Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02 PC REPORT 2017-18 CLG ANNUAL REPORT
• AGENDA REPORT ITEM #2 MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2019 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION AS HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ADVISOR FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: 2017-2018 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANNUAL REPORT BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration is a copy of the City of Tustin's Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report for the reporting period between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2018. The Annual Report summarizes the City's historic preservation efforts and describes how the City met all of the requirements of the CLG program during the 2017/2018 reporting period. The Annual Report will be transmitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation upon approval by the Planning Commission Acting as Historic and Cultural Resources Advisor, RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission, acting as Historic and Cultural Resources Advisor, direct staff to forward the Annual Report to the State Office of Historic Preservation. J f C L r CE � f� Elaine Dove, AICP, RLA Scott Reekstin Senior Planner Principal Planner Attachment— 2017-2018 Certified Local Government Annual Report 0 (Z V N kn d D m 0- Q) U cl `� m Cs o ti _ CL d� M Cl) ® C U > o p fi CL o cn ro y C cn 6 Ct LLLL G N a o0 os ❑ U) a a L E CG c m R U c C 'c a W c j N Q? [� C/] Q q co N E C = _ J M U +--' = L G � � C G1 co cu C U � CLS m Q C �-' r f° 0uE ❑ E � 12 a C G CL) w -mss 0CN O Q - o 0 j 4 ° p U N a; - Z a T— cu s' o o N ❑�aN N Q Tb o a, 0 o o ' Q W U Q O G U tr U Q1 `� � �— -" E o ❑ a y L7 m �NL. p) U U D L a U D � Q G mC U a D v Q Us cn �+ m Cf] cn O m L "" d U ":; -0X "C7 C� = 4+ Q ca G 4. C3 dJ CI! O C q] z C e0 Co Q�. m .7 q) co s m q"'j > c)- C) W E o '} -C D O ` E- © tip D J @ ° .D Zi U 4 L � U o c� a s O W d ami E CZ m s ' W W ds � p Q M U a o � + N 9i � w � m < �, W 3 mW Q � °?c3 C C WW- a o a� CD 04 W ct w Z O 0 u� �c _� co J C Q m AC U L V P: �E U c U3 O F E m a] a d E E O w i ca • • ■ a3 c�a c�a ,a4' ❑ 0. 7:3 >,ao ua ca z _ Q >1 C � � V N 6- y o v C Q. iv .n m �' � E m a a� i � a � L > D Z: U d CIO U v [�) u)co U Q1 a ° o :3 ` co `) p � a Q NCL Y -a C yr -Wp ci � o a cc CD N 400 U M El 0 a 0 my LCA D O 0co C`• u] Q m CL Lo CL EO C O v E 6. O C6 Loi � w� � � a 4. m G� o Tn v co 'Z o m �y a� sn C p 0Cf) ❑ a) a C D D o m sts d CL ca E °' a a � o d ° 0 E v m L ohm ° q a m U)cl) M a. Q- > JCD d v, I c: Z: : o G7 ❑ 0 m L] w Q W N m -c D u Er- fly .� a C.. ° 0) L [� Q) N N zj vi U to C a? C E Q� G1 C J L Z to 6. � El hi rir y, a Q d 0. 0 70 N 3 ® CID a 6. U ® � LU .0 + CL Cl < 7 N_ Z a) N 71 �.. D m %. -m � o w Q) 0. 0 Q ° u a d) °} Q) CL tli y b Gs awry,. E N �s a Nm O pCj " o•Q Q. O3 � � o � Q o c �z m o a C U a S. C o ma. 0 M.. Q L] w w N sem_.. . U N 21 C] +- O 4- ur . C L b w Q H tl) C = N C O N 0 ` 0 N cou j � Vic Lo ZI o v � N a� ai .E ? m w 5 0 C .a - d m q t p N Q E s CY Nt � .co � � aE: E ora oma ° o °' o E a v e tr� Q� D U ' C E � � `� E ° � V a cu .E © 0, 07 L r1 4s C LV '' Q) 0 =p C C � C �' �? 0 0 C m of v E Ln � C i 0 � ca ° 0 E m dv ° � E �_ 3 �o �'C4 L. � � Q1 � � N � 0 "~ L1 •� � Q Q �- a ° ~ O to 7 .w0 (D � d2 0 °7 � q toy, ° moo � 0tq ❑ C 0 i 4 N .,. t ur C a D '� ai � a '� EQ 0W ca N c w �, C 0 0 E E c.. ro � 5 r" Qpm E ' a d a �-� Vit° m � Q 0u 0 C 7 w � (? v L Q) cn N � � L L L U) 4.a 0 CD 0 Q Q7 'v _ �.= cu 'E w a c ' Z U LU o m 75 © c �" a , 0 w ❑ j fJ ° N � � L) >0 ti� N aco EC E 0, [a Q Y 4 UJ C AL1 j e0 � 70 � pCj L ❑ *�' ❑ x❑ U i T3 ,0 `� 0 076 CV CY5 r N t7] ci c Q tll -❑ U) D di U C3 -0 0- a u cd L o e -O u L, ❑ CL ❑ a 4- L- .. ❑ rn CL E (D Q � � � � b -cl LL �Y cz C.1 u O U 0 C~. CL CLcc c � -� CL E 0 � co 0 (nr+ Q co 00 Q ❑ W Cil d G] CS] E L r 0 -0 Ur qy r r ❑7 r Q1 47 (1] Q! Q1 04 0 C dN _� T7 d O '- d O O a) (D a) W CD r/) CO Q CL ca. o- fl] O flo Lr 0 e C o I-- H �cz CD C N o d .0 b -❑ as L) j� ECD �} n cu a to ❑' vy O ry a Ccam. o R !Y Q r a ❑ y, t� [L a Q © v r m0- E +, U ❑ ❑ a❑i o o � 0 o 0 Q w `- Q! a N aim c'- o a� E o E E E E E .L aCL v a (� cc ❑ c ❑ c c ca) 2O c}n m as O ❑ m o ❑ o o •�? En ° ryn _N c v, 0_ as n n O t'f O ❑ E E E "- E J ° ❑ as 0 %.- .❑ w a` ❑ a) ❑ -0 ❑ c ❑ ❑ a) �7 tU c c m UfYIUQ UWU UQ I- 4- ❑ Z7 Z o c o ❑ '� .0 ----7 E d (n ro o u) — I �n co E m c 70 L3 v- = o - a c m m .0 E c W - ❑ V) ❑ J w j C1 0) 0 u] V7 M U1 U) Q Q t� Fa Fa Q _ t 'Q .❑ L V ❑ (DM MU L ~* �' C p 4) N to C Q . +�+ p O C �} QS w U) t ❑ aoozvE c `° ¢ � u ro 3 c� M LU ❑ r r o c t H L 0 -0 7 � � cE .E `° o o � EQ�sv0ia' E � � Qul i L �•+ C 4- 0 "E F 00 E U7 t" N O ti _ 0 © D ' r ❑ u j 7 7 1` c y n3 -d C ❑ E C G (n cn N ` c Q o ur Q N c a > 4) ( ami — ac � � Q E E E Ul� av_ ON0. U ° ZE CL ° 'a E � E E E cu o pCL @UUUEu .2Ym C-•QL0 = � � OE G L) ¢ in 0) o L)� to 4s .E u1 ❑ ca a v ,, y, ,� Ua C C C i �=' A 0 c oaa a� UE � a� a � N � c — �n � � s� a, EU +- aa , �- E = ac Ln _S2 LD o OLn m G 'G = � v o O m O - -O 07 Ln -0 ._ C [[7 7 c: c C7 0.1 iC7 N >, S4 C CCS S4 [a U 0 Q C � Z5 c: � C 7 >1 3 Q< U C m P4 o- L :; = w L J •N L ❑ J `J � ' .20 '025 � a E � tlQLD E } CCL Q Qa cncE ° c ° av c x 7 L CC7 ci ❑ Qr v a U ;N w u co N O N Q Q) 0 q�] C i. ❑ -C3 rn Q (D E C N 4i ca o Q W .❑ r❑. CL ua -0 E cp ❑ C Y cls U7 r [Zj m ti U M — m W o V] d W U7 c0 ¢ CU FX] ❑ 000El ® o ❑ ❑ - , co E ft7 M C] Q a Q ❑x x❑ L ❑x D ❑x CI ❑ ❑ a 00 CD c a) CL Q ❑ 1:1 El 1:1 1:1 ❑ 1:1 1:1 El 11E � ' V �; Q07x0aoao01:1 CL -- m m Qa oMIN oa000ao ❑ ❑ ° co m H r E m U o o o ❑x 1_J m ll ZI ❑xJ r7 ❑ ❑ E G) U E E � Y L 0 cv+4 bA ° D 0 00 CXJ 0 ❑x m EI oE � C: a O Y ,E C Dm a p o cca CL � 0 Q N ® 0 0 E Z ❑ ❑ E � � co � c r N O ❑x 0 O 0 [f 11 Z 1Z 7x ❑ ❑ � � � No f7 _N C C: "" Qy O C: 1r U +J p a O E CA D — = a 2ac� ® 0000a ❑ ❑ .° ,Eoou��i NES _ E QO °} aa� + con `' cEl El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ FA ❑ ❑ a (D f� C U H L p C U Q C rL N C a) O)Z5 � C fD O -� E cn ro Fu cu o fJa a,c a`s Q) EE p L (DCo -r- Ix — (c tl7 © CEJ C D1 ul (1) 0 CL a o Y c [ y ca Q U v >% v Z) E a - C] r w Ir � < Q W U] W - - W U) C3 D 00 cc co 00 00 co OQ (3) (S7 CV (Y? r m C] r Ca r' r CV N r i� CG co CY] 0_0 IY7 C> C7 O C:) C7 CJ t — — CL D > N n U = i Q0 — r- 00 ❑? C) O ^ L ` r- 00 (d = t--.l L ❑ > CU C LL LL LL LL 0 (1) LL a U C) LL U U C} U 0 C U cv r to O N o ti0 L w m 0 0 r0 0 L Gl aa Gr r r Cg r L W a L -0 Ua ❑ Vi ' 0] C] ❑ 4 C 0 �` ❑ aJ C F m = L Cl 7+ N -0 (o C U] 0 D (6 li L a] Gt p 47 � (a c ° _ °} m as c G co ? 00 of 00 07 ca 00 Q] I,- (3) CSI cc c�] r O r O C7 CEJ 1� d LO LO d [s7 o O C7 0 O C7 CL tr_ Q3 m 0 - cv U IL C6 CIO C) c c a a s (� _J C �7 > i ID 00 m 0- 2 0 E too O J Q3 LL 0 T- U UILU u ❑ � W QQ v � N fl] V'- e/) N nn to r o E n z : D � C:) O L7 C3 C3 Q 0p S .w U 7 N "0 Q m C �n C o .J L C* � C O U C D N M � 1N sl U C "_ C7 co O X `p qUj � �(10 d? 2 CI} rn v, a U ¢� Q _ V 9z C (L C •— C :3 M C ,C V rJ] Q w i �9yJ 4N! dG C] 07 .Q .� ~ N RS C6 �? _ _ � CI] C3] QJ _ ro i_ cts [[s C ori _ ❑ W CL cu In 0 �l as N U 0 V3 .Y ° m 'zi 7 co � iC) 0 0 � d ca .. � d ° U 02 L7CI. UL1f� U1fl �. ua � U - QQ W i L r co 0 > N C1 N � N `� Ile b Y � 4] f-•- k7 � 47 OU [n Q3 zr- 41 93 0 W U) 4] O o o m E = c� w a o CL o O t Mn p U A ca ❑ Z +�+ CL o m a o �' �' V cn .. z yr CD v a m� a H CV a N m cn T3 Q m LL ++ Q, D � G uaj V U L. rd a3 Q �^ fl 0 Q c) to ~ .K1 U OO a - r y„ CD N r C6 tlL} V) n U} LL d1E ] a L7 C( p 4l 7 p=i j p O D A �+ ti a7O w p Gui O < t C CL Z CL 0 w 7 N � 8 U 43 5C 4w Z7 Q N i Q7 .� N G Q U co >44 O G LL. zs O n- C. Q 4J Q Q }a N J pCD w co w ❑ +- t_' D7 N Q m C3 J) � va -0 N a o � U m a N z v, 1° o c a v o Q m a U ML) U C) a uu Q 0 � a� ZM> z �. m Q mCD � G] o N � `a � E g = zr 3 U (D CD Z (. Z Q CL Z U Cd a- ro 2 co ❑ r0 a ca ODCD C 7 N N r C? ❑ ❑ CD C] c] C? 0 � CL Q a F Z cm a jV i y E s Q) .- w ❑ ro c� < a c6 a f I) 00 0 a ❑ Q m ° x U In co cu :3c 75 ¢ m mecca ❑ 0 cn ca oo _ oPDa co LL w � ❑ c Z +- 0 c � asm m uF- a c Q) w N : : � � U � m ca ca tf z cca � a N a (D ❑ ca v+ cn a c� fy J U -0 ) i Cn Q U U — c CU I m ❑ c E 0 a ¢ c o a ¢ '� v cn M o 0 c c .5 - c L � _ L ra N QCY � a C � o C7 C r 0 E Q) QJ C JE L9. E o N .0 u, ❑ C3i ir7 0 a c3 a m o Y _ �► ° c `� CD Q D : L. ❑ [� vi 4 c j � � R +. + c vCD [] c U ❑ m c cu ` ' cn ._ Q1 C co c ❑ Q. Z ::i Q ry H cz -C m f ❑ 7 Gcl. s o _ od m ai Q a Ci a a c o cn 0 Z zi o� CL a x c RU co Fu m ca Q) m E -O o 'L) a c E o "= Q Wu a7 Wcn D W e _ r U p ❑ O c m c z a-- a }' ❑ ❑ z U � Q a T5 s ° 2:1 aCa � � ❑ o E c -- a m ° ❑ ❑ -o 0) :3 oa :3❑ c C Q ao) .7 ❑ 5Q5 ) ° im m CY) CD a aa a 2 o o 0 o o oma ? o o � � CL U) Q) 4] L N 07 _ a ❑ C M [u c O Q a O a Zf C CD i N ° �, N 2 U) c c ri a .N � a3 �) a � � as 0 0 � � � Q� cu (u ❑ ° E ca c > .- U 'E 2 ° U U < p Chi c Q av, `vcMoco a ' ° U, ca � � c mwU E CV a) X- M a) w. m c mw 9 _ 7 ❑y Q T D -� (a ti- -0 m m o a)o ❑r C) �7 d] Q ro Na) 7 N fU -❑ > C +J ._ '� ,> ❑ Q) U) L C N C ❑ () + Z) U) Q C C Qa ❑ L) C p `CY i C r 0 c' � o .� � c a� oa) ° �w � � Q � co c� ❑� oQ 2m M0 n �' � oc � aaoc°� Q Q t° = QL) 0 C U 0 c ° @ 7+ a Q_ c ur sn C L" Q !a) ❑ a C _ N D d) O -0 ❑ z 000 - U) (10 0) -C m v C [� En E ❑c aN) C Q s c"a E0 _ a� � a � r co a 0 Q o :� � � � Ea) a ❑ 4 a Q c .� U I- ° o a3 a_ Q �C] .� - n .cwU7 .E LL a t7 to E ° > L E w CY, o O 0 o a) a) c Q c [% U c o Q) CN a ° CSS a3 16 U) � = c w c U c o LL CD ` E 3 oi° ro Fom T c 4 c cm a — Z- °*'' d LIDO O ! F� a q c� ' �. z r � E Q c E E .91, a) r 'y L E C U L Qin I7 j O C) Q7 D1 L Q .0 ~ 7 N U a7 aJ O 0 oocaN r ° c►i c �, Q) (D D- EM o 0. G3 0 :3 " ca c ua zaw izui "o (D. uy as Ri d � d 0- m zs +�' � m ro _ r, C^ �, > -� 3 mac;, U- ac � .�' � � �aca �, � G H y, G7 (D a L 0 a7 C R3 O i C3)� ': v m U 00 W M v M O CL) � 0 LZ � us a w � � C N .� o ff _ — a � mcFc0l � octw o, M C14 °' U C7 � same o = U � amiT— Ln ❑ � � co C: LLLn,� � � 'z3 � d �s a G L E D3 a} d t G W O C cs _ -v OD � ' o t : `air, Qc' a � � M L L ra ZQ fV U O om2 N D n CN CO ca L Q) m ' E 'E D co — cn U QE N E a) _p _ V N a Q p m a a] E � C7 C CL Z C) C� cn cn .C v C •- f.. OJ Z C ` j, C] -� t.` Q d N d E N "a ° Q C r. z � " � > ~— 0 Q CD C3 C` U d J -G N Z a (D O 7, Q1 0 � N b 0 ` •L L' Q] 0 � �. c: tl� o� E 3-io -Q y G t �CD Q) c6 m _ CO ca Z — � =-C- ° a D a Q 3 ° x L7E m F- v J a U -j a) a 7 � � 0 Q = 0U E "" C: g, o r ni Z 0 L6 � a] 0 v � r a ❑ .� m F= w o zap .c c� u� c� co 0 C isx ti E L � � S77 Ca U O R7 ` N OJ CL a p "L j C�7 �_ o !ECS3 cU C z 0 CU D Q Cll i` CDN 0 U + 4_ C L Q CD CN C cn wA1 x ^) Q co ? >- 0 /My0y a) � CIO El 4- CIO cu _� _ 9 p O QO o m Mo t[7 Q p r- m o L a` � � ' 0 E r ° m " o M G m` L. a c� d o .a CO 1` a ° ._ E a o D a `� r VI 3 C: .0 crS : a =5 E N z a) -- -a N) ro tt m O co a RS H LLJ N N C5co {�iS Cay SUco E N C7 Sll Y3 6. C 0) 0) Z ` L (:) z C lcU CL L CC) C C N 7 :3c'7 UJ (33 Q O�j (D1 7 QEi uS r o fn 0] O ECO ur CO ? d CD w (D Cil a Q) CD N {3 al G -0 U Q N O cl C ❑ N a) p Q G Lp - N r p a SSS r j 0 Q D U ay a s7� E 11 a c Q ca E iJ 0 cu Ln CD CL CL 0 I 0 E a ° cO L a -C G C (D c L? °e� v �' z E '0 °rte 0) "' o Z 0 � cz CD N Z v CL ¢ , E a m ora `� :2E ai o V ❑ (a "� N C ❑ c7 f!} C20- Cl Li © ui CO X ) a � � C G1 tl1 `O � ��, C7 ❑ b Z Q � tli Cc '=' O w o r_ CL O m- C\j � ❑ E a v v a M ° � era, ov L � 00 ❑ � E D � (D (CL C D r= V � � � O E b S/1 L L L Q @L a) — o ,r... a ria a ❑ m ua � a, CD N aEi r o o d N c .> = Q = « G Oa CL 0 O �- L N O t3 O 2 t6 E w 7 r 0 E En 0 m � Na' , oro a w C. m a�iN " u, 0 a U a © V in �I7 h tl7 w LO y` 00R7 C) 0 m V) Z w O. Q m O ❑ CD ❑ E- V _ L C W i Q V/ N0 Q] Q7 V L D U L cn N _ N = (D o as of _ com _ Q1 E Q a W cq o Z o Z � � ~ C � C�til tOj1 L.1 E L Q' r O wyN o 7 'a aro as L ❑ a) m 5 CL as :3o (} to E cn Q d o m a s.. a> �+ m O m C O oo. v © a a) a C9 go. ( 3oc E '� � G? R 0- J m C Q O i d O C3 N Q a v) o N aQi ] O s� Q-Z ch E V �0 � U _ M N � .p L Z o 0G c►a � G to � � N _ AL1 0to � a] CO z E N m = -p O U O O M •— C *, �+ Lr Ocu c CL 0 M CD G? m y o :3QQi H _ `° in _ v c cn V 00 °- � � � aai p i43 (D0u0ca .2 - cE ¢ _ N r cv z 0 � 42 D tr-42 ] 0-= 0 L7 u: ~ Q ❑ p ¢ 0 ? a � _ "a � Q7 = O a) = m N O N ^� N o Lo- 0 Q J .N A-& � C r - a_7 �= N .0 N Etna � p = - = � +rcm � .NlQTIL � � � E CD -W O © 0 �' � ` c ,0 t a�M ' Qts « = a r u L Q3 aT N C 41 a!w N 0 +' m 0 0 Qs 0 .- > CL u O = m N a) a.- E H O = :� E Qhs ni L MoU) cz `FDcpi `o +� a � � _ ` � ' U3Q ria zm o = c� _ r o mow .°' L m }' i a IQs 0 O 40. L +_+ .a m -a � a - �, ' yr rq r = a . UQ WCL w = f- o > ~ � � x � F- M wu�i s ev -av � a � ` E � = m �.. a �- -0p o it;E � M o-p- °' `_ `°co oami a = O � �n E EU U) .� = 3 0 C14 co CD 'o CL Oq 0 Qc _ 0 N = L Q� _ � � �. �; v_ .. - ESN � " a `� -a 0 v 0 , a � ao p a � _ _ �. . C CL SUE � LN m2m0 _ to - > 0aU = Q1CL z 'C3r p C Qrt•' 0 0 O .N � = c z3 as � p s �s .O — _ � c � Q yr ro � Q 0- CD= cpn E E o L v-= � � ? `� �° ai + 0- 0 a '� D cai .� sv a. U O m L] v O +� m N w L3?'G Q m •= U] '� E .d C ,=r 7 `_ c _ O. �r U p O p m . o D u o O E ' 0 o L a� ° ® Va �s avi .oU a N m � � ccc � _ � UU � c�i Eaiw = 0 = tUai .-& pa L C ,� r.- p y., C 7' U 0 Q7 0 Q m 0 to as N LL CV 'y E 14 C' V L7 J aCL vj U .0 s:'. '�u1 h '+ C V = t17 0 Q) - Qi N U p 0 - ++ M U L E Q) CD G c� © = o F- in mL. _ a 5, O} E °c 7 ff1 J v' +' = 0 � � r pN � � Q n� �. 3vOiE oCp3 � � t v L3 a ai p E � _ 2s a; . to = 0 x =_ = EQ �, � 3aaU0 �' Q0 -5 >, a — " Nv aia� 0 0 as U O — cn -0 N R1 F— cC O -0 cC O 0 F— O : N 0.0 oECL L EL = y �- = omaLL a Op 70 in cL 0 (D N 0 L3 F O 0 •� N 0 � = CLL U C7 3: N SZ 3: ',U _ C N Q :.. S i U �L O N 2 0 22. m 0o U a uo Em 3 E U ` �^ �y L ❑ © o. 0 .F+ fA a— L o rJy � U = a► � C? a m Q CL m -1� *5 m C y ui >, o tes 00 0 r- ar-0 >+ � ❑ LL � _ �, cn c. Mgr ° o o — Q Via = o � No t E a a) 0 N Q� 0 o U , x N 0 a.' Ca ° E Ca _ C O 'T- cncy � CD E dram d ❑ p LL is •— d 0Am# n. a) m ❑ o CL CV a Q � i � a M 0 a 0 �' Y r• ° H v = Ga o tn E � O HCl ° D 7 C u as Q o a 07� C4i cow a' Mr 41 C m - cn a d o `v y ° � L CD c u > � a) va a o m 40 �; amu, 0 C oto ❑ . ate + w co 2 (n L Qa Z$ !C ❑ [6 't7 a {� C CUM Co Q O mili � a) rJ co c i cc ° N .c 0 d w C p U] o CL 0 IV " to �, y q, ❑ ❑ ar L s 0 � ur � m � j '� -pL3.. � � � Lr � ❑ z 0 X- 7+ E m uicnC77 CL T 4- M CD ay ° c o U � .. 4.+ n.. o 'd m 0) Y) ° N as a H Cs � th 3 ❑ CD c — obi tU N Ca '0 V) � > >'� p ° ° � ate' U) m 'a � ¢ Lo w ( _ d y � E � f O CL < C t � 2 � 2 2 � § — U) $ Q � / 00 � A f � \ � . o � 2 ƒ E \ cq bl] E . o § . L E E @ � r E cn g r g � 2 2� � o L 0 / k \ 22 L-1 % ƒ 2 'c ._ ® 7 / D 2 £ / R J 3 0 2 E a y E % § \ m U / .g j 2 $ $ Efn / $ \ 2 � E CO \ \ \ -C 2 E a 0 ƒ % 2 f \ b \ f E % y 0 o 2 / � m § S = t F 1:1 Ll 2 k ATTACHMENT A Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development City of Tustin Elizabeth Binsack has been responsible for the leadership and administration of the Community Development Department and Planning Commission for the City of Tustin since 1996. Her responsibilities include: Advance, current, and environmental planning; structural building plan checks, permit issuance, and inspections; code enforcement and Community Development Block Grant management. In a career spanning over 30 years, Ms. Binsack has developed a diversified background in urban, regional, environmental planning; land use law;building construction practices; housing and demographics; historic preservation; and survey research and program analysis. She has served the following cities and agency:. • Tustin, Community Development Director -1996 to present • Los Alamitos, Community Development Director/ Building Official/ Planning Manager— 1991 to 1995 • Dana Point, Associate Planner—1989 to 1991 • Corona, Assistant Planner I and II — 1988 to 1989 ■ U.S. Department of Interior— 1987 to 1988 ■ City of Dayton, Planning Intern—1986 to 1987 During her tenure with the City of Tustin, Ms. Binsack has been instrumental toward initiating the build- out of the Tustin Ranch residential communities, Tustin Market Place and Auto Center, the preservation and development of the Old Town area along the historic El Camino Real (Downtown Commercial Core Plan), and the initial development and construction at the former Marine Corps Station, Tustin (Tustin Legacy) including: Over 4,000 new homes, over 2 million square feet of nonresidential development, and several institutional uses. Ms. Binsack has served as past president of the Planning Directors'Association of Orange County and past Chair of the Management Oversight Committee for the Center for Demographic Research. She is a member of the Urban Land Institute, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the California Preservation Foundation, and the American Planning Association. Ms. Binsack earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Dayton and a Master of Public Administration degree from the California State University Long Beach. SCOTT C. REEKSTIN Work; (714) 573-3016 EDUCATION; California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA Master of Urban and Regional Planning —June 1994. Selected Courses: Planning Theory & Practice, Graphics, Design, Research Methods, Planning Administration, Data Analysis, Housing, Environmental Factors, Social Planning, Implementation. Comprehensive Examination: Passed With Honors. Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA BA in Economics and Mathematics— May 1988, Selected Courses: Econometrics, Investments and Valuation, Marketing, Money and Banking, International Trade, Statistical Inference, Probability, Numerical Methods, Mathematics Clinic, Advanced Spanish Conversation. Thesis topic; Trends in the U.S. Lodging Industry. California State University, Fullerton, CA Certificate in Public Employee Leadership Development— February 2008 WORK EXPERIENCE:Principal/Senior Planner, Community Development Department, City of Tustin, CA Manage Department's Advance Planning Section personnel. Monitor budget and forecast revenues. Develop priorities, objectives, and goals. Manage consultant contracts. Perform complex advance planning functions, including demographics, environmental studies, and historic preservation. October 1999— present. Associate/Assistant Planner, Community Development Department, City of Tustin, CA Performed both current and advance planning work for the department. Trained staff members. Interpreted laws and regulations pertaining to city planning. Prepared comprehensive reports, resolutions, ordinances, and environmental analyses and presented these items to the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and City Council. Reviewed plans for compliance with zoning, planning, subdivision, and design review standards. Interacted with the general public, applicants, City staff, and outside agencies. Managed the comprehensive zoning code update and business license regulations revisions. Prepared the City's Certified Local Government Application, the MCAF Tustin grant application to the Trade and Commerce Agency, and the Supportive Housing Grant Application to HUD. Administered the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program, the Old Town Tustin Educational Video Project, and the Graffiti Removal Program. Developed consultant services agreements and requests for proposals for graffiti abatement services, and the CLG video Project. Developed the City's first Wireless Communication Ordinance. Served as liaison to the City's Cultural Resource Advisory Committee and project expansion to the City's Cultural Resource Overlay District, Developed City's Mills Act Program. Prepared City's Consolidated Plan. October 1990— October 1999. Redevelopment Intern, Community Development Agency, City of Santa Ana, CA Reviewed and commented on site plans for consistency with Agency goals and objectives, advised project managers on planning issues related to redevelopment projects, acted as liaison to the Santa Ana Council of Arts and Culture, identified commercial properties to target for Economic Development rebate program, reviewed responses to requests for proposals, developed Artists LiveNVork Ordinance, assisted with SRO studies, advertised public meetings, acted as the Agency's United Way representative. January 1990—October 1990 ACTIVITIES: Speaker, American Planning Association California State Conference, 1998. Member, American Planning Association, 1990— present. Choir Singer, Orange County Master Chorale, 1989— 1997. Member, St. Paul's Players Community Theater Group, 1987. SKILLS: Spanish Fluency Elaine Dewe, AICR RLA Summary A unique blend of experience in the public and private sectors as a Planner for municipalities and a registered Landscape Architect. My experience in public/private arenas has given me a unique perspective on working with the public. As a paralegal, I honed my skills in analysis, research and writing. I am a strong believer in continuing education and take advantage of opportunities to improve my knowledge and skills. Experience February 2016—Present City of Tustin Senior Planner • Evaluate complex planning applications for land development or use changes including CEQA analysis and preparation of reports and presentations to decision makers. • Preservation Planning including analysis of proposals for rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings and Cultural Resources District. ■ Provide guidance on developer, business and residential inquiries related to zoning regulations, General Plan compatibility and design character. • Draft ordinances. • Review and approve planning applications and building permits, including Certificates of Appropriateness for historic properties, establish conditions of approval, and draft environmental planning documents. • Coordinate planning activities with other City departments and outside agencies September 2412 to February 2016 City of Fullerton Associate Planner . Evaluate Planning applications for land development or use changes including project and CEQA analysis, interdepartmental coordination, preparation of staff reports, and presentation to Planning Commission/City Council. Recent projects include four residential tracts, multi- family housing, affordable housing, and preservation/conservation related applications, and Zoning Code amendments. • Assigned as Preservation Planner for Community Development Department including analysis of proposals in preservation zones and historic downtown for compatibility with Zoning Code, Design Guidelines and Secretary of Interiors Standards; responsible for landmark designations and preservation zone overlays; presentations to Design Review Committee and Landmarks Commission. • Consult with applicants and potential applicants about process, applications, zoning regulations, General Plan compatibility and design character for development projects. • Provide staff support to Council-appointed Energy and Resource Management Committee. • Coordinate and track Planning staff workflow in relation to Permit Streamlining Act deadlines. • Perform peer-related review of work in progress and provide input on zoning code revisions Plan check grading, building and landscape plans on planning projects. September 2010 to September 2012 City of Fullerton Assistant Planner Drafted Landscape/ Water Conservation ordinance. • Met with architects, builders, homeowners, etc., regarding City Planning and Zoning process. Analyzed projects, prepared staff reports and resolutions, and made presentations to Design Review Committee and Planning Commission for development projects; conditional use permits, variances, subdivisions, etc., and conducted onsite inspections before and during construction. March 2000 to September 2010 City of Fullerton Planning Technician • Provided full-titre Planning/Zoning customer service at the public counter, including property research and analysis, plan checks, zoning verification letters,. and excellent customer service. • Supervised two interns Responded to inquiries in person,via telephone and in writing. Elaine love ,' WI). RLA April 1997 to March 2009 David Volz Design Landscape ArchltecflProject Manager • Project manager for design, construction documents including technical specifications, and construction management for public parks, streetscapes, and community centers. • Supervised design and clerical team. • Prepared project budgets, coordinated schedules, responded to RFPs & RFQs, site plans, design concepts/construction drawings. • Drafted technical reports (master plans, design guidelines, strategic plans, feasibility studies and General Plan update). • Conducted community workshops. Education 1998 University of California, Irvine Cert. in Landscape Architecture 2012 CSU, San Marcos Environmental Leadership Academy 2014 USG School of Architecture Heritage Conservation Course CSU, Fullerton BA Communications, in progress Professional California Department of Consumer Affairs Registered Landscape Architect#4828 Memberships American Planning Association American Institute of Certified Planners May 2017 California Preservation Foundation Community City of Tustin. Parks & Recreation Commission 4 terms, including Chair& Vice Chair Stephen Y. Ozak,.lr. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS 20 17 Present L grsl rtir e Polic.vAaafysrs Manager, Orange Count�-Fufillc l�'orlcs AgenrV lloaitnr,retieazch, an2l3rce,and interpret proposed state and federal legislative and regulatory brills and activities for potential impacts on flit agency. ■ Prepare and present iccur:t and timely reports and recommendations on pending legislative and policy issues and proposals to executive management. 2013 Present Management Consultant,Kozak Consuldog Group " Provide sttatei,ic,management,and financial consulting services to government and non-profit agencies, including analysis of methods and practices,project planning, policies&procedures, budgeting and business plaits,and administrati�•e . operational improvemments. 2014-2015 A dinj�zistmtr vv Servrct-w of cfr I a,•1a1lt :4.s r•r.in�.r_Tlu,isrr,c`ti ■ Planacd and directed irimir ser_ tt'e and f!t!,r i 2l support operations,including budget ,planning and reporting., wp,t1l.,r.,1Y compliance,and audit coordination for a liomele.ss and hunger pre vennon ii�+Yi p:,stir agency with a 26 bed women's transitional ditJter, and food pan rr,• _;cr.tni;. 3,of clients each month in south grange County, 2012-2013 Finatrcial&IT Soni ces Dirccror,Mu-a, 1pater Dlstrdct ofOrxrtge Corrin ■ Provided strategic leadership in developing, implementing, and sustaining },est firaancial and business management practices including managing a `144 .million 0AflU;d oper_tring budget and a$14 million fixed income investment program. ■ Planned, organized, and directed full sen'ice finance and accounting department, including budget admiztistretion, investment :na11.1 nement, banking and treasury operations, procurement and contracts,and IT s-;y;oem ;ti+d user support. 2006-2012 CXziefAdirwmsu~atrm 0ffi ez, Children&Families Commission of Orange County a Planned, organized, and directed administrative service support including program development and eti idtUtira,17 financial, accounting and audit £auctions, contract administration, IT sy.itGms, procurement, and scheduling of administrative and 'internal suppon services. ■ Managed a $46 mullion wnual operating budget and a$124 million fixed income investment program,including portfolio benchmark performance evaluation and reporting. ■ Prepared and managed strategic plans, annual business plans and budgcrs, :dong with KPI performance measurement,monitoring,and reporting. 2005-2006 Cnntro fer,Lis Angeles County Superior Court ■ Directed a comprehensive prognim of financial management, accounting operations, and revenue furtctivns, includili,1 aelnti:ustration of the Court's $665 million annual operating budget, Laudgct v_ acro-il monitoring and reporting, revenue and expenditure forecasting, annual aticlil,ndmimsiraLi<)n of grants totaling,;14 nul ion,prm-utemcnt,and eollecticms. • PL•tstnud and clzrected development and implementation of a new revenue collection, alloc:tnon,.te[ouMIng,and reporting strucrure for 6-711 court fees totaling$12 million annually_ ". PROFESSIONAL EXPEDIENCE AND ACCC)MPL ISHNIENTS (CONTINUED) 2000-2003 Rhancial Manager,Buc gr,Debt&Treasur,Los rAAgeks Wbr&Airports • Directed the Financial Planning Division,including Budget,Rxcs,Fees & Charges, FAA Grant Programs,and Dent&Treasury,Management activities_ ■ Established and managed I -�W.l's $300 million Commercial Papel (CP) capital improvement projects financing program. ■ Planned,organized,and nuuzaged preparation,monitoring,and reporting for a$465 million Annual Operating Budget,and a$950 million 1(ulti-Y ear Capital Projects Budget. 1994-2000 Financial Manager,Finance&Risk Management, Di it�oc Caunt�S. tutAtian 17rs[rrct r Planned and directed$ 440 million fixed and van,:P,lc r:;s r.:_,t tiiic.: rc, :af Participation (COP) financing program For capital projects,it li:,ii,r , r r r,.li new money issues, r Controlled insurance and risk managunenr programs for an asset base valued at $1.5 trillion. r fnitiated, implemented, and managed ncW$350 million fixed income investment program and treasurnY operati=5 Function. ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE ■ Planning Commissioner,Cita-of Tustin_2006_present r Citizens Advisory Committee,OCTA,2016-Prescnt ■ Successor Agency Board,City of Tustin,2016. -Present • Boazd\[ember,CSDA Firumce Corporation,2012-2013 ■ Board-Wembex,Tusriti Community foundation,2010-Ptrsettt ■ Tustin Police Department Citizen Academy Class No.30,2010. EDUCATION ■ M.B.A.,,California State Univermv,Ixullcrton m M.P-A_,University of California,Riverside a B.A.,Political Science,California State Poo Techinc[; 'WersitF,Pomona ■ Community College Instructor Credential,Public Scr%-ices&_idministrmion ■ Certified California Municipal Treasurer,(CCMT),Cal Ilfunicipnl"]'reasurers;lssoa axon Am ¢'r"'' MASON ■ Strategic,entrepreneurial and hands-on communications executive with more two decades of agency and in-house experience building and guiding engagement teams for global consumer and technology brands.A trusted advisor to C-suite executives and brand leaders,led internal and external communications for several high-profile brand turnarounds. Proven expertise in developing integrated communications strategies and initiatives that drive sales,brand equity and growth. Leader of more than 150+high profile,insights driven and award winning product launches and service offerings for a variety of brands and organizations including Apple, Microsoft(MSN),Netflix,The GRAMMY'S, the Motion Picture Association (MPA),'Starbucks and Taco Bell Corp. Expertise in reputation management, narrative development and brand storytelling;developing and executing executive thought leadership platforms;digital, social and traditional media engagement;internal and external stakeholder and influencer relations;issues mitigation and crisis.management. DINE BRANDS GLOBAL,INC I Glendale,CA The largest full-service restaurant company in the world;parent company of IHOP and Applebee's SVP Global Communications& Guest Insights 7/2015 to Present Recruited by CEO to help rebuild brand reputation and increase overall brand insights and advocacy for IHOP and Applebee's restaurants around the world. Lead corporate affairs;research and insights via the Dine Research Institute;guest relations; brand communications;executive thought leadership;media relations;employee,team member and franchisee engagement. Primary lead of cross-functional teams that oversee crisis and issues mitigation,events, community affairs, and sustainability. TACO BELL CORP. I YUM BRANDS ) Irvine,CA $98 global quick service restaurant with more 7000 restaurants around the world Chief Public Affairs Officer 6/2013 to 7/2016 Executive Oirector, Taco Bell Foundation 1/2012 to Present Vice President,Public Affairs and grand Engagement 6/2011 to 5/201.3 Recruited by CEO as key member of the executive team responsible for building brand reputation and increasing overall brand advocacy. Reallocated existing resources to build integrated internal and external communications and public affairs teams to protect,promote and defend Taco Bell.Leading corporate affairs;brand communications;executive thought leadership;social influencer and traditional media relations;team member engagement. Primary lead of cross-functional teams that oversee crisis and issues mitigation,events,community affairs,sustainability and ongoing purpose driven work. Highlights include: • Increased communications transparency,authenticity and relevance new approach to listening and engaging with stakeholders via digital,social,mobile and traditional channels;launched the Taco Bell Newsroom made up of nearly 40+cross functional content creators developing real-time brand content and story-telling. • Developed and executed 50+break though and award winning integrated communications campaigns including 50" Anniversary, Doritos Locos Tacos,Cantina Bell, Breakfast, Mobile Ordering/Payment, Live Mas Scholarships, ingredient transparency,Cage-free eggs,among others supporting 5 straight years of same store sales and transaction growth, • Led numerous public relations firsts in area of social engagement, leveraging emerging channels(eg Twitter, Periscope and 5napchat)as a means of driving visibility and recognition for marketing innovation. • Visibility and outreach resulted in numerous awards for the brand including AdAge Marketer of Year(2013),Hottest Digital Marketer(2013,2015),3 Cannes Lions recognizing Public Relations, and Fast Company 10 Most Innovative Companies. • Conducted first Yum-wide Corporate Materiality Assessment to determine future issues and risks brand may be facing in future; developed and launched proactive mitigation campaigns to increasing concern by consumers and opinion elite regarding employees(education,treatment)and food(safety,additives,sourcing, ingredients) • Initiated and extended ongoing engagement with key regulators(CDC, FDA, local health departments), policy makers(White. House,Capitol Hill), and advocacy groups(CSPI, Humane Society, etc.) • Expanded Taco Bell Foundation fundraising from$4MM to$14MM a year to become one of the largest teen focused 501c3s. EDELMAN ( Los Angeles I Seattle ) London I Singapore World's leading independent communications marketing firm Public Engagement Co-Chair;EVP, Global Client Relationship Manager Starbucks 6/2005 to 5/20111 SVPIEVP, digital, Entertainment Rights& Technology 8/2001 to 1/2005 Served in a variety of senior roles at Edelman,the world's largest communications marketing firm, leading several high-profile 13213 and 132C brand reputation campaigns and crisis engagements. Highlights include: • Tapped by Edelman CEO as one of 6 founding Global Client Relationship Managers(GCRM)to serve as senior counsel to Starbucks leadership team from 2005 to 2011 and expanded the firms reach and influence from two US offices to becoming the global Agency of Record and overseeing the work of 100+professionals,in over twenty-two Edelman offices around the world. ■ Primary and day to day agency counsel to CEO Howard Schultz and Starbucks leadership team during execution of transformation agenda from 2007-2011;Strategic corporate and consumer branding counsel,financial communications counsel, executive thought leadership,employee engagement;traditional,social and digital media and influencer engagement; new market entry planning and research;issues and crisis mitigation;and event management across the Americas,Asia Pacific, Europe,the Middle East and Africa, • Envision/manage Digital Entertainment, Rights and Technology practice(headquartered out of Los Angeles office,with expanded practice areas in London, NYC,Seattle and DC) P&L;capitalize on the proliferation of consumer technology,the accessibility of the web,growing demand for entertainment content and the emergence of social media platforms. • An integral part of the development and execution of:MySpace initial corporate narrative,working with Chris DeWotfe and Tom. Anderson through rise and acquisition by News Corp.; motion picture industry's anti-piracy efforts(Rated I for Illegal)and member of communications counsel to MPA president Jack Valenti. OHGOLLY.COM I HIGHTOWER TECHNOLOGY I Newport Beach,CA Industry's lending provider of e-Commerce enabled,click and build websites for small and medium business Co-founder/Vice President of Marketing 1999-2001 Acquired,repositioned and relaunched this click and build website in 1999 to become the leading eCommerce solution for small businesses. GEMPLUS(Now GEMALTO) I Redwood City,CA Industry's leading provider of e-Commerce enabled,click and build websites for small and medium business Director, Global Marketing and Communications 1997-1999 Recruited by CEO to join leadership team and help build awareness and understanding for smart tar d technology in the US and emerging markets;team efforts resulted in building a$150M business in 2 years and focused on the convergence between smart cards, the Internet,cellular telephony,network security,portable software applications and mobile payment.A division of Gemplus SCA, now Gema Ito$2B),the world leader In smart cards. SHANDWICK-GOLIN HARRIS-HI-TECH PR(Naw GOLIN) I San Francisco I Boston I Sydney Vice President, Technology Accounts 1996-1997 APPLE ( Cupertino,CA Power Macintosh Public Relations 1994-1996 BACHELOR OF ARTS I UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA Major.CammunicolionsStudies Additional Experience: Tustin City Planning Commission—March 2016- Present Member Board of Directors at Discovery Science Foundation 2012-Present National Board of Trustees at Boys and Girls Clubs of America 2013—2017 Schultz Foundation 100,000 Opportunities initiative,Strategic Oversight Committee,August 2015 to 2017 (http://www.100kopportunitie5.org/Volunteer Experience) 0# 2 RUDER TODD SMITH � : TRiPEPI, SMITH Irvine, California President November z000 to Present Lead a team of seven marketing and communication professionals to advance the way organizations execute thelr sales,marketing and community engagement efforts.Service a wide range of clients, but with a particular focus on the local government sector, Build client base to 6o+ clients.Represent firm on panels at key industry events and lead training,sessions on photography, multi-media,video production,social media use, infographics, "smart"titles and press relations, MAVENT INC Irvine,California Senior Vice President,Operations May 2005 to September 2009 Responsible for the quality assurance,technology operations and internal infrastructure organizations. Built team of technology professionals to manage multl-site production environment at co-location facilities, Managed vendor relationships and reviewed all invoices. Brought focus to key areas, including: system documentation, knowledge sharing with other employees, schedule management forfinite resources and enhanced security. Developed and managed the departmental budgets for three groups. Vice President, Marketing August 2004 to May 0005 Managed the Company's outside PR firm relationship,creative firm relationship,corporate website, ad campaigns, conference schedule,conference logistics and internal employee communications. Developed and managed the marketing budget. Vice President,Government Relations Februa ry 2003 to August 2004 �'. Monitored nationwide political activitles that were pertinent to the Mavent's interests, Developed relationships with third-party interest groups that impacted the Company's product. Participated In industry conferences and represented the Company at industry events. Led sales presentations in front of large groups with senior executives of the Company. Developed and managed the government relations budget, OLYMPIC STAFFING SERVICES Diamond Bar, California Information Technology Manager January a.998 to November 2000 Manage and control all aspects of the technology environment at this five location 35 employee company, NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION Los Angeles, Callfornla State and Local Govemment Representative July 2997 to December 1-997 Work directly with Director of State and Local Government Relations to research issues of concern to the Northrop Grumman. Develop agendas to target upcoming legislative issues. Assist in lobbying work and development of testimony, Education CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE,Claremont,California 1992-1996 Bachelorof Arts in Politics-Philosophy- conomics with Dual in Economics, May 1996,Cum Laude --- January 2019 Sl;ills, C, Terni Management inlhltiilc[itlll int'raSII'UCtlllti and IluildI1II 111,11-L ilwti S21i For Rancho Mission Viejo, Wall L)[slicy C'umpally.. Lu .1- L.cadershiplMentorship as Executive 1 II'Ccttn' for l,ril'ate lv�ltel, board l;2i11 I'Or California Pol_yteclinlc LhiI citiitu("2Ul N); tlnd I'lleSt fOr lecll-works1lop., [2-o l-? I; 1 Public Agency Nhinagernent as city en,liwer fui L w, Akwilllo) 11111a Park, and Nli;:,i rl Pit t,, 0iief En�,Mcci for Garcicn Grove Sanital-v District: Pr(kl). K I'i(wi—arn Manager forCity ol,11. • Civic Lea(I c rship/Outreach as City of'Tusiln plailniii_. QC`3'A Citizens Al k & Fnvironniciital Cotiiniittcc irlcrlihcr: UI.I Cowicii N1eil bt-1: I'u-lnerboard member ofLA Skid Row Central City Corlimunity Outrcicii and MI�:ti;• A,11 P for CSI-:LB. Education HARVARD UNIVERSITY, BOSTON,11'1.1 2016-2019 Progran-i liar I_.eadelship Developniew -candidate for program graduate;electives in Real Estate MaiwL,enient and Negotiatioul Stratcgic Decision Making UNIVERSH Y 01` SOUTIIERN CALI l,'ORN1A,,LOS ANGELES,CA 2911 -2013 M 1"[er o1'13us''Hic" .Administratiow Awarded Beta Gamma Sigma Honor Society CALIr()ldNl k STATE UNIVERSITY, 1,0 NG BEACH,CA 1981 - 1989 (\!aster o1'Scieiice in Civil Fngincc:ring: Outstanding Achievement Award for thesis Bac:liclur's in cl\11 cn-iiwenjiu: Suninia Cum Laude Lxperience Vice President Development Engineering 2005-Present RANCHO) MISSION VIFJG, GLC, :ti:1N JUAN C;IPIS'fRNNO,CA Ranch Plan implcrlierltalion f )r the !:Inds of I�lnclxl Mission Viejo - coniprisil}g 6 communities g units anti 5,7 1ni4k 1, :;qu Irc ftp[ ofcomnlcrci i1 uses. for 14,000 dwellinl��til?rilitiil)Ic fort • Comprehensive 'Lin:' cic>,i n lor I ll['rastructurc,?i'Ntater, sewage, roadway,state highway, alld pnwer, iIICilld,ti Cleve[(,)I) t, +l,0':i II C: ag1`eci' 1QIIts lv'Llh and funding from public agencies. • CConiaiunii.y plailnln 1 and dev::I;,;,Iim i. ki ofticc, and rc�idciiII ll land uses. • Implementation of iidrastructure ;I CU:ISI.t-ut:ti0[i ilf oVer 15 nillcs o roadway, bridges, f)ilwlines,and ntllltlt'S 1111C_.11-alcil lvi.dhin and to serve cf.rn)r}iullity develnpmir.nt. +' t 1)1�i11111 ' [Wel' 4 1 50\1 of federal, st:iic, and celuntN tLIrrailt tIIII(Iiii_ 1,01,o%ei S ji?0il'f in projects. F..wclltive L)Irector for llluttlal Wale[ t. ornpany, 161`marlon adnlloltitralloii wiih a ie�ini or IeLa) and technical experts; managing nporiarl Nvater and infrastructurc for domestic and irrigation uses. Program/Project illanger 2003-2005 WALT DISISEN CO. DISNEYLAND vi;sCIRT,ANAHEIM, CA f11I' ;lnnivc.rsaiti ccichration niana,ocd reiiovatioii f+-lr faciliti4s ll ithiii 111e C)islxdvltincl RcSort Suclt &, �1�111 L)i�,nc�y's l}is[� i i� a}�:}rtn3ent. tl}t r iilroad cyst ni. city litill. and sccilrity cl}e.ck. • l tltilililtcd I,lElilnint_ Ind logistics for daily attendance L)t up to i 00 'utic is and ?()K vehicles U11601- IZCS0J-t C;uest Services, fleet ina-nagement, and guest relations w itil tiI?t:cial i1midtivcS. ProgranilPrfYlEl't 1Ii;inageC 2002-2003 CITY of LOS ANGELES & UNIV1`I:SITY GL CAI.IF0IZNI.1, rI2NINE, CA • City of l_.-1 S1.�I! Prop- K 1i1'Iui lgcliimt o is Harr.,. & ;1titioc ales) rc.t-,i.)r[itlq to City 1-'.iiiiieer for rehab and construction oCover 60 ca,nin1unity recreation facitities. Developed scheduling rind Restcine of Jeff R. Thompson Page 2 reporting s_1:stcin for city financial and doctiment I-1C"I Ilcchcal Ct-11tci, `'3'?"!\1 (Phase 11 utility expansi�m 1;1.1 ; pl itiemen'1. A'unixer: ity l>nspital and t1111111M eenlrr 111CILR1111= p1t1n1iin=.1, cicsi u, 11-1i.1, l t I1•; ,_I�linl� li,r SCIA JCC utilities, central enci sy plant, tr iffitc circulation, real cstaic- ;;I. },;1x4-. and l_'.R rilodi!mations. Senior Project Manager 1997-2402 WALT DISNEY CO. WALT DISNEY IMAGINEERINC;, ANAI[EIM, CA Infrastructure implementation for$1.4B Disneyland Resort c,,pansion, in�lLt�liti�: • Dcs.J'L'n,Ind construction management [Or I)ok\!nim!n Disney retail spaces. utilities (SUL! ClIv, 11acl3ell, G,,is C"n , Navy Jet Fuel Line, e1c,). I)isiievlajid IXI' c & Dlsnev Way roacl�� i ih1'icl e;, 1 cnnncctlonti- O er 60 property acgtilstilons, Back-of-Hon:Se bi-HIC1ili1" re.lnctitiolis; le.Vera('ecl {Iver `t,i()t114 public bond Linancin�L Inr $i 50M of nillprovetilellls. * Suppnl-tcti 1 1.1,000 }'Kil'king spticc exp;111tiioil of'Kcsoil barking Ints. 0 Collaborlited "x!11[1 ("Il.y oI Aiialiciiii rif'iicials for permit approvals, inspection, and accepta lice. PI•uject Managcrll)epuly City 1 n��InCCI"�1.tli�'1I1C[1"Ing Services INhmarer 1995-1997 C1-1211 HiLL, SANTA A A.NA, CA Contr:ler pro-ecl Cita' [_n lineer lir the City nf'1.os ryl indtos: Engineering, Sen icxs ll;lri 1gcr 60r 24 niIIes of deslprld-1Uild with Silverado Coiin,trtidor� 1'or 11'Ic: I asit:l n Transporiatirin t_ toir1clor ARencv SR-241 toll rozidl responsible fol pCI-111111ing Willi locrll ptiblie it e11e'1l. . Design Engineer thi-ough Senior Vice President/Consullinr Cite Engineer 1985-1995) BERRYMAN & I11.NIGAR. INC., 1)anta Ana, CA Various responslb11111c 111e1LidL_7:.1 1)'.111: cllt:ck review c pi't)jcfet n71-lii einent for 1)abIle agency improvement project:, li r tiIrccI-,- 111 1.licti ri vs, water.seg e.r. and drtliirlgc iiilpro'v'cments. Administered master plans of tlraIiiui,, IiYr�1 <<:I I�:i : ills 1nli('110Ut C�1I110rnia. Contracted as C'hiet'Encineer for Garden Grove SanitLiry District 'inx1 City lil_,il,�_k_I Ioi Los Al lniitos, Mission Viejo,and Villa Park. Managed Civil 1_.it=ineel-i1t' 'lrlci 1 field �' . `-":1',i. .,; i]I tiz�,�•![_A County office manager with over 100 staff. Pro fess i on:i I Registrations —Civil l_;r1.4inccr: CA. AZ, and WA, Land Surveyor: C`A; Stnte 0r California Emerpi!ncy Management Agency Safety As,,esgnlent Program i 16r Disaster Responsc) Community & Ci't is Activities 2016 2018 OCI A L nvlrc7lY. Cleanup Alloc. C iii ?l]1 201S UL.1 National t'unlil;, 1:.c:lail C'1}t1i}cil 2007—2018 1 'Tustin Pl�M[11n 1 (..()i71IIIItiti1011 1t)f) 2018 L)C'1:�Citi,;cns Advis. ('i7liiniittee 2002— 2009 1.3ollnI N4C1n1bei ofCclitniI Cite 0titre lch 2(]l]2 —2005. C111-il,2h llin*17 SC11001 cl:lttnsel ,r 1999—2004 $indent 11k 1i_T`, K iii,_-Drew Mcd. Univ 1998 —2005 Asst, CoacIi [or baseball & softhaII 1995— 2001 C'11L.11-cli 1993 - 1999 C'SULB N'1"I" student prl`ranis 1989 - 1997 TUstlri 11 i.;tr-,ric Re.sn1[1'0 C'nnlrlt- —— A d 2i:Il t, 'i 1 l I .18C I 1';- I- V_:!)1':%1- k- ACI t:- 'N�c11 QCe 2015 &2011 ©CSC Partnership Award '111 ASS. I i.rr.. I n1ld I)Cv. i_ i 2 111ee:l'01 111,2 'a c3r 2009 Outstanding Renovation for 1878 home t1;}t c)( l ( ' I'1 ti. 1 1.11,2c. ScL Froi l;e 2001 OCEC Outstanding Engineering Merit 1 1 cru I1a0103 Tustin AUSTIN J . LUN, BARD EXPERIENCE Fluor Corporation Aliso Viejo,CA Project Manager/Prune Contract Manoger Apr 29x6—present Administering prime contract terms and providing oversight for a program of nuclear projects, Responsibilities include negotiating terms and conditions,providing contract summaries,administering project contractual obligations,mitigating project risk exposure,optimizing cost and schedule savings,implementing change management processes,and negotiating subcontracts. Previously responsible for executing multiple small to rnid- cap refinery projects and for developing capital efficient strategies to leverage Fluor Technologies into long terra engineering,procurement,fabrication,and construction relationships. Mein&Wilson Newport Beach,CA Litigation Associate Alar kol5—Apr 20x6 Represented sophisticated clients in complex business litigation,real estate,contract and professional negligence matters, Frequently appeared before courts throughout southern California and conducted and defended. depositions, As a seasoned negotiator,led clients through complex discovery processes and advised on multi- million dollar settlement agreements, Fluor Corporation Aliso Viejo,CA Prime Contract Manager Aug 2014--Apr 20-15 � Managed the negotiations of a$1-2 billion enginccring,procurement,and construction contract. This included drafting contract language,analyzing risk profiles,and face to face negotiation. Acted as the coordinating interface between in-house counsel,local state counsel,client outside cowisel,and the project execution teams Sales Coordinator N12r 2oi3. Aug 2014 Coordinated pursuit of complex oil and gas engineering,procurement,and construction opportunities, Worked closely with in-house counsel to draft contract language and mitigate risk, Analy-zcd strategic opportunities, clients,and markets to maximize market visibility and profit. Managed technical and commercial proposals, Contracts Specialist Sept Zoll-Mn 201;3 Negotiated and administered engineering,procurement,and construction sub--contracts,including license agreements with domestic and international technology providers, This experience included leading procurement of over$400 million of photovoltaic modules while navigating Chinese price dumping tariff impositions, United States Army Judge Advocate's General Corps Monterey,CA Legal Intern ,Lila-Aug 20 to Counseled military personnel in legal matters such as civil law,estate planning,landlord tenant law,tax, bankruptcy,immigration and naturalization law,and military administrative law, Ims Angeles County District Attorney's Office Los Angeles,CA Lain Clerk-Preliminary Hearings Chit ,pian-Jul 2011 Law Clerk-Major Narcotics Dims%ort Muy-Aug 2009 Assisted prosecution of high profile felony drug charges including interfacing with law enforcement(investigators and undercover officers),reviewing case files,and drafting Fourth Amendment briefs, Special assignments- included ssignmentsincluded authoring a marijuana prosecution manual in the context of changing states medical and dispensary laws. AUSTIN J. LUMBARD OTHER EXPERIENCE City of Tustin Planning Commission Tustin,CA Commissioner Mar 2013-p1•esent Appointed city official advising on capital improvement projects,permit applications,design guidelines,land use, zoning,and planning, Project highlights include the development of the Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin- parceling apprwdtnately t600 acres of government owned property for public and private development. Orange County Transportation Authority—Citi-zens Advisory Committee Orange County,CA Committee Member 2017-present Appointed to committee responsible for identifying opportunities for community input,serving as liaisons between the public and OCTA,and participating in roundtable discussions. Advising on a broad spectrum of transportation projects,studies and outreach activities. Orange County Sheriff's Department Ortinge County, CA Reserve Deputy 2012-2U15 Served as a uniformed peace officer in support of full time department operations, Duties included interviewing and screening department applicants,patrolling major events,search and rescue efforts,and as-needed support. Orange County Hoard of Supervisors Santa Ana,CA Leg LOative Aide May-Aug 2009 Served as a legislative analyst and constituent coordinator for Supervisor Patricia C.Bates. Drafted memoranda regarding county policy and administrative procedures and interfaced with senior staff on various matters. Fluor Corporation Aliso Viejo,CA Procurement Specialist ,lan.-,007-Aug 2ooS Managed sourcing of project material and equipment from inquiry to field delivery. Negotiated supplier contract terms for high value critical path equipment and materials, EDUCATION. Indiana University Maurer School of Law Bloomington,IN Doctor of.Turisprudence Other: Executive Editor-Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies;Trial Competition Champion;National Trial Compeddon Team,Moot Court Written and Oral Honors;Spring two London Law Consortium California Polytechnic State University San I..uis Obispo,CA Bachelor of Science,Business Administration Other: Financial Management Concentration; Minor in Economics; Minor in Political Science;and President-Lambda Chi Alpha LICESNSES & CERTIFICATIONS Admitted to State Bar of California(2oit) • Admitted to U.S.District Court Central District of California(2o15) • Graduate Orange County Bar.Association College of Trial Advocacy(2015) • California state Peace Offcee Standards and Training certification(2012) ATTACHMENT B MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2017 7:O0 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lumbard ROLL CALL: Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard and Thompson EXCUSED ABSENCES: Chair Smith and Commissioner Mason PUBLIC CONCERNS: Nis, Kim DeBenedetto, serves on the Board of Directors for the Tustin Preservation Conservancy, read a letter to the Commission from Mr. Charles Thrash, President of the Tustin Preservation Conservancy, with regards to the sale of the vacant property Mary Tustin — Lindsay House located at 305 S. C Street in Old Town Tustin and that this historic landmark could be at risk. The Tustin Preservation Conservancy asked that the Commission take steps to preserve the Mary Tustin-- Lindsay House. Approved. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-- SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the September 26, 2017 PEanning Commission meeting, as provided. 2. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER' CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 ENVIRONMENTAL: General Plan Conformity determinations required by Government Code Section 65402 are not "projects" requiring environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. REQUEST: General Pian Conformity finding for conveyance of the affordable residential unit located at 1345 Sun Dial Drive. Minutes-Planning Commission November 14,2017-Page 1 of 11 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4354, determining that the conveyance of the residential unit located at 1345 Sun Dial Drive managed by the Tustin Housing Authority and owned by the City of Tustin to be sold at market rate is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan, 3. CONTINUED ITEM -TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY On August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission held a second workshop on the topic of temporary signs within the public right-of-way and discussed three (3) code amendment options addressing the regulation of temporary signs in the public right-of-way in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ. The Commission received public input and directed staff to return with a modified option for Commission consideration prior to public notification and the publication of public hearing notices. This item was continued from the September 26, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue their consideration of this item to the Commission's next schedules!.meeting on November 28, 2017. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Lumbard, to approve the Consent Calendar, with one amendment to the September 26, 2097 Planning Commission Minutes. Motion carried 3-0-2. PUBLIC HEARING: Kozak stated that there was a request to take Item #7 out of order as the recommended action has been modified, There were no objections. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-10, DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-011 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2016-03 APPLICANT: BERDJ KEUYLIAN BERHOUR HOLDINGS, LLC 11803 WINDHILL WAY SANTA ANA, CA 92705 PROPERTY OWNER: BERHOUR HOLDINGS, LLC. 11803 WINDHILL WAY SANTA ANA, CA 92705 LOCATION: 125 NORTH "A" STREET/ 395 WEST FIRST STREET Minutes -Planning Commission November 14,2017 -Page 2 of 11 ENVIRONMENTAL. This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), 15315, Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) and 15331, Class 31 (Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation). REQUEST. A request to remove partial Condition of Approval "2g" from Planning Commission Resolution No. 1574 (UP 76-27) by maintaining the use of the residential structure as a residence, restoring the existing residential structure to its historic appearance and combining two (2) parcels into one (1). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4351, approving CUP 2017-10 to modify' UP 76-27 to remove partial Condition of Approval "2g" from Resolution No. 1574 to authorize the continued use of the residential structure on the subject property, DR 2017-11 to return the residential structure to its historic appearance, and LLA 2016- 03 to combine two (2) lots into one (1) parcel. 7:07 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing. Binsack Binsack stated that staff received a letter of correspondence, regarding this item, which was received the day of the meeting, and was provided to the Commission. Staff is recommending that Item #7 be continued to the December 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to have an opportunity to review the correspondence and to provide additional information for the Commission's consideration. Binsack stated that audience members present for item#7, that cannot attend the December 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, Gould provide testimony. Staff would prefer that testimony be provided at the December 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, if possible. Kozak Kozak turned to the audience to make sure they heard and understood the comments previously made by Binsack. Seda Yaghoubian, a representative for the applicant, Berdj Keuylian, asked the Commission if there was a request from staff to continue Item #7, she did not have any objections from the applicant and that they can be present at the December 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. 7:09 p.rn. Closed the Public Hearing. Binsack/ Binsack and Kozak clarified to the Commission that the item would be a Kozak continuance of the Public Hearing to the December 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.. Minutes-Planning Commission November 14,201 T-Page 3 of 11 Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Lumbard, to continue Item ##7 to the December 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 3-0- 2. Received& 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-15 - ST. JOSEPH filed. HOSPITAL OF ORANGE MENTAL HEALTH OUTPATIENT CRISIS SERVICE FACILITY At the September 26, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and took public testimony relative to the proposed mental health outpatient crisis service facility at 13132 Newport Avenue. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission requested additional information from the applicant to better understand the use and its operations and the public hearing was continued until October 10, 2017. The public hearing was continued agafn from October 10, 2017 to November 14, 2017 due to lack of a quorum, On November 1, 2017, the applicant submitted a letter withdrawing CUP 2017-15. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Lumbard, to receive and file the staff report stating that the item has been withdrawn. Motion carried 3-0-2. Lumbard Lumbard asked if anything had to be done logistically with Item t#4. Binsack In response to Lumbard's question, Binsack stated that the item was a continued public hearing but since the item has been withdrawn it is no longer an active application. Staff is now recommending that the Commission receive and file the staff report. Adopted 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2017-11 Reso. No. 4352 APPLICANT: MARTIN NEIL CALIBER SIGNS & IMAGING, INC. 17751 SKY PARK EAST- 2F IRVINE, CA 92614 PROPERTY OWNER: SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ATTN: DEBRA FITZSIMMONS 28000 MARGUERITE PARKWAY MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 LOCATION: 1624 VALENCIA AVENUE Minutes—Planning Commission November 14,2017—Page 4 of 11 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311 (Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), REQUEST: A request to establish a master sign plan to allow temporary project identification signs for the future Advanced Technology & Education Park (ATEP) site. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4352 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2817-11 to authorize establishment of the Master Sign Plan for Temporary Sign Project Identification for Advancer] Technology & Education Park (ATEP), as required by the Tustin Sign Code. Aguilar Presentation given. Thompson Thompson asked that because the signs are"temporary" in nature and at the same time there are standards of care (i.e. non-corrosive materials) can they be a fabric type of banner or canvas material since it seems that the signs could be there for a lengthy amount of time. Thompson also asked if there was concern with maintenance of the temporary signs. Aguilar In response to Thompson's previous question, Aguilar stated that as proposed in the sign program, the banner material is listed as a banner mesh material (canvas). Binsack Binsack stated that the signs would need to be maintained and she referred the Commission to the City's Master Sign Program, where there are similar signs. Some of those signs had to be replaced. It does occur and being that they are temporary in nature they do need to be replaced and can be replaced with relative ease. Lumbard Lumbard asked what qualifies as temporary (i.e. date when the signs will be removed). He stated he thought it was subjective. Aguilar In response to Lumbard's question, Aguilar stated that the signs are temporary which means the Signs will only be up while the site is under construction and/or available for lease. The signs will be removed as soon as the project is complete. 7:21 p.rn. OponedlGlosed the Public Comments Section, Lumbard Lumbard's concerns generally included: signs being "temporary" and the length of time it some projects take years; the precedent that the temporary signs set without any condition of a "sun setting" state; and that the signs Minutes-Planning Commission.November 14,2017-Rage 5 of 11 could be up for several years and would not look like a temporary sign; in general, as more signs are approved at the Tustin Legacy and throughout the city, the Commission and staff should be cognizant of how long temporary signs can be placed, Although, he did approve of the project signs and their purpose. Thompson Thompson shared the same concerns as Lumbard previously stated because the Tustin Legacy is a large and long standing project. A longer sense of "stay". He mentioned his approval of Conditions 2.1, 2.4, 2.5 and was supportive of this item. Kozak Kozak echoed his similar concerns of the length of time the signs would be placed. He also approved the conditions and felt that the SOCCCD would address any issues with future dilapidated signs. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Thompson, to adopt Resolution No. 4352, approving CUP 2017-11 to authorize establishment of the Master Sign Plan for Temporary Sign Project Identification for ATEP, as required by the Tustin Sign Code. Motion carried 3-0-2. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-26 & DESIGN REVIEW 2016-024 APPLICANT: GEORGE EWING DEL TACO LLC 25521 COMMERCENTER DR LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 PROPERTY OWNER: MICHAEL ABEL HOWARD L ABEL FAMILY TRUST 22 13ELCOURT DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOCATION: 13742 RED HILL AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act. REQUEST: A request to construct a new 2,439 square foot restaurant building with drive-thru, outdoor seating and wall graphics on a property located at 13742 Red Hill Avenue and to relocate the existing adjacent Del Taco restaurant onto the project site. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4353 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2016-26 and Design Review (DR) 2016- Minutes—Planning Commission November 14,2017—Page 6 of 11 024 to authorize the construction of a new 2,439 square-foot restaurant building with outdoor seating, drive-thru and wall graphics and to relocate the existing adjacent Del Taco restaurant business currently at the property located at 13851 Red Hill Avenue. Hutter Presentation given. Thompson Thompson was in favor of the sound attenuation being addressed in the Conditions of Approval because he did have concern with the noise from the drive-thru window being that there is a condominium complex on the north side, and since Del Taco is a 24-hour a day operation. He also voiced his concern with the light glare "drifting across the street" and adversely affecting the apartment complex. Thompson referred to the Red Hill Specific Plan (RHSP) and coordination opportunity missing since the plan is not yet complete being that the project is situated on a prominent corner of the RHSP. He questioned how the City could enlist cooperation with the RHSP. Thompson asked if there were other areas of landscape adhering to the City's ordinance to ensure everything "ties together' with the RHSP when it is adopted. Willkom In response to Thompson's questions, Willkom provided an example of coordination, as projects come in through the City, when moving forward with the RHSP. Staff identified locations for gateway signs and the Del Taco signs are the identified locations for gateway signs. Staff has incorporated a condition to require reservation of the area and in the future, once the City has determined the type of gateway signs to be placed on Red Hill Avenue and San Juan Street, then City staff will be working with the applicant to come up with a design and to require the construction. The proposed landscape palette has also been reviewed for consistency with the draft RHSP landscape palette. Also, there are street sections throughout the RHSP which staff has looked at to ensure any proposed projects will also be consistent with the RHSP. Willkom stated that even though the RHSP is not adopted, all proposed projects are reviewed as if the RHSP was adopted to ensure consistency. Lumbard Lumbard referred to the Parking Agreement -- confirming Condition 2.7 which states that a recorded Parking Agreement has to be in place before a permit is issued. He referenced the two (2) addresses listed in the Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4353 and if they were the same as the parcels mentioned in the Manatt letter. Willkom Willkom confirmed Condition 2.7 requires that the applicant obtain a recorded Parking Agreement since the project would need four (4) parking spaces that would be satisfied at the adjacent Red Hill Plaza parcel. The City would also require a recorded Parking Agreement at Red Hill Plaza. Huffer Hutter stated the address at 13822 Red Hill Avenue is the site of inline tenants at Red Hill Plaza. Big Lots is a separate parcel and different address. Minutes—Piannfng Commission November 14,2017—Page 7 or 11 Kozak Kozak asked about the rooftop's mechanical equipment being adequately screened so that the tenants in the condominium complex do not see the mechanical equipment (i.e. view from the upper level units). Hutter Per Kozak's previous question, Hutter stated that the proposed building parapet will be approximately five (5) feet in height so it is anticipated that the screening will be adequate and the TCC does require any roof screening be six (6) inches higher than the rooftop equipment, which will be reviewed at the time of plan check. She also added that the proposed building is approximately 23 feet in height which is about the same height as the condominium complex across the street. 7:45 p.m. Opened the Public Comments Section, George Ewing, the applicant, spoke in support of the project. Favorable comments were also made towards staff. Mr. Jim Forgey, representative of Architects Orange, was representing Del Taco and was also in support of the project as well as favorable comments for staff. In response to the previously made noise concerns coming from the drive-thru, Mr. Forgey stated the following, in general: placement of the speaker box is away from the residential area across the street; the three (3) foot high masonry wall that runs parallel to the drive-thru will also eliminate some of the sound; per staff's direction, lush landscaping was added along the barrier of the drive-thru; a ten (10) foot dedication along Red Hill Avenue they provided; and the applicant is paying his share of the improvements coming forward. Mr. Michael Abel, property owner of Del Taco, thanked staff for the report and presentation. He provided background information on his property as well as favorable comments for his tenant, Del Taco. Mr. Abel was in support of the project and he stated he can meet all of the conditions required within the Conditions of Approval, Mr. ,dim Farley, Del Taco representative, spoke in favor of the project. He also made favorable comments on the Del Taco restaurant. Mr. Farley has been with Del Taco for 25 years. Provided background information on his Del Taco restaurant. 7:55 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Thompson Thompson thanked staff for the report and presentation, as well as the speakers. It appears that compliance will be followed through with regards to the RHSP. Thompson thanked Mr. Forgey for his responsiveness to the noise and lighting concern. The fact that there is a condition that addresses these concerns shows a "good neighbor" concept so that people are not impacted with any adverse interaction between residential and commercial business. Thompson mentioned the letter received from Manatt, which was received by staff the day of the meeting, and he spoke with Torn O'Meara (copied on the letter) and it appears there is a desire to work together Minutes-Planning Commission November 14,2017-Page 8 of 1 i between property owners (i.e. parking issue). He encouraged more future cooperation between the two (2) property owners. Thompson was in support of the item. Lumbard Per Lumbard, the Red Hill Plaza shopping center is a "critical place and important location in the city Per the letter received from Manatt, he also stated that it is a private issue and not the City's therefore ft should be handled between the private entities. Lumbard hopes for everyone to work together towards a solution because the shopping center is vital. He also agreed that the project is "positive". Kozak Kozak echoed the comments from his fellow Commissioners and thanked staff for their hard work on the project. He also encouraged discussion between property owners with regards to the site. Kozak was also in favor of the project. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Thompson, to adopted Resolution No. 4353, as amended. Motion carried 3-0-2. REGULAR BUSINESS: Received& 8. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS filed. The following report provides a summary of projects and activities since the last summary of projects report was presented at the July 11, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. The report focuses on the status of projects that the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or staff approved; major improvement projects; Certificates of Appropriateness; Code Enforcement activities; and, other items which may be of interest to the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Received and filed. DiL.eva- Presentation given. .Johnson STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack reminded the Commission of the Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast on Thursday, November 15, 2017 and the Veterans Sports Park Groundbreaking Ceremony on Tuesday, November 21, 2017. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Lumbard Lumbard mentioned the upcoming Taps Brewery and Restaurant coming to Tustin! He attended the following events in October: + Old Town Art Walk ■ Village Shopping Center Grand Opening Minutes- Planning Commission November 14,2017—Page 9 of I i "Cops on a Roof' - Fundraiser for Special Olympics at the Dunkin' Donuts in the Village Shopping Center Congratulations to Johnny Johnson, owner of Blue Buoy Swim School, who won the Inaugural Mr. Tustin Competition. Happy Birthday to Hunter Theodore Lumbard, born on November 3, 2017! Thompson Thompson attended the following events in October: « OCTA "Active Transportation Stakeholder Working Group" • OCTA-CAC M2 Funding for Trash & Best Management Practices for Drainage • OCTA-CAC "Vision on Transportation" and "Sales Tax" • ULl Conference in Las Angeles • Presented to the Commercial Retail Group "Economy, Demographics" « County Board Supervisors meeting "Health Care" Thompson attended a ULI Local Council meeting in November. He reminded everyone that "cooler days are upon us" so turn back your watering. Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Thompson would like an update on the letter received from the Tustin Preservation Conservancy at the meeting (i.e. Lindsay House historical value). Binsack Binsack stated an update on the Tustin Preservation Conservancy letter wouid be added to the next agenda, per Thompson's request. Kozak Kozak attended the following events in October: • Planning Directors Association of Orange County Forum • Tustin Tiller Days Parade • OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Kozak also attended the "Inaugural Mr. Tustin" contest on November 4, 2017 which was a fundraising event for the'Miss Tustin Scholarship Fund". With reference to the Veterans Sports Park monument and memorial plaza, Kozak asked if there was a fundraiser (i.e. memorial brick sale) to raise money for veterans. Happy Thanksgiving everyonel Binsack In response to Kozak's previous question, Binsack stated she would check with Director David Wilson, Parks and Recreation and provide feedback to the Commission. 8:18 p,rn. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, November 28, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 340 Centennial Way, Minutes—Planning Commission November 14.2017—Page 10 of 11 V:*A- RVDCDD SMITH Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes-Planning Commission November 14, 2017-Page 11 of 11 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2017 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Given. INVOCATIONIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Kozak ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Commissioners Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Thompson PUBLIC CONCERNS: Mr. Miles McBride, resident, asked the Commission about keeping the "pathway open" from Columbus Tustin which allows people to walk from Columbus Square to Heritage Elementary School and if it would remain open during Veteran's Sports Park construction. Smith Smith informed Mr. McBride that staff would find out from the Public Works Department and email him a response. CONSENT CALENDAR: Smith Smith stated he would be abstaining from voting on Item #1 since he was not present at the previous meeting. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—NOVEMBER 14, 2017 RECOMMENDATION:. That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the November 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: it was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Minutes of the November 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 3- 0-2. Mason and Smith abstained from the vote due to their absence from the previous meeting. Thompson Thompson requested Item #2 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Smith proposed Item #2 be discussed later in the meeting in order to move forward with the Public Hearing items first.. Minutes—Planning Ctirnmizsion Novernber 28, 2017--Page 1 of 15 PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 3, GENERAL_ PLAN CONFORMITY, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Resolution Ilio. (DA) 2017-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 18125, DESIGN 4355 and REVIEW (DR) 2017-012 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 218 Resolution No. RESIDENTIAL. CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD 4356, as G, TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN amended. APPLICANT: CalAtlantic Inc. Attn: Crystal Burckle 15360 Barranca Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY City of Tustin OWNER: 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: Lot 19 of Tract 17404; generally bounded by future Moffett Drive to the north, Park Avenue to the east, Victory Road to the south, and Tustin Ranch Road to the west within Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G, Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. REQUEST: 1. General Plan Conformity to determine that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximate 20- acre site (Tract 17404 — Lot 19) within Neighborhood G of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan for the development of 218 residential condominium units is in conformance with the approved General Plan to determine that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, pursuant to Section 65402(x) of the Government Code. 2. DA 2017-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate 20-acre site within the boundaries of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. 3. TTM 18125 to subdivide an approximate 20-acre site into eight (8) numbered lots and two (2) lettered lots for the development of 218 residential condominium units, a community facility, and other neighborhood amenities. 4. DR 2017-012 for the design and site layout of 218 residential condominium units, a community facility, and other neighborhood amenities. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017--Page 2 of 15 RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4355, determining that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximately 20 acre site within Neighborhood G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for the development of 218 residential units is in conformance with the approved General Plan. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4356, recommending that the City Council approve: a. DA 2017-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate 20-acre site within the Boundaries of Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, b. TTM -18125 to subdivide an approximately 20-acre site into eight (8) numbered lots and two (2) lettered lots for the development of 218 residential condominium units, a community facility, and other neighborhood amenities. c. DR 2017-012 for the design and site layout of 218 residential condominium units, a community facility, and other neighborhood amenities. Hutter Presentation given. Hutter described in the presentation that direct mailing was completed based on the available County Assessor records. Craig Jerry Craig, Deputy Director of Economic Development, provided background information on the project and the partnership between the Economic Development Department and Michael Battaglia, Levity Project Manager. He mentioned the recent 2017 Red Tape to Red Carpet Award, the Orange County Business Council recognized the City of Tustin with a First Place award for "Real Estate, Redevelopment, and Reuse for the Flight at Tustin Legacy project in order to point out that both the Flight and Levity projects will be connected via Legacy Park. Craig also mentioned that CalAtiantic will be introducing new homes at price points not currently being offered in the Tustin market. The applicant, Crystal Surckle shared a short video of the project with the Commission, along with video books. Thompson Thompson's questions/concerns generally included: addressing public's concerns regarding parking (current standards), massing of the units (height of the structures) related to the Greenwood Community across the street; density of the development; and orientation of the pedestrian bridge. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28, 2017—Page 3 of 15 Hutter In terms of massing, Hutter replied that the Icon community (single-family detached homes along Park Avenue) are designed with step-backs so the entire buildings are not all three-stories, and there is variation in the elevations. The Greenwood homes are two-story structures. Some orientations of the Greenwood "roofs" along Park Avenue have "gable ends" which bring the peak of the roofs closer to public view and some are oriented where the slope is facing the.street. Hutter also mentioned that the area is within the density ranges of the Specific Plan, She also mentioned that the parking requirements have been met and that the project exceeds parking standards. With regards to Thompson's comment on the density, the proposal is within the Tustin Legacy range of density so these proposed products do fall under the maximum that has been anticipated. Hutter referred to the Overall Site Plan in her presentation showing the Commission the orientation of the pedestrian bridge (potentially Moffett Drive to have one of the "legs" of the pedestrian bridge), City staff is still reviewing the layout therefore there is no definitive information on a pedestrian bridge design. Kozak Kozak asked for clarification regarding the modification to Condition 4.1 of Resolution No. 4356. Hutter In response to Kozak's question, Hutter explained that the modification to Condition 4.1 is to reference the enhanced elevations that were proposed within the submittal packet. Smith Smith asked further if the depictions of the proposed elevations would be slightly modified based upon the modification to Condition 4.1 Hutter Hutter stated that the proposed elevations are consistent with what staff is expecting at plan check and Condition 4.1 is to reinforce that the elevations are provided at plan check. Mason Mason asked if it was ever specified on the Master Plan that there would only be single-family homes on the twenty (20) acre parcel. She referred to a past meeting where the Commission voted on the density regulations coming out of Sacramento and if this meets the requirements. Mason also asked if the project falls into affordable housing. She asked about the %z acre set aside for public use and the community and if it is designated as part of the plan and how much space is determined for the developer. Willkom Willkom stated that the adopted Specific Plan Amendment at the Tustin Legacy identified Planning Area (PA) 15 as a mixed-transit district which provides opportunity for a variety of housing types. The adopted Specific Plan does not identify a single housing type. What is being included in the Specific Plan document is the housing capacity for each of the planning areas and this proposed project is within the housing capacity for the total units within Planning Area 15. Also discussed that there is not a density Minutes--Planning Commission November 29,2017—Page 4 of 15 bonus for the project. She noted that the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan has an overall acreage of open space. In response to Mason's question regarding "density bonus" which is required by the State. That provision would be applicable if the project provided affordable housing, which means the applicant would be able to provide additional density above and beyond the capacity for Planning Area 15. Per Wilikom, this project is not required to provide affordable housing. For each development, each developer could propose something unique for the development; however, the City's Specific Plan requires a certain number of acres of the Tustin Legacy to be set aside for open space. Staff does monitor the open space (acreages) for the entire Tustin Legacy. Binsack Binsack followed up on the Mason's density bonus question. She noted that if the developer were providing affordability on-site, the applicant could request an additional thirty (35) percent of the number of units provided on- site, plus they could request concessions. The number one concession typically requested is a reduction of on-site parking because it does cost a fair amount to build parking. The second concession often requested is a reduction in park-land (the provision of on-site park-land). Lumbard Lumbard's questions/comments generally included: noticing and the approach staff took in obtaining addresses from the County Assessor's Office; mentioned that some of his Greenwood neighbors were not notified of this project; he asked how County Assessor's records were checked being that they are "behind" on updating records due to new development, he asked if staff had a way of checking who actually lives there and who was noticed; he asked if there would be a change in zoning and if the project requires a change in zoning; Lumbard referred to Mason's previous comment on there being a previous project that was planned for and now the City is deviating from that plan; park space and access to the parks and if there was any consideration of access to the park from the development (i.e. "A" Street and Victory Road) without people jay-walking and he suggested a cross walk might help and make drivers slow down. Lumbard had a question with regards to Thompson's question on "massing" and the importance of varied massing along Park Avenue and the relationship to homes that will be facing the Greenwood homes. Binsack Binsack replied that staff did check addresses but the "gap„ between the County Assessor's updates and last sales may not be known. Staff can only rely on what was provided on the latest tax assessor's records and cannot ascertain when an escrow closes. Per Binsack, this gap can sometimes take six (6) to nine (9) months of a tag depending on when an escrow does close. She added that staff was not able to identify the property owner Lumbard referred to, only his address and that the address was still listed under CalAtlantic ownership. Binsack stated that the project does not require a change in zoning and is fully consistent with the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. Minutes--Planning commission November 28,2017—Pape 5 of 15 Hutter In response to Lumbard's comment with regards to the suggested cross walk, there are currently intersections signalized with cross walks at Park Avenue and Victory Road and Victory Road and Tustin Ranch Road. Those signals will be able to service anyone wanting to cross the street, Having a mid-block crosswalk would have to be further explained by the Public Works Department and the effectiveness with such. There is infrastructure currently there to give access to residents and the general public to access Victory Park. Willkom Willkom estimated the Greenwood two-story homess to being twenty-six (26) to thirty (30) feet high. Thompson Clarified that Greenwood homes are approximately thirty (30) feet in height (two-story) and Levity is approximately thirty (36)feet in height. Smith Clarified on the HOA parking requirements for Levity, and if they will dictate/require parking in the garage and not bulky items (i.e. large televisions, lounge chairs). He also asked about the guest parking. Smith referred to Planning Area 15 boundaries and it being inclusive of the project area and the area across the street to Edinger Avenue, Hutter Hutter affirmed the City will be reviewing the draft CC&Rs for the project, which Resolution No. 4356 specifies to use garages for vehicle parking. CalAtlantic will ensure the CC&Rs state that garages shall be used for vehicle parking. The HOA will enforce the guest parking. She added that PA 15 is generally bound by Tustin Ranch Road, Edinger Avenue, Jamboree Boulevard, and Greenwood and St. Anton. Kozak Kozak had follow-up questions: housing cap and the project being within the density limits of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, and he asked if the proposal has met the park/open space requirements. Willkom Willkom stated that Kozak's statements were both correct. 7:52 p.m. Public Hearing Opened. Tina Diep, Greenwood Community resident, is on neighborhood watch. Her concerns generally included; increase in crime; increased pollution smog, traffic, density, noise, and parking (parking has exceeded regulations); she did not receive notification on the meeting; stated she had an attempted burglary at her house and had to contact the Chief of Police to request additional patrols in the area. She requested a Community Relations Officer from the Tustin Police Department specifically assigned to the Greenwood community to address any issues. She stated it is sad that the open space will be developed on. Ms. Diep did not like that the park is a public park because of increased crime, "outsiders" have brought in guns, and there will be more people using the public park. Outside people have caused accidents in the community. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017— 'age 6 of 15 Tony Cantafio's general comments/concems included: CalAtlantic will make a lot of money off of the project; not enough parking is being provided; asked if there will be driveways; stated Millennia[ kids will be the only ones buying the homes and they will have kids, where are the kids going to park when they are teenagers; Mr, Cantafio pays $5,000 in melo- roos and wanted to know haw much residents at Levity will pay; asked if Levity residents are going to pitch in for streets and schools; and will the residents be allowed to have televisions on the balconies. Austin Hsu, Greenwood resident, is concerned with the widening of Moffett Drive and asked how wide the street will end up being. Michael Battaglia, applicant, provided the fallowing responses, in general: discussed the building heights (36 to 38 feet on the three-story products) and 150 feet distance separation/buffer between Greenwood and Levity; there are landscaped berms on the Greenwood side, street, and other landscape buffers (actual depictions were shown in the video presented in. a ten (10) year growing cycle); with regards to the Greenwood park, it states in the CC&R's that it is a public park, and the same public access will be made available at the Levity project. 8.03 p.m. Public Hearing Closed. Mason Mason had no comments. Lumbard Lumbard spoke of the parking issue in Greenwood. He would like the applicant to describe parking at the proposed Levity project area (where parking is available and where residents are supposed to park). Battaglia referred the Commission to the site plan with regards to the parking plan, spaces within the loop, and guest parking. He reiterated that there needs to be strict enforcement by the HOA. Thompson Thompson asked to discuss the architecture. He referred to a tour he went on of Playa Vista in Los Angeles, said this architecture is reminiscent of the proposed project. Thompson referred to the Tustin Legacy being similar to a "farmhouse revival in Greenwood." With regards to the public's concern that the Levity project looks too dense, he asked Mr. Battaglia to explain the architecture further. Battaglia explained that CalAtlantic worked closely with Economic Development staff with the elevations style and it was in conjunction with the Flight and they spent time individualizing each home to be more of a modem style with the architecture. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 7 of 15 Kozak Kozak's follow up question with respect to the architecture (i.e. aesthetics, wood) and asked if there is an opportunity for CalAtiantic to work with staff to soften some of the vertical/horizontal angles with some type of aesthetic treatment facing the public right-of-ways at. Greenwood park and Moffett park (i.e. color or pop-outs in the perimeter of the project). Mr. Battaglia explained further that CalAtlantic and staff spent a lot of time on the colors, along with the different products being offered. He stated that the colors will pop out more in real life than the video but can go through the process further with staff. Smith Smith referred to the comments on the HOA enforcement with parking and asked if the source of the problem is with Greenwood, As well as how parking enforcement will be addressed differently than with Greenwood. He asked for further comment regarding the correlation between the price point option and the eleven (11) or twelve (12) dwelling units per acre ratio for the Levity project. Per the price point, he asked if it was correlated to just the density. Mr. Battaglia stated that in Levity, enforcement would happen right away which again, will be built in to the CC&Rs and the real estate budget for it immediately. The proposed project has parking requirements and most residents have driveways. Mr. Battaglia stated that CalAtlantic is well aware of the parking issues, He stated,that the average sales price will be low seven-hundred-thousand dollar ($700,000) range, which is a price point much lower than most places at Levity_ Further pricing provided as follows: The units along Tustin Ranch Road will be starting in the low six- hundred-thousand dollar($600,000). i The proposed units (the flats) within the interior of the. Levity project will be in the seven-hundred-thousand dollar ($700,000) range. ■ The family detached units will be in the eight-hundred-thousand dollar ($800,000) range. Ultimately, the price range will be from six-hundred-thousand ($600,000) to nine-hundred-thousand dollars ($900,000). Mr. Battaglia added that the price point is correlated to density. Mason Mason mentioned that the staff report provided a price range of five- hundred-thirty thousand dollars ($530,004) to six-hundred-sixty-four thousand dollars ($684,000) being the "low end". In response to Mason's statement, Mr. Battaglia stated that there is a new market study which is showing the lower end being closer to six-hundred- thousand dollars ($600,000). Minutes Planning Commission November 28,2017—page 8 of 16 Thompson Thompson made favorable comments with regards to the presentation, staff, the applicant, and the residents in the audience. He wants the notice issue to be addressed. He urged staff that when the item goes to the next step, which is to the City Council, that notices be hand-delivered to residents, to avoid any issues with the County Assessor's Office. Thompson believes density is in compliance with the Environmental Impact Report. With regards to parking, he likes that the design flows with the area and cohesiveness with the Tustin Legacy. With regards to the architecture, Thompson liked the idea of staff working with the architect to enhance the transition within the surrounding neighborhood. Is in support of the project. He noted the project meets the conditions outlined in the Legacy Specific Plan. Kozak Kozak also believed the project meets the housing needs of our community_ Knows that applicant will work with staff on the design. Kozak is also in support of the project. Mason Mason reinforced the notification issue needing to be addressed. She thanked staff for the presentation and to the applicant for the detail information. Mason knows parking will always be an issue but believes staff has takers that into consideration. She also likes the connections (i.e. bridge, pathways) into other communities. Mason suggested that staff look at a Victory Road pathway, along with more greenery in the park area. She is in support of the project Lumbard Lumbard asked for the timing of the Development Agreement, since it was not specified within the staff report. Is in favor of the project and believes it is a good addition to the Legacy area. Lumbard will not let the fact that he lives in Greenwood sway his decision. He is confident that the applicant will pay attention to the elevation on Park Avenue and how it affects Greenwood. Lumbard also asked that the applicant be sensitive to parking and green space. He said it will be good to offer housing that may be more affordable to"Millennials" Willkom Willkom stated that in terms of the Development Agreement is five (5) years but the developer may near completion in less than five (5) years. Binsack Binsack added to Lumbard's comments that typically there is a design review for approval for the Commission's consideration which is twelve (12) months to commence development. There is also a certain amount of the time applicant needs to complete that development. With the proposed Development Agreement, it is a negotiated timeframe which the term is five (5) years. It is an extended timeframe because of the transaction that is before the Commission and the City Council, the public improvements that are required, etc. Staff does not anticipate the term taking that long. Minutes-Planning Commission November 28, 2017-Page 9 of 15 Mason Mason informed the Commission that they did not address Mr. Austin Hsu's concern at the beginning of the Public Comments section. Smith To answer Mason's question, Smith asked staff what the future of Moffett Drive is. He was sympathetic to parking and crime issues in Greenwood, said it is a universal challenge (he lives in Tustin Field 11), and is glad to hear that these issues will be made a high priority in Levity. Stated the video was very informative, would like to feature the video for the public when the item is taken to City Council. Appreciated the input from his fellow Commissioners, reiterated that if the project meets the standards it should be approved. He also made overall favorable comments towards the project and specifically, the architecture. He was also in support of the project. Hutter To answer Mason and Smith's question on Moffett Drive, Hutter stated that the width of Moffett Drive is essentially will carry through on the north of Levity as what it currently is north of Greenwood which is one-way in each. direction. Hutter also added that according to the plans, there is capacity to have two (2) lanes each direction, which is similar to Victory Road_ Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Thompson, to adapt Resolution No. 4355 and Resolution No. 4356, as amended. Motion carried 5-0, Adopt 4, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-17: FOOTHILL Resolution No, REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER MASTER SIGN PLAN 4354, as amended. