the "tools" that the Commission might be interested in incorporating into the ordinance and see if staff can create something that the Commission might entertain to make a positive recommendation to the City Council. She suggested a continuance for one (1) month which would be more realistic and is within the ninety (90) days. Thompson/Smith It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Smith to continue the item to the next meeting (four (4) weeks) and directed staff to include the "tools" for an evaluation/presentation back to the Commission. Smith asked his fellow Commissioners and staff if the item could be continued to six (6) weeks since he has a conflict. It was seconded by Smith. Motion carried 3-1-1. Kozak, Smith, Thompson approved and Lumbard dissented. 2. CODE AMENDMENT (CA) 2017-004 (ORDINANCE NO. 1483) TEMPORARY SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY CA 2017-004 proposes to amend Article 9 Chapter 4 of the Tustin City Code, related to temporary signs in the public right-of-way, in accordance with a 2015 United States Supreme Court decision. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4344, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1483, amending Article 9 Chapter 4 of the Tustin City Code to: 1) Continue to allow temporary off-premises commercial signs and temporary non-commercial signs in the public right-of-way; and, 2) Apply uniform standards that are not based on the content of Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018--Page 11 of 15 the signs and regulate the size, location, total number, posting duration, and placement of the signs. Reekstin Presentation given. Thompson Thompson had two (2) points of clarification: twenty-seven (27) cities in Orange County have ordinances prohibiting signs in the ROW and portable signs allowed in the Old Town District Overlay would somehow need to survive in some sort of another ordinance if the City prohibits signs within the ROW. Reekstin Reekstin confirmed the number of cities as they pertain to temporary non- commercial signs. As for the portable signs, one (1) of the provisions is to allow signs in Old Town which would need to be adopted by an ordinance. Kozak Kozak mentioned enforcement and the difficulties and challenges along with that, but with approval, perhaps after some reasonable period of time after the ordinance has been tested for six (6), nine (9) or twelve (12) months, staff might report back to the Commission on what the enforcement experience was and if there is a need for any change the Commission could take action at that time. Smith Smith asked if a sign does not have any indicator on the back of it, if it would it be considered abandoned. He then referred to pages thirty-one (31) and thirty-two (32) of the Planning Commission packet where it states "public parkway" and he asked if that included medians or was that only the sides of the streets. Reekstin Per Reekstin, if there is no indicator on the back of the sign, then it would be removed immediately since it would be a violation of the City's ordinance. He confirmed Smith's question on the public parkway to be correct. Smith Smith asked Kendig about First Amendment rights and if it is a violation to take away somebody's ability to hold a sign as a human being as the Commission is being asked to do. Kendig In response to Smith's question, Kendig stated that the City is asking that signs be regulated in a very specific place for very specific reasons and there are some rights in public places, parks, and parades to carry signs, but signs that interfere with traffic in the public ROW are signs that can be regulated including signs that are being carried. 9:32 p.m. Public Hearing Opened. Mr. Bob Machado, representing Tustin Area Council of Fine Arts (TACFA), asked that the Commission approve the ordinance because twenty-seven (27) other cities do not allow non-commercial signs in the public ROW. One of TACFA's biggest street sign advertisements is the Broadway in the Park, along with other non-profit organization signs (i.e. Lobster Fest, Dinosaur Dash) and without these types of signs; it would be a detriment to Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018--Page 12 of 15 the non-profit organizations. Mr. Machado asked about the street sign size, per the existing ordinance, and why the size was reduced, per the proposed ordinance. Mr. Tim Shaw thanked staff for their hard work on the ordinance. He stated that his association works hard at making sure their members comply with cities sign ordinance. Mr. Shaw wants his association to be an extension of the City's effort and if there are any issues with sign blight, to let him know. He did ask that one (1) modification be made to the proposed ordinance. The ordinance states that it only allows signs on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and Mr. Shaw asked that the signs also be allowed Monday through Thursday since Wednesdays are the days the brokers preview occurs in Tustin (realtors show each other their listings and they need their signs out those days). With that amendment, Mr. Shaw is in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Martinez, realtor, concurred with Mr. Shaw's previous statement with regards to the broker previews occurring on Wednesdays and he would like the amendment as well. He commented that people in Tustin tend to stay at their homes for a long time which makes for a housing supply problem. Mr. Martinez stated that the signs are what realtors use to increase salesmanship and the number of people that show up to these open houses on weekends allows them to get maximum offers which is what owners ask of their realtor. He added that the signs are a very important tool to impact property values. 