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Diane Brown Welltower Inc. 4150 Regents Park Row, Suite 350 La Jolla, CA 92037 LOCATION; 14642 through 14662 Newport Avenue REQUEST: A request to establish a master sign plan for Foothill Regional Medical Center, ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311 (Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Minutes—Planning Commission November 28.2017—Page 10 of 15 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4354 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-17 to authorize the establishment of a master sign plan for the Foothill Regional Medical Center development. Willkom Presentation given. Mason Mason asked about the orientation of the illuminated signs facing the homes on the backside of Foothill Regional, and if they would create an issue for the residential area. Willkom Willkom referred to the zoning district map within the Power Point presentation in order to explain the orientation of the illuminated signs. The three (3) signs will be facing Newport Avenue (to the west), north and south. Lumbard Lumbard had no questions. Thompson Thompson had no questions. Kozak Kozak had no questions. Smith Smith had no questions. 8,40 p.m. Public Comments opened and closed. No public comments. Thompson Thompson had no concerns and was in support of the item. Favorable comments for staff and the applicant. Kozak Kozak was in support of the,item and he made favorable comments. He had no issues with the item. Mason Mason also made favorable comments and was in support of the item. Lumbard Lumbard was in favor of the item and he also made favorable comments on the item. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4354, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes—Planning commission November 28,2017--Page 11 of 15 Staff to return 2. CONTINUED ITEM — TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE PUBLIC to the RIGHT-OF-WAY Commission with a draft sign ordinance. On August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission held a second workshop on the topic of temporary signs within the public right-ef-way and discussed three (3) code amendment options addressing the regulation of temporary signs in the public right-cf-way in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ. The Commission received public input and directed staff to return with a modified option for Commission consideration prior to public notification and the publication of public hearing notices. This item was continued from the September 26, 2017, and November 14, 2017, Planning Commission meetings. RECOMMENDATION: If the proposed standards contained within Table 1 are acceptable to the Planning Commission, staff will prepare an ordinance and conduct required public noticing and targeted noticing to impacted properties prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. Thompson Thompson`s questions to staff generally included: sign removal process,- does rocess;does a member of the public have the authority to remove the signs or is the City the only authority to remove the signs when in the public right-of- way; when there is a mass media of signs (i.e. special event, polltical event) who pays to have them removed; time limit for signs; complete restriction should be researched; and would like additional context on what other OC Cities are restricting signs completely. Smith Smith referred to the real estate industry and the concern about an outright ban. Some cities have banned signs and other cities allow signs but do not enforce the rules. Mason Mason asked staff about a possible option regarding no signage in the city. She voiced her concern with signs becoming a burden on the city (i.e, landscape, sign blight), Another possible option could be not having a sign ordinance. Lumbard Lumbard described enforcement being an issue and stated the city would have signs up regardless of what the rules say. The reason the Commission is continuing the discussion on signs is to hopefully allow staff to have the tools they need to clean up problems but to also allow the positive groups to have an opportunity to use signs within the rules. Binsack Binsack stated staff could draft the ordinance based on the feedback from the Commission. Some elements may be difficult to quantify. It will remain to be seen. Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 12 of 15 Smith There have been discussions of "zones" where signs would be allowed and to minimize the areas where there is sign blight, Smith did not feel thls topic was covered at this point. He also asked staff if the City could assign certain intersections where signs would be allowed, and enforce everywhere else or if that was not an option. Reekstin In response to Smith's comment, Reekstin referred the Commission to the map included in the staff report which highlighted the major intersections that would attract signage. He further explained that there are zones but there would be many zones throughout the city and that the zones would have to be within 300 feet from an intersection. Kendig To answer Smith's question, it would be an allowable restriction to assign certain intersections where signs would be allowed and enforce everywhere else. Mason Mason asked if the Commission wanted staff to return to the Commission with additional options as follows: what other cities are doing as far as enforcement; and designated intersections within the city. After hearing further discussion from his fellow Commissioners, Smith interpreted the following, in general: to adopt the recommendation which staff had made on the temporary sign ordinance; staff to return to the Commission with an ordinance reflective of the ideas which were outlined in the staff report; and if staff could also include comments of the cities that have chosen to ban signs and their enforcement policies to assist the Commission in their decision.. Binsack In response to Smith's interpretation, Binsack informed the Commission that a draft ordinance will be prepared but that it would be difficult to provide definitive answers on the effectiveness of removal and it will depend on how taxing of an issue it becomes. Ultimately, once the ordinance is adopted, it will remain to be seen. Kozak Kozak agreed with the comments previously stated. Lumbard Lumbard added that the need for this ordinance is to make the City's sign ordinance constitutional. Motion: it was moved by Smith, seconded by Mason to have staff return to the Commission with a draft sign ordinance. Motion carried 5-0. None, REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack had no staff concerns. Minutes-Planning Commission November 28,2017-Page 13 of 15 COMMISSION CONCERNS: Thompson Thompson congrats to his sort Luke Thompson who finished up his football season at OCC. He attended the following events: • November 16th - Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast • November 191h — Fundraiser in the annual competition between USC and UCLA ■ November 21St—Veterans Sports Park Groundbreaking • November 28th-Annual Good Scout Award by the Boy Scouts Mason Mason missed the last meeting and wanted staff tc express her gratefulness to her fellow Commissioners and staff, She attended the following events: ■ October 8th--rode in the Tiller Days Parade • October 21"-Old Town Art Walk • November 4th - Mr. Tustin contest Congratulations to Mr. Mason on completing the C.E.R.T. training! Lumbard Lumbard supported the world wide effort to raise funds to support research to cancers that are related to men ("Movember'). He attended the following events: • November 161h—Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast • November 21St—Veteran's Sports Park Groundbreaking Kozak Kozak thanked staff for their hard work and is glad the projects brought to the Commission moved forward. He attended the following events; • November 16th- Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast • November 215` -Veterans Sports Park Groundbreaking Kozak's son, Rusty, passed the bar exam! Congratulations! Smith Smith appreciates staff and his fellow Commissioners and loves working with Tustin. 9:02 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, December 12, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. MinLktes—Planning Commission November 28,2017 Page 14 of 15 RYDER TODD SMITH Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Planning Commission November 28,2017—Page 15 of 15 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION I DECEMBER 12, 2017 i 7:00 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER Given INVOCATIONIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Thompson None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— NOVEMBER 28, 2017 Minutes of the November 28, RECOMMENDATION: 2017 Planning Commission That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the November meeting, as 28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as provided, amended. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Mason, to approve the Minutes of the November 28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 2. 305 AND 315 SOUTH "C" STREET Received and At the November 14, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, a filed, representative of the Tustin Preservation Conservancy presented the Commission with a tetter regarding the pending sale of the vacant Mary Tustin -- Lindsay house located at 305 S. C Street in Old Town. The Conservancy expressed concerns about the future of the property and urged the Commission to take steps to preserve the house, ; This report provides the Commission with information related to the historic property located at 305 and 315 South "C" Street, RECOMMENDATION; That the Planning Commission receive and file this item, PUBLIC HEARING. I 1 Adopted 3_ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-16 TO ESTABLISH A Resolution No. RESTAURANT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING KARAOKE 4357, as FACILITY FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC amended. BEVERAGES AT 14561 & 14571 RED HILL AVENUE Minutes-Planning Commission December 12,2017—Page 1 of 11 APPLICANT: Dinish Mistry Voko Ka raoke & Restaurant 14561 Red Hill Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 PROPERTY Richter Farms Trust OWNER Interpacific Asset Management Company 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 150 Westminster, CA 92683 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301, Class 1 pertaining to existing facilities. REQUEST: A request to establish a restaurant use in conjunction with an existing karaoke facility and for on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4357 approving CUP 2017-16 to establish a restaurant in conjunction with an existing karaoke facility and for on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages ate 14561 & 14571 Red Hill Avenue. Dove Presentation given. Thompson Thompson referred to the staff report where 80 percent of the floor area is reserved for restaurant use and questioned if the 80 percent is being achieved by the rooms being considered as `seating area". He also referred to the Power Point presentation and asked how seating would be accomplished based on the floor plan. Dove In response to Thompson's question, Dove explained that each room has a table and banquet seating around the table for each room to be served by the wait staff. Thompson Thompson also mentioned that presently, the CUPS that have been in place allow food and preparation. He added that the only thing the Commission was considering was the sale of beer and wine. Thompson commented that it is a more sophisticated presentation of food. Dove Dove stated that the applicant could serve the food they are proposing (i.e. finger food and pre-packaged food) but that the City does not consider this type of establishment a bona fide restaurant. She stated that the difference is� now the applicant has a full menu and the cooking facility is more in line with the proposed menu. Minutes-Planning Commission pecember 1 2,2017-Page 2 of 11 Thompson Thompson's final comments were related to avoiding piece-mewling. He mentioned the applicant's previous CUP applications. Thompson also asked if the proposed CUP had any other changes or applications being considered in the future. Dove Dove stated that staff was not aware of any other additional requests and she deferred the question to the applicant, Lumbard Lumbard requested clarification with the staff report stating "consistent hours with the rest of the tenants within the center" and asked if there were any ether tenants currently operating past midnight. Dove Dove stated that other than Lamppost Pizza possibly operating past midnight, she was not aware of any other tenants operating past midnight. She added that the applicant already had approval for the 2;00 a.m. closing time. 7:12 p.m. Public Hearing Opened. Mr. Ken Henderson, Tustin Greens resident, spoke in opposition of the item. His concerns generally included: facility too close to residential area; opposition of Condition 2.3 of Resolution No. 4357; referred to Thompson's question regarding the 80 percent seating; and Mr. Henderson called the facility a "club" and not a "restaurant". Mrs. Mistry, wife of the applicant, Dinish Mistry, approached the podium to answer the Commission's questions, on behalf of her husband, the applicant. Thompson Thompson referred to the applicant's already submitted three (3) applications on this facility and asked Mrs. Dinish if there were any other applications being considered. Mrs. Dinish's response to Thompson's question was, no applications are planned. She added that being business owners, she and her husband were not aware as to how much money they would be putting into their businesses, Mrs. Dinish mentioned the background of their karaoke businesses, along with I the multiple applications submitted so far. She stated that the premise of the karaoke facility is "for people to stay in the room, have a good time, sing, eat and go". Mrs. Dinish added that she and her husband are hoping that the proposed CUP is approved since they are currently not making any profit, f Masan Mason asked if the applicants would be serving a full menu at the establishment. In response to Mason's question, Mrs. Dinish stated that they would be serving finger foods, not entrees. The applicant's plan is to find a professional chef and then introduce entree items to the menu in the future. Kozak Kozak referred to the comments previously made by Mr. Henderson. He asked Mrs. Dinish if she was familiar with the Conditions of Approval, specifically, "doors are to be closed and locked during operating hours", as well as the definition of "closing time" in the proposed resolution stating that "all customers have left the premises", Kozak wanted to ensure that the applicant was prepared to implement the Conditions of Approval as well as Minutes—Planning Comtmisslon December 12, 2D17—Page 3 of 11 monitor the establishment. In response to Kozak's question, Mrs. Dinish stated that she and her husban are prepared to implement the Conditions of Approval as well as monitor thea establishment. << 7:22 p.m. Public Hearing Closed. Smith Smith asked staff to confirm that the applicant is currently not serving food and that the requirement is that they would have to operate a full restaurant with a Conditional Use Permit. He referred to the proposed resolution and asked staff where, within the resolution, does it specifically refer to "food service operation" Dove In response to Smith's question on the food service operation, Dove confirmed that there is a condition that states that the food must exceed alcohol sales. Binsack Binsack referred the Commission to the proposed Resolution No. 4357, specifically Conditions No. 2.1 and 2.2, which identifies that the use has to remain as a bona fide eating establishment and the issuance of a Type 41 Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license is for a bona fide eating establishment. Smith Smith also stated that the applicant would not be issued their ABC license until they have proven that the restaurant operation is in effect and they{ actually have a chef hired and that the chef is producing food. 1 8insack In general, Binsack stated that it does not have to do with the chef, but the amount of food sales over alcohol sales (more than 51 percent food. 49 percent alcohol). ;Kozak Kozak further asked about the delineation of food service revenue and alcohol beverage revenue and if ABC monitored and reported back to staff. Binsack In response to Kozak's question, Binsack stated that the City does not require an audit on an annual basis. There is a condition that identifies that if the City requests audited receipts, that they be provided. Thompson Thompson referred to the Pizza Hut, within the same center, and asked if beer is currently being sold at that establishment. Binsack Binsack was not aware if Pizza Hut sold beer at that establishment. Lombard Lumbard voiced his concern with the "piece-meal" approach. He stated that if the project was brought to the Commission (as a whole) one year ago, he would not have been in support of an alcohol license, extended hours, and allowing the karaoke business in that location because of the local residents. Lumbard also felt that although the business has been a "good neighbor", the extended hours of operation and liquor license changes the center, which heli" is not supportive of. Minutes-Planning Commission December 12,2017-Page 4 of 1 1 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 imrnediateiy 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 sympathized with Mr. Henderson's concerns that the establishment could become a "night club", along with the concern of the establishment's proximity to the residential area. If the Commission approves j 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. i Smith Smiths 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. Lombard Lumbard's further commented on paying attention to the precedent that the j 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, I Binsack Binsack referred the Commission to Condition 1.5 which is in regards to an "annual review" and suggested including "that CUP 2617-16 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 '12,2Q17— Page 5 of 11 4. CONTINUED ITEM FROM THE NOVEMBER 14, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017- 10, DESIGN REVIEW 2017-011 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2015-03 APPLICANT: Berdj Keuytian Berhour Holdings, LLC 11803 Windhill Way Santa Ana, CA 92705 i PROPERTY Berhour Holdings, LLC OWNER: 11803 Windhill Way Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 125 North "A" Street ( 395 West First Street ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the CEQA Sections 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), 15315, Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions) and 15331, Class 31 (Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation). REQUEST; A request to remove partial condition of approval "2g" from Planning, Commission Resolution No. 1574 (UP 76-27) by maintaining the use of the residential structure as a residence, restoring the existing residential` structure to its historic appearance and combining two (2) parcels into- one (1). RECOMMENDATION' That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4351, approving CUP 2017-10 to modify UP 75-27 to remove partial condition of approval "2g" from Resolution No. 1574 to authorize the continued use of the residential structure on the subject property subject to a condition requiring that the dwelling remains affordable to low/moderate income renters for 55 years, Design Review 2017-11 to return the residential structure to its historic appearance, and Lot Line Adjustment 2015-03 to combine two (2) lots into one (1) parcel. Dove Presentation given. Mason Mason asked the Assistant City Attorney, Lois Bobak, and staff to provide additional explanation regarding "2G", of the Conditions of Approval, as it pertains to low income housing. She also asked for further explanation on the residential properties in the surrounding area. Bobak In response to Mason's question, Bobak generally spoke on the background of the property and she explained how Condition No. 2g was first imposed, which was in 1975 as part of the condition that the CUP allowed the property to be developed with the gas station. She added that since the property is designated as a commercial use, it conforms to the First Street Specific Plan Minutes-Planning Commission Decembei 12,2017-Page 6 of 11 and the predecessor to the current owner did not comply with that condition, Per Bobak, in 2010, the new owner entered into an agreement allowing the five �5) year extension of the time period for converting the residential use to a J commercial use, 1111 Willkonj In response to Mason's second question regarding the surrounding properties; Willkom provided the following description of the surrounding properties; to the north of the property there is currently a single-family residence; to the east of the property there is a physical therapy business; to the south of the property, there are offices (commercial); and the remaining surrounding properties are an auto service related business, and to the north of that use is a single-family residence as well, Lurribard Lumbard asked staff about the enforceability of the new CUP since there have been problems enforcing in the past. He asked that if the Commission were to approve the CUP, how the City would go about enforcing the obligation to update the residential structure. Sinsack Per Binsack, the City is trying to amicably work this out with the property owner. She referred the Commission to Exhibit E of the staff report, which was an agreement the City entered into with the current property owner. Given the fact that the owner failed to comply with that agreement, puts the entire site at risk, including the service station. Binsack stated that the City can enforce the agreement but have determined that the City would attempt some other compromisefsolution first and if unable to do so, then the City will enforce the agreement. Thompson Thompson referred to the supplemental item received from the applicant, expressing their dissent with staffs recommendation. He also asked for further clarification regarding Condition No. 2g being put in place because the residence was too close to the service station. Thompson asked what the "genesis" was of removing the residential use on the property, Bobak In response to Thompson's question regarding Condition No. 2g, Bobak referred to the site plan and stated the following in general: the residential use of the property was and is a non-conforming use since the site is zoned commercial and it is occupied primarily by a commercial use; the commercial use extends into the boundaries of the residential property; there are gas station uses that cross over onto the boundary which is why the City required that the property owner treat it as a single property and that is why staff is j processing the lot line adjustment; and the reason the residence is supposed to be converted to commercial use is because the residential use is a non- E conforming use under the First Street Specific Plan. s Thompson Thompson asked Bobak about the "next step" in the process as to the ' allowance in the proposal and how precedent setting it is. He also asked if it is creating a loophole or if there are reasons stating why the proposal makes sense. Bobak Bobak responded that from staff's perspective, part of the reason the proposal made sense was the fact that it was providing low and moderate income housing. She referred to the scales of "do you want to eliminate non- conforming uses or do you want to maintain historic structures or do you want Minutes--Planning Commissiofi December 12,2017—Page 7 of 11 to provide low-income to moderate income housing?" The historic nature of the structure does not factor into that equation because you can maintain the historic nature of the structure by adaptive reuse. Bobak explained furthe that in staff's opinion, the elimination of a non-conforming use is important anc it furthers all of the goals of the Specific Plan, the General Plan, and Cit Zoning regulations. Under Condition 2.3, it would continue to ensure that the property provides low and moderate incoming housing for at least 55 years. Thompson Thompson stated that since 1977, the property has continued to be rented and income has been generated to the property owner — 40 years of rent payments is a substantial amount to be generated on a use that should have never occurred, which is a significant benefit to the property owner. He then asked that if the Commission approved the item and the applicant enters into an agreement with the 55 year condition for low and moderate income, then decides to change the type of use five (5) years into the agreement, if the agreement would be canceled in order to make it commercial use, or is it even possible. Bobak In response to Thompson's previous statement, Bobak agreed with Thompson's previous statement. She further explained that the property owner will be able to continue to gather not only rent from the home but the profits from the commercial use on the property. The City could eliminate the commercial use on the property because of the applicant's failure to comply with the terms of the 2011 agreement. Instead, staff is "saying" we agree to maintain the commercial use, allow the property owner to continue to get the economic benefit of the commercial use on the property, as well as continue to get the economic benefit of the home on the property, but at a low and moderate income rate. Bobak Condition 2,3 would only require that the property be rented at moderate income rates as long as it is used for residential property. If the property owner decided that they wanted to adaptively reuse the property for commercial use, they could do that and then Condition No. 2.3 would no longer be vafid, At any point, the applicant could adaptively reuse the property for commercial and the requirement for low to moderate income goes away. Condition No. 2.3 only guarantees the property remain tow and moderate income for 55 years as long as it is used for residential purposes. Smith Smith asked staff that if the Commission did not approve the item would staff return back to enforcing the violated agreement. Binsack Binsack confirmed Smith's statement. Lumbard Lumbard asked if a 55 year housing agreement is typical for low to moderate income housing agreements in Tustin and if Condition No. 2.3 is converted to commercial use, can it be returned to residential use. He also asked if the housing agreement would become void if the property was converted to a commercial use. 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. Minutes-Planning Commission December 12,2017- Page 8 of 11 Bobak Bobak added that it is standard to Cake a non-conforming use and convert it to conforming. She stated that a conforming use cannot be reverted to Che non- conforming use and that the housing agreement would also become void if jconverted to commercial use. 8:05 P.M, Public Nearing 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 l 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. i N 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; sees it as a solution, not a burden; and Thompson was in favor of staff's recommendation. Mason Mason commended staff on their thoughtful approach to addressing an issue that has been long-standing and also looking at it from the context in the needs of the community; providing an opportunity to create some historic preservation in the city; commended the applicant for taking the time to keep Minutes—Planning Comrnission Decefrber 12, 2017—Page 9 of I I the property updated and to keep it part of the commercial property; Mason was also in favor of staffs recommendation. Lombard Per Lumbard, the most important period of time was in 2011 when the applicant entered into an agreement with the City to remove the residential structure within five (5) years and the applicant did not do so by 2015. He reiterated that the conditions stated to take "all necessary steps to make the property commercial or remove the residential structure" which did not occur. i Lumbard added that from March 2015 to December 2017 the City has allowed the residential use to continue and the CUP that has been presented to the Commission is a "very productive compromise" protecting City goals of historic structures, low to moderate income housing. the proposed resolution is a "middle ground"; commended staff for working with the applicant; and he is in support of the project. I Kozak Kozak's comments generally included: he commended staff and agreed with the comments his fellow Commissioners made; thoughtful approach done by staff to settle a long standing issue; agreed the low and moderate housing is as important as the historic preservation; agreement is necessary for the preservation of the affordable housing, although it is not a requirement that the particular use be maintained; and he is also in favor of staff's recommendation. Motion. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Thompson to adopt Resolution No. 4351, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Binsack Binsack stated, for the record, that it is an appealable item to the City Counci'L with the appeal period being ten (10) days to the City Clerk's Office. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack reminded the Commission of an email Dove sent to them requesting information For the CLG report due to the CLG Program. "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidaysl" She looks forward to working with the Commission in 2018- COMMISSION 048.COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason thanked the former Mayor Bernstein and Mayor Pro Tem Puckett for their service. She congratulated the newly appointed Mayor Al Murry and Mayor Pro Tem Beckie Gomez and thanked staff for their hard work. "Happy holidays?" Lumbard Lumbard voiced his concern with there being no cross walk near the Tustin: Family Youth Center (Sycamore/Newport) where children and residents cross frequently. He asked Binsack to discuss the concern with the Public Works Department to ensure it is safe to cross. Lumbard attended the following events: • 12/5 Mayoral Changeover -- Congratulations to Mayor Murray and Mayor Pro Tem Gomez! • 1218 Tustin's Christmas Tree Lighting ■ 12111 Tustin Youth & Family Center's 2dh Anniversary Celebration Minutes- Planning Commission (December 42,2017-Page 10 of 11 Lombard thanked staff and the Conirnission for the last year and he wished everyone "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays". Thompson Thompson echoed favorable comments towards start and wished everyone a "Merry Christmas". He attended the following events: • 12/1 He completed the ULI mentorship program ■ 12/5 Mayoral Changeover - Congratulations Mayor Murray and Mayor Pro Tern Gomez! • 12/11 Tustin Youth & Family Center's 20" Anniversary Celebration M 12/12 OCTA Bicycle Pedestrian Workshop Kozak Kozak concurred with Lumbard's concern with regards to the pedestrian cross walk at Sycamore/Newport. He added that at the northwest corner there is already a handicap ramp installed, Kozak congratulated Mayor Murray and Mayor Pro Tern Gomez and thanked our former Mayor Bernstein for his dedication to the community. He also commended staff for their hard work and looks forward to working with staff in the next year, Kozak attended the following events.- 0 vents;• 12/5 Mayoral Changover 12/8 Tustin's Christmas Tree Lighting 12111 Tustin Youth & Family Center's 20'h Anniversary "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!" Smith Smith was very thankful for staff and for our former Mayor Bernstein's leadership and to Mayor Murray for his future leadership! He was also thankful for the Old Town as a "backdrop for photo art"l "Happy holidays everyone! 8:39 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, January g, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. y RYDE=R TODD SMITH Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Knoles—Planning Commission December 12,2017—Page 11 of 11 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 2018 7.00 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Smith INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS, Approved the CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar, with corrections provided by stat"f, Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Thompson, to approve the Consent. Calendar, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— DECEMBER 12, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the December 12,. 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. 2. 2015-2017 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANNUAL REPORT The Annual Report summarizes the City's historic preservation efforts and describes how the City met all of the minimum requirements of the CLG program during the 201612017 reporting period. The Annual Report will be transmitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation upon approval by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission direct staff to forward the Annual Report to the State Office of Historic Preservation. Nome. PUBLIC NEARING. Mi»utes•-Planning commission January 23,2[718--Pagel of 4 REGULAR BUSINESS: Received& 3. CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2017 YEAR IN filed. REVIEW Throughout the year, staff provides the Planning Commission with a status of projects that the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or Community Development Director approved; major improvement projects; and other items of interest. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file the report. aiLeva- Presentation given. Johnson Lumbard Lumbard asked about the new middle school and high school being constructed at the Tustin Legacy and if there has been a decision as to whether the schools would be constructed separately or simultaneously. He also asked for a more specific timeframe on the opening of Tustin Legacy Sports Park (beginning or end of 2019?). Lumbard thanked staff for their hard work. Wilikom In response to Lumbard's question, Willkom stated that staff would get the information and bring it back to the Commission at the next scheduled meeting. As for the Sports Park, the Sports Park construction is progressing: the City is in the process of applying for additional grants to assist with financing, the design has been completed, and grading has begun. Thompson Thompson thanked DiLeva-Johnson for including the comparison of valuations from 2016. He also commended staff on their hard work. Kozak Kozak echoed his fellow Commissioners favorable comments regarding staff's hard work. Smith Smith also echoed his fellow Commissioners favorable comments regarding staff's hard work. "Good things are happening in Tustin)" Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Kozak, to receive and file the report. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS:. tllilcom No staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS. Thompson In December Thompson and his wife, Cherie, developed an "Adapt a School" program in partnership with the Tustin Community Foundation and the Tustin Unified School District to target Title 1 schools in Tustin (Tustin has five Title 1 schools). The Thompsons adopted Thorman and Estock Elementary Schools in Minutes-Planning Commission January 23,20 t8-Page 2 of 4 order to provide financial support to the schools because they lack private funding. This program helps with the classrooms, Early January, Thompson became a part- time lecturer for a Business Law class at Cal Poly Pomona, Thompson attended the following events: 12!14117: OCTA Bike and Pedestrian Committee Meeting 119118: OCTA's Environmental Clean-up Allocation Committee Meeting 1116118: OCTA's Citizens Advisory Committee (CAG) Meeting 1122118: BIA Economic Outlook for 2018 Masan Happy New Year everyone! Mason commended DiLeva-Johnson on the Year in Review. She mentioned Old Town Tustin ("beginning of critical mass"), which is exciting to hear. Mason also commended staff and thanked them for all of their hard work. Lumbard Lumbard attended the following events: 1116118: OCTA's CAC Meeting 1118118: Toured Heritage Elementary School Thanked staff for all of their and commended them for all of their hard work. Kozak Kozak commended QiLeva-Johnson's work on the Year in Review. He asked about the CLG report, specifically, the prior surveys of the historic properties and if there would be any consideration or discussions on updating or conducting a more current survey. Dave in response to Kozak's question on the CLG report, Dove stated that staff is working towards conducting a more current survey and that the City Council authorized this in the fast budget. Clove is currently working on the Request for Proposal along with investigating professionals to handle. Kozak attended the following events: 1116118: OCTA's CAC Meeting 1116118: Successor Agency Board Meeting 1120118: Mayor Al Murray's Fire Prevention Training Program Appreciates staff hard work and thank you very much! Smith Smith commended staff on their reports and their hard work. 7.26 p.m. ADJOURNMENT. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, February 13, 2018, at 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes-Planning Commission January 23.2018-Page 3 of 4 J1 f RYER T 0 D6 sr:�i�i_I Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes-Planning Commission January 23, 2018-Page 4 of 4 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 2018 7:01 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Smith INVOCATIONfPLFDGE 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 Flan); 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 less 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. gill 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 BIR 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 16 7:47 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 D.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 Gornmission February 13, 2018-Page 3 of 15 Mr. Francisco Barajas, C.C. Taxpayers Association, spoke in apposition of the item and his commentslconcerns 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 (C.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 2414, 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 commentslquestions 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 Caminission 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 IRC conditions that promoted inclusionary housing. The amount of development a developer could build was Ilmited 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 dawn"; 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 Grange 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 Feb►uary 13, 2018—Plage 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. 8:2lpm 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. Lombard 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 lase 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 (Le. 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: El 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 horsing 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. L.umbard 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 an 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 Gould 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 1"), 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, 201a—Wage 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. Lumhard Lumhard 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 itern 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. ThompsonlSmith 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 1-1 of 15 the signs and regulate the size, location, total number, posting duration, and placement of the signs. Reeksfin Presentation given. Thompson Thompson had two (2) points of clarification: twenty-seven (2 i) cities in Orange County have ordinances prohibiting signs in the ROW and portable signs allowed in the Ofd 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. f?eekstin Per Reekstin, if there is no indicator on the hack 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 mold 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 RDW 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 RDW. 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 13,201 B- 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 worst 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 weil. He commented than 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 (C) to twelve (12) rnonths 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 Might 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, 2010 to Discuss the draft Red Hill Specific Plan 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: i 1/25; The Mayor's Inaugural Dinner Event • 2/1: Urban Land Institute focal Office Commercial initiative • 2/5: 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 L.timbard 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: 1125: The Mayor's Inaugural Dinner Event -- "Congratulations Mayor Murray!" 2192: "Happy Birthday Abraham Lineolnl" 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: 1125; 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!!! ■ 2l25: "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. r� DER T ❑ SMITH Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes--Planning Commission February 13, '018—Page 15 of 15 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2018 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mason All present. ROLL CALL. Chairperson Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard, Mason,Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: Item continued 1, APPROVAL OF MINUTES—FEBRUARY 13, 2018 to the next regularly RECOMMENDATION: scheduled meeting of That the Pianning Commission approves the Minutes of the February 13, March 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. 2018_ Thompson asked that the approval of the Minutes be deferred to the next scheduled meeting. Directed staff 2. 2017 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT (GPAR) AND ANNUAL to forward the MITIGATION MONITORING STATUS REPORT (AMMSR) FOR FEISIEIR GPAR and the FOR MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN A MMSR to the City Council for consideration. California State Law requires that each city adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for its physical development and any land outside its boundaries which bears a relationship to its planning activities. In essence, the City's General Plan serves as the blueprint for future growth and development. As a blueprint for the future, the General Pian contains policies and programs designed to provide decision makers with a basis for all land use related decisions. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review and authorize staff to forward the General Plan Annual Report and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status Report to the City Council for consideration. Willkom provided an explanation of the supplemental information, provided at the dais, which was additional visual information in order for the Commission to gain a better understanding of all activities occurring at the MCAS, Tustin. Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 1 d 13 Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Masan, to authorize staff to forward the General Plan Annual Report and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status Report to the City Council for consideration. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 7.08 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing Section. 3. WITHDRAWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-24 Item A request for joint-use parking in conjunction with the conversion of an withdrawn, existing laundromat to a restaurant at 1052 Walnut Avenue. Upon research, there is adequate parking to accommodate the use; therefore, a CUP is not required. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1) Remove the item from consideration. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to remove the item from consideration. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2017-26, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A Reso. No. PRIVATE, INDOOR RECREATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL USE 4361 (SPORTS, ARTS, MUSIC, ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT) WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL OFFICE BUILDING APPLICANT: Susan Boettger Lyceum Village SPC 125 Nighthawk Irvine, CA 92604 PROPERTY Lyceum Village SPC OWNER: 125 Nighthawk Irvine, CA 92604 LOCATION: 14281 Chambers Road A request to establish a private indoor recreational and fnstructional use, including sports, arts, music and academic enrichment, within an existing 19,700 square feet industrial office building. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301, Class 1. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4361, approving the establishment of a private indoor recreation and instructional facility for sports, art, music and academic enrichment within an existing 19,700 Minutes--Planning Cornmission March 13, 2018-Page 2 of 13 square-feet industrial building located at 14281 Chambers Road. Nutter Presentation given. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff if the project site was located in the center across Walnut Avenue from where the existing Cross Fit and gymnastics center are located. putter Hutter confirmed that the project site is on the north side of Walnut Avenue. 7:11 p.m. Public Hearing Item Opened. The applicant, Susan Boettger, thanked the Commission for hearing her item. She provided additional background information relating to her project. She stated that her main focus is on high-end classical music and gymnastics and does not anticipate large amounts of people, therefore, noise should not be an issue. Ms. Boettger asked the Commission if they had questions. Smith Smith's questions for the applicant generally included: shuttle service being provided through the program and the pick-up location; if vending machines and food would be provided on-site for the students; and if the business was currently operating or if the business had relocated. Ms. Boettger's response generally included: shuttle service would be provided through Zoom, a child shuttle service, and pick up would take place at the childrens' schools and drop off at the project site; Zoom could also drop the children off at their homes after the program; students bring in their own food and eventually there would be a "grab n' go" for the students; currently her three (3) children, and a few other students are enrolled in the program; there was a soft open house event in order to promote the business; she anticipates opening in the Fall; and renovations are currently taking place. Mason Mason asked Ms. Boettger if the teachers at the facility are independent contractors and if instructors could sign up and bring their own students. Ms. Boettger's response to Mason's question consisted of: her facility welcomes educators and teachers with existing programs; instructors with good programs and credentials have the opportunity to lease-part of the facility for a few hours at a time to teach their courses; her facility is a shell for existing programs; and her desire is to work with existing programs in Tustin and Irvine. Kozak Kozak made favorable comments and asked the applicant if the facility is currently being built. He also asked if the various vendors, teachers, instructors would begin instruction in the Summer and Fall. Ms. Boettger confirmed instruction would begin in the Summer (i.e. Summer Camp). After the public comment period closed, neighboring business owners, Debbie Hartunian, owner of 14242 Chambers building and Pat'Simonium owner of 14192 Chambers Road, owners of the industrial building across from the proposed project site, approached the Commission and voiced their concerns which generally included: did not understand the concept of the project; the Minutes-Planning Commission March 13,2018-Page 3 of 13 building was sold recently and it appears to have been subdivided into five (5) or six (6) tenant spaces and is no longer a single-occupant tenant; hours of operation; trucks coming in and out every day; concern with children roaming the streets; and they asked if one (1) person was occupying the building. Smith Smith informed the speakers that the public comment period closed and that the Commission does not engage in questions and answers from the dais, and referred the ladies to the staff report copies which were located at the Council Chamber entrance. He also referred their questions to the applicant, who was sitting in the audience. Nutter Huffer confirmed that one (1) single provider would be occupying the proposed project site and there will be different types of enrichment and sports activities within the building. 7.20 p.m. Public Hearing Item Closed. Thompson Thompson mentioned the trend for these types of facilities and that it is conducive to warehouse settings. He made favorable comments and was in favor of the item. Lumbard Lumbard mentioned the tension between industrial and recreational uses. He stated that each time the Commission approves this type of application, the tone and use of the area changes even though the use is allowed under the Tustin City Code (TCC)which does change the industrial uses and impacts the surrounding areas. He stated that the applicant would benefit from communicating with her neighbors with regards to the use and he made favorable comments. Mason Mason's comments generally included: desire to keep children behind closed docrs during operational hours; made favorable comments including) proactive, meaningful destination for children to go after school; childrens' safety going in and out of the facility (i.e. install security cameras outside the building) to ensure the children's safety, particularly due to the extended hours of operation. Kozak Kozak made favorable comments for the applicant which included; the business model; use of property appropriately; drop-off will help with traffic flow and prevent backups; and he also advised the speakers to pick up a copy of the staff report in hopes of answering their questions. Smith Smith echoed similar favorable comments with regards to the report and staff. He did voice his concern with regards to the intersection between industrial use, recreational use, and parking. Smith emphasized to staff and the applicant that this type of use should be in a contained environment for the safety of the children when they cross or walk along the street. Motion. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Mason, to adopt Resolution No. 4361, Motion carried 5-0. Binsack Binsack noted that this is an appealable item and the appeal period is ten (10) calendar days. Minutes-Planning Commission March 13.2018-Page 4 of 13 7:27p,m. Public Hearing Item Opened, 5. CODE AMENDMENT 2017-603 (ORDINANCE NO. 1493) — ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES ESTABLISHMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES A proposal to amend Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to update the standards and guidelines related to new alcoholic beverage sales establishments. ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed Code Amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Cade of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15060 (c) (2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 43601, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1493, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code, and amending the Planning Commission's Guidelines for Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishment Guidelines. Aguilar Presentation given. Binsack Binsack explained to the Commission the reason for the supplemental provided at the dais relating to the guidelines and the approvalldenial process of a request. She further explained that staff is proposing that an additional Finding be included stating that either Planning staff or the Tustin Police Department would review the application on a case-by-case basis (i.e. applications pending, the proposed establishment is not located within an over concentrated area, high crime area andlor an area that is_not conducive to the sale of alcoholic beverages) as determined by the City (i,e. may be included but not limited to areas that cater to schools, places of worship, pre-schools, etc_). Binsack further explained that it is difficult to evaluate each use at this time, since staff is proposing some relaxation of certain standards, what types of applications the City sees in the future of a proposed application where staff may want to make a finding where City staff may not be supportive and make a recommendation for denial. If there are over concentration of sensitive uses (i.e. schools and parks), it may be less appropriate for there to be an over concentration of alcoholic beverage sales which is why staff thought it would be appropriate to add one (1) additional finding for the Commission's consideration. Smith With regards to the supplemental, Smith asked if this were to be used as criteria for denial, if the applicant could still choose to appeal. Binsack Binsack confirmed Smith's statement. Minutes—Planning Commission March 13, 20,13—Page 5 of 13 Mason Mason's questions/concerns generally included: loosening up the current rules; if the City is being more explicit about school premises; adjacent cities process; if this proposed ordinance would be open to any on-site restaurantibar staying open until 2:00 a.m. where there might be an 11:00 p.m. or midnight closing time; and if the applicants would have to re-apply for their CUP. Binsack Binsack explained the included radius map illustrated that staff included private and public schools which virtually zones out the capability of allowing for an off-premise alcohol sales establishment. Per Binsack, if the Commission wanted to proceed, staff also provided the enclosed guidelines in order to address any secondary impacts. She added that every individual or applicant that is desirous of selling alcohol in the City would be required to obtain an additional CUP, but they could request and receive approval for the 2:00 a.m. closing time. Lumbard Lumbard referred to the supplemental item and suggested editing the second paragraph of the guidelines — "an area that is not conducive to the sale of alcoholic beverages may but not"be" limited to "an"area(s) that caters to.....". Lumbard's questions/concerns generally included: referred to the Zoning Administrator being the authority for CUPs, unless the application was denied or appealed, and asked staff to clarify as far as the Planning Commission and City Council's approvalldenial process; the Standard Conditions of Approval - 1) Where it comes from? 2) What does "available" mean? 3) What other cities are following? 4) include a requirement that food be made available; make sure Tustin PD is involved; and this is relaxation of the current TCG for economic activity especially in the Old Town area. Binsack Binsack's response to Lumbard's questions generally included: the only true establishments currently permitted for on-site consumption would be a bona fide eating establishment (i.e. restaurant) and it has to be fifty-ane (51) percent sale of food and the maximum amount of alcohol to be sold is forty-nine (49) percent; individuals would not have an option other than to provide food; referred to the prior workshop with regards to the Commission and City Council's direction, that if there was going to be alcohol sold for onsite consumption there would be food available (i.e. food trucks, food made available, etc.); and if the Commission wanted that item removed from the Guidelines, then staff would remove the food provisions. Lumbard Lumbard recalls from the workshop, that the Commission was generally in favor of some requirements and was not sure how workable availability is as a standard and hopefully it does not become an issue. In general, when referencing the Conditions of Approval and Tustin PD's involvement, he made favorable comments as far as keeping the City safe and to ensure there are no problems with the establishments. Lumbard also asked if staff could enforce the TCC if an establishment becomes a nuisance or noise becomes an issue, but overall it is a step in the right direction. Thompson As a point of clarification, Thompson's interpretation of the 1,000 foot radius map, specifically the Downtown Commercial Core area, Tustin Market Place and the District, were all listed as being non-affected areas. His additional Minutes —!Manning Commission March 13. 2018—Page 6 of 13 comments generally included: the Red Hill Corridor being an affected area by the 1,000 foot distancing requirement; he referred to Los Angeles' regression analysis to understand the correlation of density of alcohol,establishments with crime rates and the correlation of high crime rates with high density of alcohol establishments (off-site sales); he understands that the City wants to relax the standards but the City also wants to maintain a healthy community; over concentration areas (onfoff-site sales); location of the concentration of high crime rates occurs in Tustin; on-site vs. off-site consumption — microbrewery concept (i.e. Centro Winery) which fits well along with the City's guidelines and ordinance; 7-Eleven stores not being the type of economic vibrancy our City is looking for; and he was inclined to separate the on-site and off-site alcohol sales, but he liked the vibrancy of what staff presented. Binsack In response to Thompson's interpretation with regards to the Los Angeles "regression analysis", Binsack stated that the analysis was the conclusion Los Angeles came to, but there might be other factors at play that were not considered in their analysis. She indicated the over concentration areas in Tustin would be along Newport Avenue and First Street. Binsack referred to the proposed finding within the staff report. Staff might determine something differently than the Alcohol Beverage Control does which is determined by a census tract area whereas the City can make a determination on a specific parcel being a high crime rate area. Per the 7-Eleven example that Thompson used previously, Binsack's response was that differentiating establishments is difficult. From a land use perception, if everyone follows the rules when selling alcohol, they are all the same from a sales perspective. Binsack advised the Commission that if they just wanted to address reducing the standards for on- site sales and leave the distancing requirements for off-site sales for now, they could choose to do that temporarily and then deal with the other issue at a later date. She told the Commission to keep in mind that off-site alcohol sales would probably get equally, if not more desires to provide those services. Lt Green Lt. Bryan Green's, South Area Commander of Tustin PD, response to previous comments generally included: a formal study regarding alcohol sales has never been conducted in correlation between crime rates and alcohol sales; crime rates tend to focus on high density areas (residential); there are not really any facts to support the over concentrated areas; Tustin PD informed the Commission of their process when reviewing CUPs with alcohol sales, to ensure all concerns are addressed; Tustin PD has a great working relationship with the Community Development Department, as well as with a variety of establishments to ensure they understand the City's rules and regulations; Tustin PD also works with the crime analysis on a weekly basis in order to identify crime trends; Tustin PD's bi-weekly "Neighborhood Improvement Task Force" meetings to discuss any areas of concern; with the guidelines in place, it gives Tustin PD the ability, along with staff, additional conditions can be. imposed, if there are any concerns with imposed restrictions additional restrictions. Based on the ordinance and guidelines, Lt. Green felt there was enough input to address Tustin PD's concerns and if approved, they would continue to monitor/address those concerns at that time; and any time there are major corridors with concentrations of businesses and population, such as Newport Avenue, Irvine Boulevard, Jamboree there is generally an increase in crime rate. Minutes-Planning C arnmission March 13. 2018-Page 7 of 13 Kozak Kozak thanked Aguilar for the staff report. He noted this meeting was a culmination of multiple public meetings with the City Council and the Commission, staff research and presentations. He stated that while the Commission is considering relaxing existing standards, the thoroughness of the presentation is reflected in summarizing that the City will have standard Conditions of Approval, at a minimum, a CUP is required for both on/off-site sales, and the alcoholic beverage guidelines which are good control's and mitigated some of Kozak's concerns. Both staff and Tustin PD worked on the recommendations and they support the recommendations to the Commission. Kozak was in support of the item. He requested Tustin PD and staff return with an update to the Commission. B:D1 P.m, Opened/Closed the Public Hearing Item. Smith Smith asked staff about prior public notifications and the process, as well as if other communication channels were used (i.e. Next Door, Facebook, Tustin Unified School District). Aguilar Per Aguilar, noticing was done through the Tustin News, and notices were sent to stakeholders who specfed specific interest in the proposed ordinance. vvilkom Wilikom added that Next Door, Facebook, and TUSD were not noticed but staff did inform the Chamber of Commerce and asked that they notify their members. Final Comments from the Commission Lumbard Lumbard's final comments included: the ordinance and guidelines are a step in the right direction of where our City Council and City Manager wants us to go; referred to and read from the required findings of the Zoning Administrator Conditions of Approval/Guidelines; noted the consistency with the General Plan and the Zoning Code; and this gives an opportunity for the public to appeal to the City Council, if need be. Smith Smith asked if there are any trends or uncooperative institutions that sell alcohol, whether off-site or on-site in the City that Tustin PD and the City do not have leverage over. He also asked Lt. Green's opinion as to whether or not he thinks the City will lose control with this proposed ordinance. Smith asked City Manager, Jeff Parker, if this proposed ordinance would give any economic stimulus to fulfill the City of Tustin's "Vision" for the community and the City Council. Greer? In response to Smith's question, Lt. Green stated that currently, there are no trends or uncooperative institutions that sell alcohol within the City of Tustin and he did not feel like the City would lose control with the proposed ordinance either. Parker To answer Smith's question, Parker stated that over the years, City staff has been approached by businesses (i.e. microbreweries) that have shown interest in moving into Tustin but were deterred because of the many City restrictions. Staff, City Council, and the Planning Commission looked at some regulations that could be loosened up. The City still wants to have control (i.e. Minutes—Planning Commission March 13, 2018--Page 8 of 13 surveillance, rules and regulations) and having the ability to implement if the City chooses to do so. City Manager Parker mentioned the off-site sales versus restaurant and onsite sales from an economic development point of view. 