9:40 p.m. Closed the Public Hearing. Thompson Staff did a great job on the agenda report, but Thompson still was drawn to the initial recommendation by staff, to not have any signs in the public ROW. With twenty-seven (27) other cities restricting signs, Thompson felt inclined to go in the same direction. Lumbard Per Lumbard, staff has done a great job in reaching a compromise between the non-profits, business community, and the constitutional issues the City is facing. It preserves Tustin residents First Amendment Rights. Lumbard stated that the goal was to make the sign ordinance comply with the Reed versus Gilbert Supreme Court case, which he felt staff had accomplished. He was also interested in staff following up with the Commission in six (6) to twelve (12) months to check on the status of how the ordinance is working. Lumbard added that if the City finds a sign blight then the Commission would have an opportunity to revisit and if it is unenforceable, the Commission can also revisit banning signs outright. Lumbard was in support of the recommended action. Kozak Kozak also agreed that the ordinance was a good compromise and the concerns about enforceability will be followed up in six (6) to twelve (12) months by City staff. Depending on how the compliance develops over time, staff could consider some modifications, with respect to the realtors request for signs being up on Wednesdays. Kozak was in support of the recommended action. Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 13 of 15 Smith Smith concurred with Kozak and Lumbard. His perception was that he has not witnessed significant sign blight in the intervening period that staff has been working with this issue. Binsack Binsack stated that the sign blight ebbs and flows and any signs Smith may see in the medians, staff addressed those issues; but staff has not been addressing any other temporary signs in the public ROW. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Smith to adopt Resolution No. 4344. Motion carried 3-1-1 with Thompson dissenting. Thompson Thompson's final comment was he believed this item was an issue and a lot of housekeeping needs to be done and because it is not unanimous, the Commission needs to have a message to the community to ensure that the signs are kept in order and response to City regulations. Smith Smith asked staff to return in six (6) months to update the Commission on the ordinance. Smith called for a five (5) minute recess. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack reminded the Commission of the PC/CC joint workshop on February 20, 2018 to Discuss the Draft Red Hill Specific Pian and staff would be transmitting to the Commission (via memorandum) the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan in the next week. In order to have enough time to review before the public hearing in the near future. Smith Smith asked Binsack if she cared to comment on an email he sent to her regarding the Housing and Community Development (HCD) ruling and some allocation issues. Binsack In response to Smith's question, Binsack stated there are fifteen (15) different pieces of legislation associated with housing and some related to land use and some relate specifically to housing. Staff will be working with Economic Development, and report back to the Commission at a later date. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Thompson Thompson attended the following events: 1125: The Mayor's Inaugural Dinner Event • 211: Urban Land Institute Local Office Commercial Initiative • 215: Thank you to Ken Nishikawa, Public Works, who provided a tour of the Tustin Legacy Drainage Basin Park area. Minutes—Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 14 of 15 Lumbard Lumbard mentioned briefly the fifteen (15) pending housing regulations. He stated that the housing economy market situation is influx. Tustin has the opportunity to lead in a lot of the issues and what the City is doing to incentivize and provide affordable housing options. Lumbard attending the following events: 1/25: The Mayor's Inaugural Dinner Event — "Congratulations Mayor Murray!" 2/12: "Happy Birthday Abraham Lincoln!" He serves as a continual example in our modern day of infighting and bickering often that you could actually accomplish great things if you keep your grit, your resolve, and work toward goals, not toward people. "Happy Valentine's Day to everyone!" Kozak Kozak thanked staff for their hard work. Kozak attended the following events: 1/25: The Mayor's Inaugural Dinner Event • 1/27: Kozak was a referee for the Tustin Community Foundation (TCF) Paper Football Event—they raised $5,000!!! • 2125: "Sip and Stroll"TCF event "Happy Valentine's Day to everyone!" Smith Smith had no concerns. He thanked staff for the helpful discussion and comments on the agenda items. 9:51 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, February 27, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. "DE 4DS MITH Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes--Planning Commission February 13,2018—Page 15 of 15