'The City was more focused on microbreweries, microwineries, and restaurants and less concerned with off-site sales. Staff would feel open in dialog with the City Council and the Planning Commission,in looking at the size and requirements of these types of establishments, as well as off-site sales. Smith Smith's additional questions were related to on-site versus off-site alcohol sakes and mentioned a microbrewery, as an example. He asked if a microbrewery, that also sells alcohol off-site at the same time, if that microbrewery would be considered off-site versus onsite, or both. Binsack. Per Smith's question on differentiating between off-site and on-site alcohol sales, Binsack stated that it may be considered both off-site and on-site, but it would depend on the percentage of off-site alcohol sales if it is an ancillary use which is addressed in the proposed ordinance and the guidelines. She stated that it would be addressed in the CUP, Mason Mason made favorable comments regarding the proposed ordinance, She also voiced her concerns which generally included. referred to No. 4 of the guidelines (and that it is important for the City to be judicious of new establishments); due to the partnership between staff and Tustin PD, she felt confident that the City will conduct adequate reviews; benefit of on-site alcohol sales; still had reservations about off-site alcohol sales; she asked her fellow Commissioners if additional language could be put into the proposed ordinance; if there would be an update in six (6) months on the number of applications received; and supportive cf how the resolution is written. Lumbard Lumbard suggested that since his fellow Commissioners have voiced their concern with off-site versus on-site proliferation, that as a Commission, they support a stricter scrutiny of off-site establishments than onsite establishments, rather than re-draft the ordinance and take a look at adding off-site establishments where the Commission is more in support of on-site establishments_ Smith Smith did not voice the same concern and was in favor of what was presented, Thompson Thompson was in favor of the guidelines. Again he reminded his fellow Commissioners that staff, City Council, and the Planning Commission, started out with on-site establishments. He suggested to the Commission that they stick to the original vision, original principles and relax the standards and implement the guidelines, related to the on-site establishments. He suggested keeping the standards stricter, or the old standards for off-site sales. Should move ahead and go with what staff has recommended. Kozak Kozak added to his previous comments which generally included: the process was well thought out; the Commission should look more closely at the off-site sales of alcohol within the context of this process; thanked Lt. Green and City Manager Parker for being present; confident with the information staff provided, the ordinance will be good for the community; and he would love to see more ren-site businesses (i.e. restaurants). Minuies-Planning Commission March 13, 2016-Page 9 of 13 Lumbard Lumbard had an additional question with regards to the staff report and the revocation process and procedure and how it would apply because it seemed to be a quicker acting mechanism which was not in the TCC before. Lumbard also mentioned the businesses recently revoked and the importance of having certain langriage in the CUP to avoid problem businesses. Lurnbard was not in favor of removing off-site sales, but emphasized the Commission's concern with off-site safes of alcohol. Binsack Per Binsack, what is proposed was approved by the City Attorney's office,. The process being that the Zoning Administrator would consider a minor CUP, to expedite the process and anything that would be revoked, there would be a recommendation to the Planning Commission, so individuals receive due process, and the Commission's determination would be final. Normally, any revocation goes to the City Council and their determination is final. In the event an ABC CUP is revoked by the Commission, the next step for an individual would be to go to Superior Court. Thompson Thompson requested clarification that if the only change on off-site sales is maintaining the 1,000 square foot separation and the 15,000 square foot. requirement, he suggested giving it a range of separation. Parker City Manager Parker reiterated when he previously spoke on the potential redevelopment of the Downtown 4i.e. Bl Camino Plaza or the vacant lot on Sixth Street), currently under the TCC, it is not just distance from schools, it is also distance from residential uses. If the Commission is only concerned about schools, it may be something that does not impact economic development because there are no schools in the Downtown Core, Market Place, the District, or the Tustin Legacy. Thompson Thompson then mentioned the residential component being removed. Parker In response to Thompson, City Manager Parker could not speak to the land use point of view, but from an economic point of view, which would be easier. Binsack Binsack suggested if the Commission wants the ordinance modified, then it should be returned to the Commission in a public hearing setting, with direction from the Commission. Binsack was unsure as to the consensus of the Commission. Smith Smith asked his fellow Commissioner's to add their final comments for the benefit of staff and for the Commission to consider. Thompson Thompson wanted to see additional regulations on the off-site sales of alcohol. Maybe retain some of what was restricted in the past, but was open to what City Manager Parker stated regarding the residential not "fitting well" with mixed-use was his concern. Lumbard Lumbard was attempting to regain the Commission's focus and he asked staff for direction on where the 1,000 foot rule is within the TCC. He stated that the map provided did not reflect the current TCC. Lumbard added that the Code Amendment is envisioning removing all of the distancing requirements but then having these findings of appropriate use for the neighborhood. He stated the Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018--Page 10 o1 12 findings were sufficient but understands Thompson's concerns with schools, which he was willing to discuss further, Binsack- Binsack stated that there is a distancing requirement fr©m other existing off- site alcohol sales establishments as well. Willkorn Willkom referred to Page 321 of the agenda packet for further clarification in regards to off-site sales establishments. There are three (3) categories for "distance and separation" which are three-hundred (300) feet from any residential zone, six-hundred (600) feet from other sensitive uses (i.e. schools, parks, playgrounds) and five-hundred (500) feet away from any other off-site sales establishments. This was based upon the direction staff received that they were to remove all distance separation, with the exception of schools. Mason Mason was in favor of what was being recommended, but her concern was off- site alcohol sales near schools. She asked the Commission if the change they were asking for is off-site related to schools and leaving a distancing requirement. Kozak Kozak added to Mason and Thompson's comments with regards to the three- hundred (300), six-hundred (600) and five-hundred (500) foot minimum distance regulations if 1,000 feet away from schools could be added. Thompson Per Kozak's question, Thompson thought adding a fourth number would make the ordinance more restricted. He stated that the Commission, collectively, was all in agreement with on-site sales applications. It appears it is only the off-site sales that they did not agree with. Binsack Binsack suggested to the Commission two (2) options. that the Commission make a recommendation of the ordinance as presented to the City Council, and provide a report to the City Council which explains the Commission's concerns with off-site alcohol sales or continue the item and staff can bring back to the Commission the distancing implications if the Commission left the minimum distances related to sensitive uses (i.e. schools) which would be very restrictive. The majority of the Commission's concern was with the off-site alcohol sales. The Commission would like to separate the on-site and off-site alcohol sales. For on-site, the Commission accepts the recommendation by staff with the draft ordinance and recommendations, but there is reservation with off-site sales due to the potential of negative impacts and that it should be treated with more sensitivity. If the Commission and the City Council had a map to look to show what the concentration and sensitive uses are, then it might clarify some concerns. Binsack 'Binsack further explained that if the City Council identifies similar concerns, they can send that portion of the ordinance back to the Commission for their consideration and further deliberation. Thompson Thompson's final opinion from the Commission's comments/concerns previously stated were as follows: Minutes—Planning Commission March 13. 2018—Page 11 of 13 • For on-site alcohol safes, the Planning Commission accepts the recommendation by staff with the draft ordinance and the guidelines; and C There is reservation about off-site alcohol sales, in particular, the residentially zoned sensitive uses the Commission would like to retain. Per Binsack, she wanted to ensure she communicated the Commission's desires to the City Council, so she captured the following from the Commission's collective concerns: ■ The Commission would adopt the recornmend ation that is before them with the concerns that the City Council understands the Commission's concern related to off-site consumption of alcohol and the relationship to overconcentration related to residential uses, other on-site alcohol sales as well as other sensitive uses. Removing the residential five-hundred (500) foot separation from off- site establishments, 0 That staff provide supplemental information to the City Council of what keeping those distancing requirements would look like for off-site establishments (via a map). Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, as amended, with a report to the City Council that the Commission had serious concerns about over proliferation of off-site alcohol sales establishments and distancing requirements from sensitive uses for off-site alcohol sales establishments, not including residentially zoned use properties. Seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 5-0. None. REGULAR BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack None. COMMISSION CONCERNS; Thompson Thompson completed the City's Email Policy Training on March 12, 2018, Mason No concerns. Lumbard Lumbard attended the following: 2117 Lumbard was a judge for the Miss Tustin Pageant — Congratulations to Raena Ramirez! • 2120 Red Hill Specific Plan Joint Workshop • 2122 Dux in Tux Gala at the Honda Center for underprivileged children • 21!25 Tustin's Sip and Swirl • 317 Ribbon cutting for the Orange County Animal Care Facility 3/11 Ran the Tustin Hangar Half Lumbard wished everyone a Happy Saint Patrick's Day{ Minutes-Planniiig Commission March 13,2C 18-Paae 12 of 13 i l Lumbard requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Master Sergeant Del Pickney. Kozak Kozak attended the following: ■ 2i20 Red Hill Specific Plan Joint Workshop ■ 2122 Citizens Participation Committee • 2125 Tustin's Sip and Stroll Happy Saint Patrick's Day! Smiilr No concerns. 8:52 p.m. ADJOURNMENT.- The DJOURNMENT:The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, March 27, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way, /Jz_'Ov� _RYEtR TOD16 SMITH Chairperson l ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Mitiutes-Planning Commission March 13,2b 18 --Page 13 of 13 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2018 7:00 p,m. CALL TO ORDER. Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lumbard All Present. ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard, Mason,Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR. Thompson requested Item#3 be pulled from the Consent Calendar, Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—FEBRUARY 13, 2418 Minutes of the February 93, RECOMMENDATION: 2018 Planning Commission That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the February meeting, as 13, 2418 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. amended, Approved the 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— MARCH 13, 2018 Minutes of the March 13, 2078 RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the March 13, meeting, as 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. amended. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Minutes of the February 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and the Minutes of the March 13, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Reso. 3. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION No. 4362, General Pian Conformity finding for conveyance of the affordable residential unit located at 370 Flyers Lane. APPLICANT: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Tustin Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018 Page 1 of 17 ENVIRONMENTAL: General Plan Conformity determinations required by Government Code Section 55402 are not"Projects" requiring environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No, 4352, determining that the conveyance of the residential unit located at 370 Flyers Lane managed by the Tustin Housing Authority (Housing Authority) and owned by the City of Tustin (City) to be sold at market rate is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. Thompson Thompson asked why the unit at 370 Flyers Lane was being removed from an affordable unit to a market rate unit. Craig Craig explained with the dissolution of redevelopment, housing funds are no longer available to administer affordable ownership programs to the level that the City needs to so the City Council made a decision to sell the unit to replenish administrative funds managing 280 affordable ownership units. Staff, along with the City Attorney, has spent a large amount of time trying to manage the foreclosure process with the affordable units. Smith Smith asked further for clarification of how much of the net proceeds and how many years the proceeds would fund. Craig Peva Craig, the net proceeds would be approximately four-hundred- thousand which would be approximately one year and a half to two years of funding. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Lumbard to adopt Resolution No_ 4362. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Denied Reso. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 1491, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING (CONTINUED No. 4358, by FROM THE FEBRUARY 13, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION minute order, MEETING) The Inclusionary Housing Program is proposed to enhance policies that foster the construction of affordable housing to households of extremely low, very low, and moderate income levels. The program will be applicable to those instances where an application has been submitted to the City to: (1) rezone a property from an industrial or commercial district to residential district, (2) change a property's zoning designation from one lower-density residential district to another higher-density residential district, or (3) to develop residential uses within the Red Hill Specific Plan Area, the Downtown. Commercial Core Specific Plan Area or any other specific plan area that has a provision for Residential Allocation Reservations. Minules—Planning Commission.March 27,2018—Page 2 of 17 ENVIRONMENTAL: Ordinance No. 1491 is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"; Cal. Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). The proposed ordinance will not commit the City to approve any particular project, or any aspect of any particular project, now or any time in the future. Any project subject to the proposed ordinance will require its own review for CEQA compliance. As a result, the proposed ordinance does not have any reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences or commit the City to a definite course of action. Thus, the proposed ordinance is not a "project' subject to CEQA. (Public Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15352(a).) 'Further, to the extent the proposed ordinance establishes the inclusionary housing fund, the proposed ordinance is, a government funding mechanism expressly excluded from CEQA's definition of "project," (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(4),) Even if the proposed ordinance were construed to be a project, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment for the foregoing reasons and thus falls within CEQA's "common sense"exemption. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15061(b)(3).) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4358, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1491, adding Chapter 98 to Article 9 of the Tustin City Code relating to Inclusionary Housing. Craig Presentation given. Craig provided additional comments regarding the Incusionary Housing item. Thompson Thompson's questions generally 'included: the exemption of Tustin Legacy as well as how many units have been developed so fair and how many of those units are very-low or low income level whether for rent or for sale and was the six (6) percent and four and one-half (4.5) percent achieved; difficult units to develop are the very-low and low with the moderate income levels being easier. Thompson was trying to understand how the program compares to the City's goals being established and if the City has achieved the goals; scaling where someone can add more density to residential (i.e. large scale projects at the Tustin Legacy and the infill project on the west side of Tustin High School) and how it is balanced; if zoned R3 today, and the deveioper builds a certain number of units„ then would the developer not be included in the inclusionary housing; the context of what the in-lieu fee does and how it fits within the suite of fees any developer is required to pay- Craig ayCraig Craig's response to Thompson's question generally included: per the Tustin Legacy units: twenty-one (21) percent of the Tustin Legacy has approximately 200 units built with over 600 affordable units; in terms of low, very low, moderate income levels, and ownership versus rental, there are Minutes-Planning Commission March 27.2018--Page 3 of 17 approximately 270 ownership units and approximately 410 rental units with approximately 150 of the 414 being senior projects. Anton Legacy — 88 very-low income level, 73 low income level, and 64 moderate income level; Amalfi 37 moderate level income. In terms of the "total number" and breakdown of the low, very-low, and moderate income levels, Craig stated he would, have to provide that information to the Commission at a later date. Per Thompson's density question, Craig stated the following: if within the residentially zoned density, there is no fee and that it is more cost effective to do the fee than to provide the housing on-site; if the developer is increasing the density then there is a fee since there is a significate increased benefit to the property; it is moving from one density designation to another where there is a trigger; the park fee varies depending on the appraised value of the project and assuming the developer is paying the twelve-thousand-dollar ($12,000) inclusionary fee, which is twenty-six- thousand ($26,000) of the park fee, depending on the appraised value of the land and does not include fees for Parks, Orange County Fire Authority, Water and Sewer, per the City's Building Department, but does include Transportation Corridor Fee; there is a Transportation Improvement Fee for southern Tustin Legacy which would not apply; if a developer in Tustin Legacy, they are also paying the TSIP fee. Binsack Binsack`s response to Thompson's question included: extremely low should also be added which are typically counted as more institutional uses, but they are also serving the extremely-low income, except those do not necessarily calculate per unit for the Tustin Family Campus and Village of Hope Lumbard Lumbard asked if the R3 site was within a specific plan area, with residential allocationlreservation, if the in-lieu fee would apply to that site because it was unclear within the staff report. Craig Per Craig, if an R3 site is already zoned, an in-lieu fee would not apply. Smith Smith then asked if you go from one (1) unit to three (3) units in a R3 property, you are not taking two (2) units away from the residential housing allocation fund within the Specific Plan. Craig He confirmed units would not be taken away from the residential housing allocation fund, Binsack Binsack added that if a property is residentially zoned, they could go to the maximum that would be allowed under the residential zoning (i.e. R1 = one (1) unit, R2 = depends on the number of units allowed divided by the square footage for the R2, same for the R3)_ It would only be if somebody were to request a zone change from an R1 to an R3 or an R2 to an R3. This would be the difference where the ordinance would apply. Lumbard Lumbard also referred to the discussion on the Specific Plans that have the residential allocation component to them (i.e. RHSP and the DCCSP) the fee would only apply if buying into the residential unit bank concept. Minutes—Punning Commission March 27,2018—Page 4 of 17 Rinsack Binsack answered that Lumbard's statement was correct. Mason Mason asked for an explanation on the relationship between density housing mandate and inclusionary housing and if the proposed ordinance was aligned with them. She asked if there were upsides to an inclusionary housing ordinance and what is coming down from the State. Craig In response to Mason's questions, per the density bonus, it has been aligned because of the way the City allocated the percentage of units, if it is provided cn-site. Any time a developer provides five (5) percent or more of very-low income level units on-site, there is qualification for a density bonus. He stated that staff tried setting the ordinance up in order for developers to take advantage of the density bonus as well as incentive to develop. Craig mentioned parking and the density bonus would give the developer flexibility in the number of parking spaces per unit, which is provided for by State law. Kozak Kozak asked about RHNA allocations assigned in each city and when the next cycle for the RHNA allocation would be. If approved, the inclusionary housing ordinance would be used as a tool to meet those goals. Binsack Per Binsack, the City is currently going through the process of working with OCCOG and SCAG on the next round of projections which should be received within one (1) year and the next planning period for RHNA would be 2021, which will be an eight(8) year cycle. Smith Opened the Public Hearing Section. Kozak Asked about the RHNA allocations. If approved, the inclusionary housing ordinance would be in place in order to meet those goals. Kozak further asked if that would override or complicate the implementation of the inclusionary housing ordinance. Binsack Binsack stated that, if approved, the inclusionary housing ordinance would assist in meeting those goals, Whenever units are added to the City's housing opportunity, SCAG has typically required that the City provide additional affordable housing, therefore the City cannot assume to provide all moderate-level income housing or market rate housing. Lumbard Lumbard referred to the language in the proposed ordinance (Page 57 of the Planning Commission packet) specifically the last paragraph referring to the residential project "to develop residential uses within the RHSP area, DCCSP area, or any other specific plan area that has a provision for residential allocation reservations."To Lumbard, it reads that any site within those specific pian areas qualifies for this incluslonary zoning ordinance, but he did not read there are no exceptions. He voiced his concern with the lack of clarity. Binsack Per Binsack, the properties that are within the RHSP and the DCCSP areas currently have commercial designations. Currently they would not have the opportunity to develop within the residential uses, per the current Minutes—Planning Commission March 27,2018—Page 5 of 17 zoning. Graig Craig added he and the City Attorney's office would work on cleaning up ordinance to make it clearer. Smith Smith referred to the Legislative Analysis supplemental item, provided at the dais and if this was given to City staff. Craig Per Craig, the Legislative Analysis was provided by the BIA letter. The BIA pulled certain language from the analysis and staff wanted the Commissioners to read the full context of what was written. Thompson Thompson stated he was more focused on the resolution, as opposed to the ordinance recommended for City Council and referred to Item B (Page 57 of the packet) "is contiguous to property under common ownership and control with a combined residential capacity of all the applicants property pursuant to the General Plan designation of zoning at the time of development for residential development is 20 units or more". Craig Craig stated that the finding Thompson read should have been removed. Smith Smith asked staff if the objective then was to clean up the language in the recommended ordinance before going to the City Council. Binsack Binsack stated that the finding would be removed if it was the consensus of the Commission. 7:45 p.m. Public Hearing Section Opened. Mr. gill Mclnerny, current Chairman of the Tustin Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the item. His comments generally included: supports longtime residents of Tustin and business owners; and thoughtful approach that raise funds only from projects benefitting from City action, whether re- zoning or new development; Mr. Byron De Arakal, IAP Communications for the OC Business Council and Vice Chairman for the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, spoke in opposition of the item. His concerns generally included: Statewide housing affordability crisis if not mitigated will stall the economy and erode the quality of life (1. How do we provide supply? 2. Let the market do it? Do we incentivize the market to do it?); fundamentally an artificial arbitrary construct placed on the housing market to mitigate an illusory goal (RHNA); perpetuates the RHNA allocation; developer will raise the price on market rate units to cover the foss on the sub-market rate units; and he suggested double incentives for density bonus. Mr. Tony Capitelli, Government Affairs Director for the Orange County Realtors, spoke in opposition of the item. He read from an article regarding housing costs in the Bay area from 2003-2047 after an inclusionary ordinance was passed. He added that re-zoning is an incentive, but the proposed ordinance is not an incentive, Mr. Capitelli applauded staff for Minutes—Planning Commission March 27, 2018--Page 6 of 17 considering incluslonary housing solutions and their hard worm and solutions but disagreed with what was being proposed. Mr. Adam Wood, BIA, was in apposition of the itern, His concerns generally included that the proposal would: chill development; reduce supply; increase housing costs. he stated staff had a misunderstanding of the housing futures initiative; he noted a concern with the scope of the impact; and the need for government and BIA to work together. Matt Buck, California Apartment Association, re-stated his concerns from the February 13, 2018 Commission meeting. The deficit of apartment units is now at one-hundred-thousand short which has increased the home prices. Mr. Buck stated that the inclusionary housing would slow down the delivery of housing which creates more of an issue. He encouraged staff to work with the builders. Mr. Michael Massie, Senior VP with Jamboree Housing, provided background information with his industry. He spoke in favor of the item. Mr. Massie's comments generally included: actively involved with the development community, members of BIA, work consistently with market- rate developers; the region is in the midst of a housing crisis; there is a treed for development for more housing; inclusionary housing can create a tax on development but balance that with the housing crisis; he asked what the appropriate nexus for need and resource would be; inclusionary housing is occurring throughout the State; appreciates this is a flexible and fair measure; and he made favorable comments regarding the City being responsive to the needs of the community. Ms. Margie Wakeham, Executive Director of Families Forward, serves homeless and at risk families in Orange County with the largest clientele coming from Tustin. Her concerns generally included: lack of affordable housing in Orange County (i.e. Santa Ana courthouse and riverbed); concern with exempting the Tustin Legacy; and was not sure how many units are left to be developed at the Tustin Legacy. Ms. Wakeham originally was in favor of, but is not in opposition of the item. Ms. Elizabeth Andrade, Family Solutions Collaborative (FSC) which is committed to ending homelessness. She commended the Commission on their leadership in Tustin being commendable for spearheading affordable housing. With regards to the low and very-low income levels is critical and that there are opportunities with the City to partner with the eleven (11) agencies that make up the FSG. Ms_ Andraded's final comment was for the Commission to consider who will benefit from those law and very-low income units. Mr. Tyron Jackson, President/Founder of Warm Wishes, provided background of his life as a homeless person, thanked the City for helping homeless and those in need. Mr. Jackson asked the Commission to invest in those in need, including the homeless. Minutes—Planning Commission March 27,2018—Page 7 o€17 Mr. Eric Higuchi, resident, spoke in opposition of the item. His concerns generally included: opposite effect of providing affordable housing and the lack of transparency from the City since City staff did not reach out to him after the February 13, 2018 Commission meeting. Mr. John Nielsen, former Mayor/City Council member, served on SCAG for eight (8) years, spoke in opposition of the item and his concerns generally included: affordable housing has been based on the Tustin Legacy; it excludes Tustin Legacy and if a developer wants to do infill projects, they would be subject to the proposed ordinance; referred to the RHSP being subject to this inclusionary housing; he asked which sites are available for inclusionary housing since most areas are commercial use; the ordinance will not produce enough funds to build affordable housing; not the right approach; and penalizes developers for wanting to invest in Tustin Legacy which will maks:them want to build elsewhere. Mr. Eric Nelson, Dana Point Planning Commissioner, spoke in opposition of the item. His concerns with the ordinance generally included: mentioned SB 35 (new mandate from Sacramento); effects land value; aspires to utilize market rate housing to fund affordable housing; referred to the City's data from the General Plan Amendments, specifically the Tustin Legacy; and he asked staff to reach out to the development community. 8,17 p.m. Public Hearing Section Closed. Thompson Thompson asked about the density bonus and what kind of track record does the City have with density bonus and how would it encourage affordable housing. Craig Craig explained the density bonus qualification process, along with the incentives. Villages of Columbus, Anton Legacy and Amalfi Apartments were density bonus projects. The density bonus at the Villages of Columbus created affordable housing units. Binsack Per Binsack, the incentives could be reduced setbacks; alleviation of some type of fee; various concessions; developers alternative to ask and the City's consideration to grant, but parking concessions are not negotiable. Kozak Kozak asked staff to clarify 'the role of the Tustin Legacy in providing affordable housing as being part of the solution that the City is using to develop affordable housing. He also asked about the RAR and how that works into incentivizing affordable units. Binsack Binsack referred to the original Specific Plan, prior to the last Specific Plan adoption, which there were 4,200 units for the overall planning area which was 23% affordability and included low, very-low, moderate income levels but did not include Village of Hope or the Tustin Family Campus. While they do provide very-low income level opportunities, those are counted more as a bed count versus a unit count, even though they are units. The addition of the units with the last Specific Plan amendment was approximately 5,400 rental units, which is approximately fifteen (15) Minutes—Planning Commission March 27,20'18—Page 8 of 17 percent. The City is discussing opportunities to work with Jamboree Housing to do additional units since the City is the land owner and can actually engage in those negotiations versus a private property owner. With regards to the RAR, at the Tustin Legacy, that is not the way units are allocated since the zoning is established. The mixed-use, the low, medium and high density residential uses are already established with the the Master Planned Community. Per Binsack, the Specific Plans that were identified, currently do not have a mixed-use designation and there is no residential infused in those areas. Craig Craig added, in terms of going forward and negotiating with Jamboree Housing, Economic Development staff are working with apartment developers in looking at density bonuses because of the type of development the City is looking at. There will be at least five (5) percent very-low income on those projects because developers warn to take advantage of increased density, as well as parking. Economic Development is also working with Family Promise on another parcel geared towards dealing with homeless families. The City Council is very committed to working with workforce housing, affordable housing, homeless and although the Tustin Legacy is exempt, there is still a lot of activity going forward, Again, those land sale proceeds are needed to build four-hun d red-m Wion dollars with of infrastructure that is required. Craig then commented on the general needs of the City's budget and staff tried to include flexibility in the ordinance so that the City Council can meet the needs of all residents, but to also serve those that need affordable housing, Mason Mason's points of clarification generally included; what would the affordability periods be if the City moves forward on zoning; she asked if it would be incumbent upon the City to monitor if an affordable house goes up for sale; referred to a question from the February 13, 2018 Commission meeting on obtaining any data from the City of Irvine what they are doing to make inclusionary housing work; if no inclusionary housing, does density bonus automatically "trigger" (by the City or the developer); and, if there have been public discussions with the BIA or others and what is the rush on the inclusionary housing. Craig In response to Mason, Craig was not sure how much will be provided onsite because it is more financially beneficial to pay the in-lieu fee. If provided onsite, State law currently requires forty-five (45) years for ownership and fifty-five (55) years for rental. In terms of home ownership, the City's challenge is if an affordable unit goes into foreclosure. The in- lieu fee is going to be the option and Craig does not anticipate having any additional ownership units with the proposed ordinance. In terms of rental development, it would be up to the developer or management company to monitor ongoing affordability. City staff conducts annual monitoring but nothing to the level Mason raised with ownership. With the loss of redevelopment, there are challenges with City staff monitoring. Craig stated there was a project in Tustin (The Vintage) 140 units are being built currently in Old Town, where affordable fees were paid. As for the City of Irvine and the homeless issue, a council member was quoted as saying, "we have over 4,000 affordable units and we have another 1,000 coming Minutes—Planning Commission March 27,2018--Page 9 of 17 on-line in the next five (5) years" because they have an inclusionary mousing policy and they keep developing. The City believes that by adding the value to property, development will occur and if it does not occur, that commercial developer is just not interested in mixed-use development and has nothing to do with an inclusionary housing policy. Density bonus only gets triggered it 1) the property is re-zoned from commercial to residential and 2) the developer is prepared to provide affordable housing onsite; the rush on the policy is due to the affordable housing crisis and City staff has spent a lot of time studying what other cities have done. Craig stated there were no discussion groups or round tables with the BIA, they looked at what other cities were doing and took a more conservative approach as to what the City of Santa Ana and City of Irvine are doing. Direction was to bring forward an inclusionary housing policy to the City Council and in the meantime, the housing needs are growing. Binsack Binsack's recap included: the City Council considered this at its Strategic Planning Workshop approximately three (3)years ago; it was noticed in the Tustin Newspaper; City Manager and Mayor did meet with the BIA in advance-of the February 13, 2018 Commission meeting; and as far as timing, the proposed ordinance presented before the Commission has been under preparation by the Economic Development Department for two (2) years; staff has obligations under the Tustin City Code and there are requirements to make a recommendation to the City Council within ninety (90) days of the original notification, otherwise staff needs to go return to the Commission with a revised proposed ordinance. Per Binsack, if the Commission does nothing, it is considered a positive recommendation. Lumbard Lumbard's comments generally included: staff presented a very comprehensive ordinance and thanked staff for modifying the last ordinance presented. He noted his serious issues in the "chilling development" the ordinance would create; he noted the need to have a program that encourages the right type of development for Tustin. What is right for the City of Tustin with the goals the City Council has given to the Commission to consider. He noted he is opposed to the ordinance as written (too vague); since the Strategic Planning Workshop, held three (3) years prior, the Commission is now considering two (2) Specific Plans (RHSP and DCCSP) and a tot has happened; need to consider everything the City has at their disposal (i.e. density bonus program, options to negotiate with developers and take same approach the City did with Vintage to other developers; from a land use policy, Lumbard was not sure the proposed ordinance would encourage development; affordable housing is a good goal for the City; Tustin is doing a great job already and is on the right path; Irvine is a master planned community; unless the City limits development options to affordable housing units and affordable developers the proposed ordinance is an added tax to development; -and the. Commission mentioned an optional ordinance at the February 13, 2018 Commission meeting. Smith Smith asked what the number of units would be in the RHSP and the DCCSP and he added in the proposed in-lieu fees. He asked if the funds would go into the Housing Authority fund or the General Fund, Smith Minutes-Planning Commission March 27,2018-Page 10 of 17 asked if there is any sense as to how many units would be built with nine- million dollars (funds from thein-lieu fees) in terms of low-incoming housing and affordability in the community. Craig Per Craig, the total number of units in both the RHSP and the DCCSP areas would be approximately 1,250 (The Vintage was not included since they already paid their in-lieu fees). Per the recommendation, the in-lieu fees fund would go to development only, There are separate housing authority funds specifically with the focus on development. The current housing funds the City has are used for administrative costs. Per the transparency, it states in the proposed ordinance that it does give the City Council the opportunity to use the funds from the in-lieu fees for administration. Craig stated that in order for a developer to build an affordable housing project, a developer ends up using tax credit financing and typically a city has to provide a gap funding of one-hundred-thousand dollars per unit in order to make that project viable. The City is not trying to get dollar for dollar, so when the City establishes a twelve-thousand-dollar fee, the consultants that did the analysis, said that in order to really get dollar for dollar, the developer is looking more at anywhere from seventeen-thousand-dollars to twenty-one-thousand-dollars per unit. Binsack Per Smith's question on the number of units and fees, Binsack stated that there have not been any notice public hearings before the Planning Commission or City Council on the RHSP and DCCSP areas and the number of units could be reduced or not approved at all. Thompson Thompson further explained to Smith that if he were to calculate the number of units in the DCCSP and the RHSP areas, it is approximately 1,200 units, removing The Vintage, multiply that times twelve-thou sand- dollars per unit, it is approximately fifteen-million-dollars. He added that if you divided the fifteen-million-dollars by the one-hundred-thousand-dollars, it is approximately 150 units. Thompson thanked the public speakers for voicing their comments and concerns. He also applauded staff for their hard work on this proposed ordinance. Thompson's comments/concerns generally included, potential chill on development; exempting Tustin Legacy -should have the same standard that is being applied; the City is a policy leader and it is also a developer and because of that it does not mean we find ways to exempt the City but instead find ways to set the bar; would not suggest applying the ordinance across the community—see how it works first; convey to the City Council what is the program and what is the vision? Another favorable comment to staff is that they have looked at specific plan areas to find out how to bring in more residential to some of these areas that do not have residential. Staff should move a little bit slower but still move in a way that enables the City's success. If the recommendation is that it goes to the City Council, that we just not establish a fee program just to have a fee program and administration, but it should be conveyed with: what is the program and the vision? Lumbard Lumbard's final comments/concems: does not know what the RHSP and the DCCSP are going to ultimately be defined as; does not know what the fee will be; it is difficult to make a discussion based on specifics when they Minutes--Pianning Commission March 27,2013--Page 1 I of 17 are all theoretical. Smith If we look at what the plan was before versus what the plan is now, how many parcels less are impacted by the change? Craig It could have been City-Wide so other than Tustin Legacy it could have applied anywhere as long as there was residential development of twenty (20) units or more. Right now the focus is on the RHSP and DCCSP and there is value being added to these properties. In terms of the allocation units, those are specific to RHSP and DCCSP and as far as up-zoning, that could be anywhere in the City (i.e. consolidate lots). Kozak Kozak's observations and comments included: he suggested starting with a strategic plan that the City Council has adopted through the process with respect to the direction to develop an inclusionary housing ordinance as a tool to develop additional affordable housing to meet the housing affordability crisis in the community; he commended staff on the work put into this item since the February 13, 2018 meeting whereas they addressed the concerns the Commission had; he stated that the inclusionary housing proposal is an initiative to address affordable housing issues in the community; added that the ordinance proposed is more focused incentive.. based and includes flexibility as there are four (4) different options to meet the requirements and there are incentives to develop affording other opportunities and to add value to these properties is incentive to itself; the inclusionary housing ordinance, as proposed, is a tool that the Commission needs to equip the City with and if it needs to be tested, then test it; the Commission needs to move this forward to the City Council; and Kozak was in favor of forwarding the item to the City Counciil for their consideration_ Mason Mason's final comments/concerns generally included: favorable comments to staff's work on the report; troubled the City has to create an ordinance to make this happen; what was done with The Vintage was unique; Mason was torn that the City add more administration to attract developers to the 'City; if the item moves forward, it has to include the Tustin Legacy; enormous opportunity with the Specific Plan as well; has not heard what the BIA and other agencies "alternative ideas" are; she is tom between not being in support of the item; and take the next four (4) weeks, if within the ninety days, to invite the developers to come in and put a call out to the State of Callfomia for some innovative programs that attract builders who are building the mixed-use residential and figure out the forum to have those discussions or co-create more meaningful solutions for Tustin. Lumbard Lumbard preferred making recommendations to the City Council for them to consider from a policy standpoint what they think based on all of the discussions had.. Smith Smith stated that he felt it would be unlikely that the Commission will achieve solutions in the next four (4) weeks. Sought out direction from Michael Daudt if the end result was a 3-2 vote for recommendation to the City Council. He also wanted confirmation that the Commission's primary Minutes-Planning Commission March 27,2018-Page 12 of 17 function which was to consider the issue, then make recommendations to the City Council. -daudt ©audt confirmed Smith's question on the Commission's primary function. Thompson Thompson's motion was to recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. That the Tustin Legacy is not exempt. 2. The focus is retained on the Specific Plan Areas, 3. The ordinance be revised removing the 20 units contiguous (Pages 6 and 8 of the ordinance). 4, The Planning Commission Resolution contain the fifteen (15%) percent and twelve-and-ane-half(12.5°/x) percent goals. 5. Fees are not within the purview of the Planning Commission (only land use decision making). fi. Remove"H" altogether Lumbard Lumbard asked staff about a similar recommendation made at the previous Commission meeting where there were several contingencies attached, and those went as a report to the City Council. He wanted to know what the impact would be if approved as recommended, but listing the Commission's concerns. Or approve the ordinance with Thompson's modifications. Lumbard added that if three (3) of the Commissions could decide to agree, then it could be a modified ordinance as a recommendation, but if not, it would go as a report. Binsack Per Binsack, the Commission could do either. Staff could get clear direction from the Commission. Staff would not want to modify the ordinance in a way that is not reflective of the Commission's recommendation, As long as the Commission is clear and there is a 3-2 consensus on making a positive recommendation, then staff can make the modifications and forward it to the City Council. With the prior ordinance referenced, there was support of the concept of the ordinance but not a consensus on ordinance changes so staff articulated the Commission's concerns in the form of the minutes and will ensure they were also included in the staff report. Kozak Kozak asked for clarification with Thompson's motion. He understood the inclusion of the Tustin Legacy and the focus on the Specific Plans, but he requested clarification on Thompson's third point. Thompson Per Kozak's request, in the proposed ordinance, it did state specifically, the fifteen (15%) percent and twelve-and-one-half(12.5%) percent goals, but it is unclear under Page 59 of the packet where it establishes those specific goals. Those were also stated in the staff report but Thompson did not see the statement of that goal in the resolution so for consistency, to include that in the resolution. Binsack As a point of clarification, before the Commission voted, and to understand clearly what the motion is, Binsack stated - as it relates to the Tustin Legacy, is it the Commission's proposal that Tustin Legacy be included and Minutes-Planning Commission Marcie 27,2018-Page 13 of 17 taken into consideration of all units that have already been constructed (Master Planned Community) looking backward and going forward in totality. Thompson Thompson suggested that paragraph H, Section l in the resolution be extracted and then in paragraph I name the Tustin Legacy along with the RHSP, past, current and future. Lumbard Lumbard asked for further clarification which generally included. the motion is to not exclude the Tustin Legacy and to also focus on the RHSP and IDCCSP areas— how do you focus on those areas while including other areas? Thompson Thompson explained further that he was suggesting to just.focus on those Specific Plan Areas (RHSP, ❑CCSP, and the Tustin Legacy). The justification for that is those are the areas where there is presently the plan to add significant units where there are none today. Lumbard in Lumbard's opinion, if the Commission is trying to approve Specific Plans, as a City, to encourage redevelopment areas, that this would probably have a negative impact. But if the Commission is only focusing on RHSP and the ©CCSP because the City wants redevelopment, that is where Lumbard was torn. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4358, with modifications to bath the resolution and the ordinance as previously stated. Motion carried 2-3. Commissioners Smith and Thompson = yays, Commissioners Lumbard, Mason and Smith = noes. 2"d Motion: Lumbard made a motion to deny the ordinance as recommended by staff, for the various reasons previously posed by the Commission of issues within the ordinance, seconded by Mason. The Commission could not agree as what they liked and did not like about the ordinance. Binsack Per Binsack, fundamentally, if the Commission is going to recommend against the ordinance, then staff would need to return to the Commission with a resolution that would include some findings of denial. Lumbard Lumbard asked to rescind his motion. Motion is null and void. Mason Mason asked another clarifying question -- If the Commission moves the item forward to the City Council with the concerns in the areas which they cannot agree, is it up to the City Council to vote yay or nay? If there are innovative ideas from the BIA they could come forth to the City Council? Binsack To answer Mason's questions, Binsack stated yes, that the recommendation to the City Council could be that there is no recommendation and the ordinance could be forwarded as was presented to the Commission and the Commission could provide a report of your findings (concerns) and staff could articulate those concerns in writing. Minutes—Planning Commission March 27,20'18—Page 14 of 17 Further deliberation took place among the Commission. The definition of residential projects in the ordinance is inadequate, per Lumbard, based on the intent it was only for re-zoning from industrial commercial to residential, up zoning and develop residential uses within the RHSP and the DCCSP, at which point currently, we do not know what they are since the Commission has not yet voted on those items, Or other Specific Plan Areas open-ended that have the residential allocation, which Lumbard did not know what they are. The lack of clarity perceived in the zoning, as it exists today and what it might look like in the Specific Plan Areas. Craig No one, at this time, has a residential allocation reservation. Lumbard Lumbard's concerns were as follows: the ordinance is deficient in its language to accomplish the goals that staff has verbally shared with the Commission; the language has gaps as it relates to the Specific Plan Areas (existing or non-existing); and the RHSP and ❑CCSP areas do not currently exist. He included the concerns he stated previously. Binsack Per Binsack, if the Commission is going to recommend denial of the ordinance, staff needs to return to the Commission with a resolution that articulates the findings in order to go forward to the City Council and the City Council can consider the Commission's findings as part of its report and make a determination as to whether or not the City Council wants to approve or not approve an ordinance, Binsack stated that it seemed like the Commission wanted to deny the concept of the ordinance wherein staff might need to return to the Commission and bring a resolution of denial of the ordinance and include those findings. If the Commission chooses to approve the ordinance, then staff can articulate the Commission's concerns to the City Council in the form of an inclusion in the staff report as well as the minutes, but if the Commission is going to vote to deny the ordinance, staff would need to identify that the Commission was at a stale mate and they could not decide whether or not to approve or deny the ordinance, and present the ordinance and the minutes. Further deliberation occurred among the Commission. Binsack Binsack added that if the Commission chooses not to make a recommendation, the ordinance can go as it is, and staff can identify to the City Council that the Commission chose not to make a recommendation. If the Commission wants staff to identify that the Commission was leaning more towards denial, staff wants to identify an accurate report to the City Council. If the Commission desires to deny the ordinance, it can do so by Minute Order, and staff can provide the minutes as well as articulate the Commission's concerns to the City Council in the staff report. If the Commission does nothing within the ninety (90) days then the ordinance is deemed that it is a positive recommendation, even if the Commission does not take action. :3r'd Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Smith to deny Resolution No. 4358, by minute order. Motion failed 2-3. Planning Commissioner Ayes — Lumbard, Mason, Smith, Planning Commissioner Nces — Kozak and Minutes—Planning Commissnn March 2T,2018—Page 15 of 17 Thompson. REGULAR BUSINESS: 5. 2017 LEGISLATIVE HOUSING PACKAGE Received& In 2017, Governor Brown signed into law fifteen (15) legislative Ned. housing bills into a "housing package" to address housing supply and affordability issues throughout the State of California. These bills provide for new and increased funding for housing, regulatory reform that streamlines local project approval processes and holds jurisdictions accountable for the lack of housing construction. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file the report. Motion; Received and filed. Dove Presentation given. Nome. STAFF CONCERNS: COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason thanked staff for all of their hard work on the agenda reports, She attended the California Preservation Foundation training in Long Beach on March 23, 2018. Lumbard Lumbard thanked staff for all of their hard work on the agenda reports. Special thanks to Jerry Craig! Happy Easter! Thompson Thompson echoed favorable comments to staff. Resuming teaching again at Cal Poly Pomona the week of March 27, 2018. Thompson will be attending a ULI program in Detroit, Mi. He may be resuming school in the summer as well. Kozak Kozak echoed favorable comments to staff on the agenda reports. 3/19: Email policy training. 3/21: DCCSP/RHSP Briefing Discussion. 3/24: Orange County Animal Shelter Grand Opening at the Tustin Legacy. Happy Easter! Smith Smith also echoed favorable comments to staff on the agenda reports. Minuies—Planning Commission Mare 27, 2018 —Page 16 of 17 9:43 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, April 10, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Coundi Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. ~- RYDER TCDD SMITH Chairperson LIZ48ETH A. BiNSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Planning Commission March 27.2019—Page 17'of 17 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 2018 7:05 p.a), CALL TO ORDER: Binsack called the meeting to order and asked for nominations for a temporary Chair. It was moved by Mason, seconded by Thompson to elect Commissioner Lumbard as the temporary Chair. Motion passed. Given, 1NVOCATiONIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson ROLL CALL: Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Thompson EXCUSED ABSENCES: Chair Smith and Chair Pro Tem Kozak None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —MARCH 27, 2018 Minutes of the March RECOMMENDATION: 27, 2018 Planning That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the March 27, Commission 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. meeting. Motion: it was moved by Mason, seconded by Thompson, to approve the Minutes of the March 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 3-0-2. PUBLIC HEARING: Thompson Thompson recused himself due to a conflict, but remained seated at the dais in order to maintain a quorum. Binsack Binsack informed the Commission that Chair Pro Tem Kozak had a family medical issue and would not be present at the meeting. Therefore, there was not a sufficient number of Commissioners to make a recommendation on Item#2. Due to a lack of quorum, this item was continued to April 24, 2018. Due to lack of 2, ORDINANCE NO, 1497 APPROVING ZONE CHANGE (ZG)-2018- W11111m, the 00,102 FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL item was CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-12), AMENDMENT OF THE TUSTIN continued to a date certain— CITY CODE RECISION OF FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SP- April 24, 2018. 10) AND CERTAIN PLANNED COMMUNITIES AND, AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ZONING MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA)-2018-00001 INCLUDING TEXT AMENDMENTS Minutes—Planning Commission April 10.2018--Page 1 of 3 AND AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN EXHIBITSIMAPS; FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT AS ADEQUATE REQUEST: The Tustin City Council directed that the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) be prepared to provide a new regulatory framework for existing and future land development in the Specific Plan area. The DCCSP would replace the existing zoning and general plan designations on the properties within the Specific Plan area. The DCCSP is intended to establish the long-term vision with goals and objectives to create a vibrant; cohesive, connected, livable, and memorable city core. The key components include: establishing commercial and mixed-use (residential and commercial) land use regulations for the area, promoting pedestrian-oriented commercial first floor development to invigorate the area and expand walkability; transforming streets through future streetscape, roadway, pedestrian and bicycle-oriented improvements; drawing more patrons to Old Town by embracing, preserving and promoting its unique historic character; maintaining a commercial emphasis for the project area; and introducing the possibility for high-quality integrated residential mixed-use and focused multi-family development. ENVIRONMENTAL: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project and is attached to the report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4363) finding: 1) that the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is adequate; 2) that General Plan Amendment (GPA)-2018- 00001 be approved, including text amendments and amendments to certain exhibits/maps; and, 3) that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1497 approving Zone Change (ZC)-2018-00002 including adoption of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (SP-12), amendment of the Tustin City Code, rescission of the First Street Specific Pian (SP-10) and certain planned communities and, amendment of the City of Tustin Zoning Map. None. REGULAR BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCERNS: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Minutes—Planning Commission April 10,2018—Page 2 of 3 COMMISSION CONCERNS: Thompson Thompson attended the following events: a 415: Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting + 418: 55`� Anniversary at EI Toro 417: Walking Tour of Old Town Tustin Mason Mason participated in the California Preservation Foundation webinar held at City Hall, Community Development Department, on April 11, 2018, Lumbard Lumbard had no concerns. 7:10 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, April 2.4, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Austin Lumbar.[! Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BIN AGK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes - Planning Carninission App 10 2018 - Page 3 of 3 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 2018 7.05 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Smith I NVGCATIONIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE All present. ROLL CALL: Chair Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Thompson The Commission 1. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION reorganized as follows. As a matter of standard procedure, the Planning Commission reorganizes once per year by appointing a new Chairperson and Chair Lumbard Chairperson Pro Tem, Chair Pro Tem Kozak RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro Tem pursuant to standard procedures. Motion, Kozak nominated Lumbard as Chairperson. It was seconded by Thompson. It was moved by Smith, to appoint Lumbard as Chairperson. Motion carried 5-0. M'oti'on: 1) Lumbard nominated Kozak as Chair Pro Tem 2) Smith nominated Mason as Chair Pro Tem. Per the first motion, it was seconded by Thompson to appoint Kozak as Chair Pro Tem. Per the second nomination, it was seconded by Kozak to appoint Mason as Chair Pro Tem. Bobak Bobak advised the Commission to take a vote on the first motion and if it passes, then the second motion would be assumed to fail. Motion. Per the first motion, the votes were as follows: Ayes -- Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Thompson l Nay— Smith_ Motion carried 4-1. As a result of the first motion, the second motion failed. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —APRIL 10, 2018 Consent Calendar. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the April 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Minutes— PianninQ Commission April 24.2018—Page 1 of 10 3. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS Received and The following report provides a summary of projects and activities since filed the year in review report was presented at the January 23, 2098, Planning Commission meeting, The report focuses on the status of projects that the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or staff approved; major improvement projects; Certificates of Appropriateness; Code Enforcement activities; and, other items which may be of interest to the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file this item. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Smith, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Lumbard requested that Item #5 be moved ahead of Item #4 due to there being several speaker forms and supplemental items brought to the dais for discussion of Item#A. 7,13 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing Item#5, Lumbard requested confirmation from staff that there was a request from the applicant to continue the item to the next regular meeting of May 8, 2018. Binsack Binsack confirmed that the applicant did submit a request for continuation of the item (via email) to Hutter the day prior to the meeting. An updated staff report was also provided to the Commission with the packets provided. T14 p,m. Opened/Closed the Public Comments Section. PUBLIC HEARING: S. DESIGN REVIEW 2018-00007 Item continued to A request to stare a recreational vehicle on the existing residential the May 8, 2098 driveway in front of the attached garage and install a vinyl gate across Planning the driveway to screen the recreational vehicle from public view. Commission meeting. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Christine Coursen P_O. Box 4087 Tustin, CA 92781 LOCATION: 1461 Garland Avenue Minutes—Planning Cam mission April 24, 20 4 8 Page 2 of 10 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4364 denying Design Review (OR) 2018-00007 to authorize installation of a vinyl gate to screen recreational vehicle storage in front of the garage from public view. The subject property is located at 1461 Gariand Avenue. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard to continue the item, as requested by the applicant, seconded by Mason, to the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Reso. 4, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: ORDINANCE NO. 1497 No. 4363, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE (ZC)-2018-00002 FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP- 12), AMENDMENT OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE, RECISION OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-10) AND CERTAIN PLANNED COMMUNITIES AND, AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ZONING MAP; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA)-2018-00001 INCLUDING TEXT AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN EXHIBITS/MAPS; FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT AS ADEQUATE REQUEST: The Tustin City Council directed that the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) be prepared to provide a new regulatory framework for existing and future land development in the Specific Plan area. The DCCSP would replace the ex€sting zoning and general plan designations on the properties within the Specific Plan area. The DCCSP is intended to establish the long-term vision with goals and objectives to create a vibrant, cohesive, connected, livable, and memorable city core. The key components include: establishing commercial and mixed-use (residential and commercial) land use regulations for the area, promoting pedestrian-oriented commercial first floor development to invigorate the area and expand walkabiiity; transforming streets through future streetscape, roadway, pedestrian and bicycle-oriented improvements; drawing more patrons to Old Town by embracing, preserving and promoting its unique historic character; maintaining a commercial emphasis for the project area; and introducing the possibility for high-quality integrated residential mixed- use and focused multi-family development. ENVIRONMENTAL: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project and is attached to the report Minutes-Planning commission April 24, 2018- Page 3 of 10 RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4363)finding: 1) that the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project is adequate; 2) that General Plan Amendment (GPA)-2018- 00001 be approved, including text amendments and amendments to certain exhibits/maps; and, 3) that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1497 approving Zone Change (ZC)-2018-00002 including adoption of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (SP-12), amendment of the Tustin City Code, rescission of the First Street Specific Plan (SP-10) and certain planned communities and, amendment of the City of Tustin Zoning Map. Thompson recused himself from discussion of the item since he owns property in the Downtown area. Binsack Binsack identified the individuals involved in providing their input and review relating to the project documents, along with identifying the numerous people involved in the project (i.e. Public Warks, Tustin Police Department, Orange County Fire Authority, City Planning staff). She also provided the background history on the project. She introduced Mr, Kraut, EPD Solutions, to provide information regarding the Specific Plan portion of the item and Ms. Dobreva, EPD Solutions, to provide information regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ogdon, Jeremy Dana Ogdon, Assistant Director — Building, Mr. Jeremy Kraut, and Ms. Kraut, and K onnie Konnie' Dobreva, EPD Solutions, provided a PowerPoint presentation, Dobreva which included an overview of the project to the Commisslon. Presentation Ogdon provided responses to the concerns from a letter dated April 23, given. 2018, which was received after the review period, and was provided at the dais. An errata was also provided at the dais which included a number of comment letters and emails received since advertisement of the documents, along with responses to those comments that were received after the Planning Commission packets were distributed. Binsack Binsack recommended to the Commission that the Chair open the Public Hearing portion of the item in order to take in the public comments on the item, 8:07 p.m. Public Comments Section Opened, Mr. Thomas Penna's, business owner in the Downtown area, comments/concerns generally included: parking (short/long term); parking needs good management during Old Town growth; supports diagonal parking; thanked City staff for discussing his concerns with parking; and expedite the one-way construction to increase parking spots. Minutes-Planning Commission April 24,2018-Page 4 of 10 Mr. Mark Wendel's, Kimco Realty, comments/concerns generally included: provided a letter to staff on April 24, 2018 for the Commission to consider; interested and in support of the DCCSP and mixed-use; provided recommendations to staff; supports diagonal parking on First Street; commented on funding sources and hopes for a balanced approach to funding with the City participating financially; and would like to work with the City to find a balance between public/private funds. Ms. Pam Neil's commentslconcerns generally included*. felt notification was not adequate; and pedestrian oriented environment may not be conducive with existing uses in the Specific Plan area. Mr. Guy Castillo, owner of Procon Development, spoke on the economic opportunities within the City to increase jobs and revenue, especially for the business owners and home owners and he was in support of the project. Mr. Aliso Rosetti, Roma D'Italia restaurant owner, voiced his concerns as follows: spoke of impracticality of the plan; referred to the City of Lancaster's downtown plan from ten (10) years ago and financial analysis and lack thereof for the DCCSP; did not think there has been enough of an analysis on the plan; he desired to hear from other professionals, other than Planning staff, on the plan; and he referred to the City of Pasadena's "road diet plan". Mrs. Kimberly Wilson stated she would like impacts to be analyzed beyond project boundaries (i.e. traffic) because she felt the neighborhoods will be impacted with traffic and parking. Mr. Bruce Wilson would like the DCCSP to be developed in phases because the streets are already congested and he voiced his concern with the larger developers. Ms. Gwen Masters', owner of Scooter's, concerns were as follows: impact to delivery trucks; referred to the Storytime article from the Tustin News,- she ews;she asked if a budgetary impact study was done; the City should work with the Chamber of Commerce to make a more business friendly city; and "promoting the existing enterprises to grow and find current sales opportunities is more valuable than having a uniform look similar — "if we wanted to live in Irvine, we would move to Irvine". Mr. Mark Masters, owner of Scooter's, voiced his concem with diagonal parking and he suggested keeping the parallel parking in order for people to be able to see oncoming traffic. Mr. Amold Surfas, Surfas LTD Furriers business owner, generally commented on the following; likes the friendly look to the Downtown area; concern with diagonal parking; suggested Class 3 bike lane; referred to Belmont Shore and Santa Ana's bike lane and narrowing of the streets; he asked how many spaces would be gained with diagonal parking, handicap, and loading zones; and he asked what the physical impact to street. Minutes--Planning Commission Apsii 24,2018—Page 5 of 10 reclassification would be. Ms. Tammie Bullard's comments/concerns generally included: dynamics along First Street and types of existing businesses along First Street; people need their cars to drop off/pick up due to the types of businesses on First Street and the businesses are not pedestrian oriented; will create major traffic and incidents; and safety concerns with emergency vehicles. Mr. Feinstein's comments/concerns generally included: he shared the City's enthusiasm in the growth and success of Downtown businesses, visitors, patrons, etc.; he stated he was concerned with parking in the Downtown area during weekdays and added that parking is deficient and there needs to be solutions; and increasing walkability and pedestrian friendliness seems like worthwhile goals. Mr. Eric Perez's favorable comments included: in favor of the DCCSP; the DCCSP will increase businesses and property values of homes; referred to the cities of Orange and Anaheim and their downtown areas and how successful their businesses and homes have done; this project will help other businesses: and he commented that Downtown area should not be a ghost town after dark. Ms. Nancy Schumar's, Saddleback Chapel, comments/concerns generally included: main concern about the median strip; traffic would prevent oncoming traffic from entering the public parking area and her patrons frequent local stores, bars, etc.; traffic will be impacted along El Camino; what data is being used to determine the reconfiguration of pedestrian/bike pathways; parklets and gathering areas; and concern with the impact to residential area. Mr. Lindburgh McPherson's favorable comments included: he was in favor of the overall DCCSP; move the Item forward to get the ball rolling: good for the community and for Tustin; and a step in the right direction. Ms. Colly Van Dyken, business owner of El Camino Pet Grooming, wants the yellow curb retained in front of her store, which helps with her elderly customers. She also asked how the diagonal parking would affect her customers. 8:45 p.m. Closed the Public Comment Section. Mason Mason asked about the following, in general: what the Specific Plan does and why this Specific Plan; she wanted confirmation that when developers come to the City with plans that there is an opportunity to review those plans (i.e. Planning Commission); she asked if the Specific Plan would regulate parking; did the Tustin Police Department and Orange County Fire Authority reviewed this plan; and if staff would elaborate on the impact to the Cultural Resources District. Minutes-Planning Commission April 24,2018—Page 6 of 10 Binsack In response to Mason's question regarding what the Speck Plan does, Binsack stated the following, in general, the City has been approached by various business owners asking the City to infuse more revitalization into the Downtown area; the City has conducted a piecemeal approach (i.e. landscape improvements, diagonal parking, signage, street fairs, improvements with trees, etc.); the City's desire here is to address the matter in a more comprehensive approach; early on in the process (i.e. workshops), many residents/business owners claimed they needed help with their business (due to the lack of); and expanded the boundary area; in response to why this Specific Plan, Binsack stated the following; the DCCSP does not approve a specific development plan but, if approved by the City Council, it would certify an FIR which is a significant proposal; it does not modify the underlying zoning of any of the lands -- all will still remain commercial; it proposes the opportunity for residential, where residential never existed before; she referred to the Vintage project, which received a significant benefit — General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change and the City of Tustin is benefitting from that; the DCCSP proposes to allow flexibility along First Street and Newport Avenue; at this point in time, there is no shortage of public parking currently in Downtown area and allows flexibility along First Street, Fl Camino and Main Street; maintenance fee for parking in the Downtown area;'the technical advisory committee did review the plan; the plan is not intended to promote a City of Irvine experience, as previously stated by Ms. Masters, and that the Cultural Resources District proposes the same guidelines, to ensure the sensitivity particularly in the near historical heart of the Downtown area; and standards may be slightly different along Newport Avenue, Centennial Way, First Street, etc. Smith Smith invited Lt. Manny Arzata to speak on the topic of traffic review. He also asked staff what the timeline is for the DCCSP to "roll out" if approved and if there were any comments on "road diets". Lt. Manny Arzate Lt. Manny Arzate, North Area Commander, stated that in the discussions with staff and the traffic supervisor, it is the Tustin Police Department's opinion that the proposed project will not affect response times. The City of Tustin has one of the lower response times in the County which is approximately four (4) minutes compared to the national standard which is ten (1 Q) minutes. He added that one of the advantages is the proximity of the Downtown area to the Tustin Police station which helps keep response times down. Arzate's final comment was that the DCCSP will impact Tustin Police Department very minimally, as far as response times. Smith Smith asked Binsack if the DCCSP is approved, would the City undertake a subsequent parking plan that will specifically address the roll out of the pacing of how the City is going to conduct the parking changes or if it is going to be handed off to staff, in the next five (5) years. Smith also asked the consultants what the typical timeline would be for a project tike this to roll out. He also asked if there were any negative comments regarding road diets, in other cities, where they have failed or succeeded. Minutes—Planning Commission Apr l 24,2018—Page 7 of 10 Binsack in response to Smith's questions, Binsack referred to the Conceptual Plan the City has undertaken a more significant design and analysis of the narrowing and modification of Main Street. She added that with respect to First Street, it is very conceptual in nature at this point in time, as well as the one way streets. Binsack also added that City staff can take into consideration comments made and reach out to those individuals, with regards to those design plans, as well. She also stated that the City can take a look at the reference to the yellow curb loading areas, etc, at that time as well. In response to Smith's questions, Jeremy Krout, EPD Solutions stated that it is going to be a variable situation. It could be a 20 year build out, depending on the real estate market, any development process, typically, without a plan like this, is risky, time consuming and often fought with problems. Krout added that if the real estate market continues to improve, there is-a good foundation for build-on so the DCCSP could take five (5) to ten (10) years or sooner. Per the road diets, Krout stated he was not involved with the City of Pasadena so he could not speak on the topic. He referred to his experiences, specifically with the City of San Luis Obispo, where he grew up, and the changes made to that downtown area, were positive. With the DCCSP being presented, the overall long-term improvements to the DCCSP area would be positive. Kozak Kozak's final comments generally included: he thanked everyone in attendance along with their input and concerns; he added that this is a long-term vision plan with goals and objectives to revitalize Tustin's traditional commercial core and create a vibrant, cohesive and livable commercially oriented downtown; Kozak added that the workshops previously conducted generated the vision, goals and objectives that were articulated by the attendees and included by the Planning staff into the DCCSP; any project that comes through to the City will have to go through the design review process and will have to follow the guidelines within the Specific Plan; and this plan is in the best interest of Tustin and the Downtown Commercial Core. Mason Mason reiterated her support of the DCCSP and that staff should continue to work with the community. She added that it is apparent, by those present, that there is love for the City and that everyone wants to do what is right. Mason would like to see more businesses in the Downtown area and she made favorable comments about the Downtown area. She made a motion to approve the item as recommended by staff, Lurnbard Lumbard reiterated comments/concerns previously mentioned by the speakers, which generally included; parking; drivability to businesses that rely on those customers; public safety;. funding — who is paying for all of this; First Street existing businesses and whether or not the City is trying to replace those businesses; median strips; yellow curbs; bicycle lanes; diagonal parking, and park lets and who is going to occupy those park lets, All of these concerns go into the implementation of the plan and how the City rolls out and the goals set in this plan. Lumbard thanked the public speakers for their feedback and shares their concern with parking. He was Minutes—Planning Commission April 24,2018—Page 8 of.t Q in support of the project and he reminded the audience that this was a City Council initiated effort in order to make Tustin better, and this plan does just that. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Kozak to adopt Resolution No. 4363. Motion carried 4-6-1. Thompson abstained from the vote. Binsack Binsack informed the audience that the item would again be noticed for a public hearing and will likely go to the City Council at the second meeting in June. She added that City staff wants to reach out to those individuals that provided public interest. Also, Binsack stated that staff may be able to make some modifications that are not substantive, due to the errata brought forward to the Commission. Binsack added that staff will also be posting the notice on the City's website. Lumbard Lumbard also asked that the notice be emailed to those speakers present, if they provided emails. Binsack Per Binsack, anybody who has shown public interest, that is not within the public notification, is not on the list, or if they want to provide that information separate and apart from what staff has received that evening, staff will reach out to them. Kozak Kozak asked if the comments/concerns previously made would be addressed at the June City Council meeting. Binsack Per Binsack, many of the comments were received last minute and staff will provide comprehensive responses for the City Council's meeting. Staff will also identify additional concerns identified by the Planning Commission as well. 9:16pm Lumbard requested a five(5) minute recess. 9:23pm Meeting reconvened. None. REGULAR BUSINESS. Binsack Binsack had no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason had the opportunity to travel to the Middle East. Parking should be a topic of discussion in all future discussions. Thanked former Chair Smith and the newly appointed Chair Lumbard. Kudos to Chair Pro Tem Kozakl Smith Smith appreciated and thanked his fellow Commissioners with regards to the diversity of viewpoints. Minutes—PGanning Commission April 24, 2018—Page 9 of 10 Kozak Kozak thanked staff and the consultant team for doing a terrific job with regards to the Program EIR and Traffic Study. He attended the following: • 3131 Annual Easter Egg Hunt 4/17 OCTA Citizens Advisory Lombard Lumbard attended the following events: • 4111 The Flight Open House • 4112-14 Solvang trip with his family (beer gardens, wineries walkable community) * 4117 Principal for a Day at Columbus Tustin Middle School ■ 4118 ATEP Campus ribbon cutting 4122 Earth Day Upcoming event: • 4129 Blue Buoy Swim School -Water Safety Challenge from 10:00 a.m. to 2:09 p.m. Congratulations for Chair Pro Tem Kozak and thank you to former Chair Smith for your year of service. 9:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, May 8, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Thompson requested that the meeting be closed in honor of his Aunt Faye Frederickson's 95th birthday, which was on April 23, 2078. AUSTIN LtJMtARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes -Planning Commission April 24, 201.3- Page, 10 of 10 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 8, 2018 7:01 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Kozak All present. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Smith, Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: Ms. Linda Jennings comments/concerns generally included: The Hewes house, the first and only home in Tustin, will be placed on the National Register of Historic Places; she provided background informatlon, establishment and duties regarding the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee (aka: Historic Resource Committee) (CRAG); the Tustin City Council dissolved the State mandated Committee and assigned the duties to the Planning Commission; the State Historic Preservation Office, has changed its position and does not authorize cities to combine Historic Resource Committees with their Planning Commission; the City of Tustin is one (1) of only two (2) cities in the state with this set up; and she requested that the City Council reinstate the Historic Resource Committee as required in the designation of the Cultural Resource Overlay District mandated by the State Office of Historic Preservation. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—APRIL 24, 2018 Minutes of the April 24, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the April 24, meeting. 2018 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason to approve the Minutes of the April 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:08 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing Section. 2. DESIGN REVIEW 2018-00007 Adopted Reso, APPLICANT/ No, 4354. PROPERTY OWNER: Christine Coursen P.O. Box 4087 Tustin, CA 92781 Minutes—Planning Commission May S. 2018—Page 1 of 8 LOCATION: 1461 Garland Avenue REQUEST: A request to store a recreational vehicle on the existing residential driveway in front of the attached garage and install a vinyl gate across the driveway to screen the recreational vehicle from public view. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4364 denying Design Review (DR) 2018-00007 to authorize storage of a recreational vehicle (RV) within the required backup area for an existing two-car garage and installation of a vinyl gate across the existing driveway to screen a recreational vehicle stored in front of the garage from public view, on a property located at 1461 Garland Avenue. Hutter Presentation given. Thompson Thompson asked staff if there is currently any other home in the applicant's neighborhood that has successfully screened a RV whether by permit from the City or a variance. Hutter Hutter was not aware of an RV that was explicitly approved for storage in the applicant's neighborhood_ 715p.m. Opened the Public Comment Section. Coarsen Ms. Christine Coursen, applicant, spoke in opposition of the recommendation and provided her comments (in writing) to the Commission. Her comments/co rice Fns generally included the following: initially, Code Enforcement cited the applicant stating the fence was not acceptable; she spoke to a City supervisor and paid for her permit to have a temporary fence; she stated the City told her she needed to apply for a variance which was $3,000 therefore she did not apply for one; the possibility of parking the RV parallel in front of her property; she clamed that she did not request that her item be continued to this meeting versus the April 24, 2018 meeting -- she simply agreed to have the item be continued being that the DCCSP item was being presented at that meeting; and she felt the TCC was not specific as to whether or not the fence had to be permanent or temporary. Minutes—Planning Cpmrnission May 8,2018 Page 2 of 8 Thompson Thompson's comments generally included: he asked if there was a discussion with City staff regarding the temporary fence and if it would satisfy the TCC; he asked ff the City has information on an approved type of fence; referred to the neighbors (Ms. Hudler) driveway and if her fence is acceptable or permitted; and Ms. Hudler has a corner lot therefore no issue with limiting access to the garage and is not encroaching in the required setbacks that was explained earlier in the Power Point presentation. Coarsen After discussion with City staff, Ms. Coursen stated that Staff indicated the temporary fence is not sufficient because there was concern the fence would blow over. It was her understanding she could have a temporary fence because the TCC states a permit is not required for a temporary fence. Hudler Ruby Hudler, resident of 13071 Red Hill Avenue, spoke in favor of the applicant's request. She provided information with regard to her side yard (located on Garland Avenue) which includes a long driveway for RV access and her main driveway access being from Red Hill Avenue. Ms. Hudler stated that when she purchased her home, the fence was made of wood, so she paid approximately $37.00 for an Administrative Permit in order to install a vinyl gate. She felt the applicant's temporary fence looked similar to her fence. Mason Mason asked that if the fence was installed and there was no RV, would the applicant be required to file for a variance. Willkom Willkom stated that most of the homes on Garland Avenue do not have six (6) foot high fences in the front yard. Fences are typically installed along the side yard with side gates. With regards to Ms. Hudler's fencing on her corner lot property, the side gates were installed and permits obtained because they fit the requirement of her property, which is different from what is being proposed by the applicant. The fencing the applicant is proposing would be covering the majority of the front of the property, not just the side yard. Ms. Willkom also added that the proposed fencing is not typical and appropriate for the home, particularly in that neighborhood. Kozak Kozak referred to Ms. Coursen's April 20, 2018 letter included in the staff report with reference to the purchase of a new Sprinter to replace the RV and asked how it fits into the application. Coursen Ms. Coursen stated that after speaking with Brad Steen, Code Enforcement Officer, as long as she used the Sprinter as her primary vehicle that the City would make an exception to it being in her driveway. She added that at least four (4) other properties in the neighborhood are similar to her property. Thompson Thompson also asked if the Sprinter would fit inside her garage. Minutes—Ptanning Commission May 8,2018—Page 3 of 8 Coarsen Per Ms. Coursen, the van is nine (9) feet tall and would not fit inside her garage since she uses the garage for storage. During discussion between the applicant and Commission, staff provided aerial views of the applicant and neighbor's property via Google Maps in order for the Commission and audience to gain a better understanding of the property and fencing. Smith Smith asked for clarification with regards to the Sprinter and the parallel parking location from the garage to the street. Coarsen Ms. Coursen referred to the photos on the back of the April 20, 2018 letter which shows the Sprinter would be in front of the house, which is approximately nine (9) feet from the garage door up against the house. She stated she prefers to not have to park it in front of the garage door due to the difficulty of maneuvering it, but that it is possible. Thompson Thompson asked what the front yard setback requirements were as well as the side yard area. He also asked about the garage setback, which faces Garland Avenue. Coursen Ms. Coursen stated that the front yard setback requirements are twenty (20) feet and that the setback for the proposed fence is also twenty (20) feet. As for the garage setback, Ms. Coursen stated it was twenty-two (22) feet and the door opens up into the driveway not towards the street. Hutter Per Nutter, typically the garages that do face the street there will be approximately twenty (20) feet between the garage and the property line. Thompson Thompson asked if there would then be an opportunity to park the RV screening in front of the street side of the garage because the setback is supposed to be there. Hutter Huffer confirmed Thompson's previous statement. Coursen Ms. Coursen stated she would be willing, if preferred by the Commission, to change the location of the garage door by moving from the side to the front of the house, but that the setback would took exactly the same, She also offered to move her driveway. Kozak Kozak asked staff about access for emergency services personnel and how that would factor into the fence being considered. KriJtkom Per VVillkom, if there is an emergency, it would be another hurdle for emergency personnel would have to go through if there is a fence along the front of the house. 7:36 p.m. Public Comment Section Closed. Minutes--Planning Commission May 8,201 B--Page 4 of 8 Lumbard Lumbard asked staff the setbacks previously discussed, pertaining to the Tustin City Code, He asked if the fence would have to completely block the RV from the street. Bohak The fence does not have to be as high as the recreational vehicle. The City has historically not interpreted that code requirement to mean that the fence has to be at least as high as the RV but at least at the required minimum of six(6) feet. Lumbard Lumbard asked if the design review envision a six (6) foot high fence. He clarified to his fellow Commissioners that they were to address the aesthetics and setbacks. Wrllkom Per Willkom, there are two (2) main issues: 1) the storage location is blocking the access to the garage, 2) aesthetics — a fence or gate across the property line blocking the view of the home is not consistent with the design and style of the home in the neighborhood, and itis not compatible and appropriate. Bobak Bobak's final comment was that Commission was to consider the aesthetics and the intrusion into the setback areas. She also stated that staff could provide a Google Map view of the surrounding properties, if the Commission was so inclined. Mason Mason's final clarification question was that the Commission is deciding on the intrusion into the set back if a six (6) foot gate is allowed and it is properly placed. She did not see any reason to approve the variance given the level of detail. Lumbard Lumbard defined the item that the Commission is to consider based on the setbacks listed on Pages 32-34 of the agenda packet. He also asked staff to confirm that the applicant did not request a variance and that this was for a CR only, Hutter Per Huffer, in response to Lumbard's question, the applicant did not request a variance and that the Commission is to consider the DR only. Binsack Per Binsack, as a point of clarification, based on what has been presented to the Commission, a variance is needed but one was not requested. The purpose of bringing this item before the Commission was that Staff included findings for denial of the variance for the Commission's consideration Thompson Thompson voiced his eeesi concern with the site limitations and setbacks. It appears the neighbor, Ms. Hudler, does not have the same situation. He referred to the TCC and that the proposed item violates the TCC. Encouraged the applicant to look at a different configuration, Minutes-Planning Commission May 8, 2018-Page 5 of 8 Kozak Kozak's final comments were that he was sympathetic to the applicant's request, but the City has rules, setbacks and other requirements.. Kozak supported the recommended action. He suggested that if the applicant is going to purchase the Sprinter, work with staff on a temporary solution. Smith Smith asked staff what the recourse is for the applicant to make a formal determination about whether or not a new van conversion qualifies as an RV or not. &nsack Binsack stated she could follow up with the applicant, or the Code Enforcement Supervisor could, being that the applicant has already met with Brad Steen, Code Enforcement Officer, to review the specifications of the Sprinter or RV. Lumbard Lumbard°s final comments included the following in general: trying to treat the applicant fairly; echoed comments his fellow Commissioners stated; and he encouraged the applicant to work with staff to find a solution. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Smith to adopt Resolution No. 4364. Motion carried 5-0. w1flkom Willkom stated that there is a ten ('10) day appeal period should the applicant want to appeal the item via the City Council. 7.49 p,m. Closed the Public Hearing Item, REGULAR BUSINESS: 3. WORKSHOP — HISTORIC PRESERVATION Receiver!and The purpose of this workshop is to highlight the City's programs to riled the item. protect and revitalize historic structures, sites, and features within Tustin and to provide the Commission with an update on the status of the City's historic preservation programs and the Commission's efforts to date, Many of these programs were implemented in conjunction with the City's recognition as a Certified Local Government in Historic Preservation. Reekstin Presentation given. Thompson Thompson had favorable comments for Reekstin for a great presentation. Kozak Kozak echoed Thompson's comments along with the presentation being a refresher course. Masan Mason stated the presentation was a great overview and she asked why more people were not taking advantage of the Mills Act Program. She asked staff if the City would consider any other publication soliciting the Mills Act Program (i,e. Pacebook or Next Door). Minutes—Planning Commission May 8,201 B--Page 6 of 6 Reekstin Per Reekstin, he thought some people were very private, and maybe did not want inspectors inspecting their property and going through the process, but there are also residents who hear about it via word of mouth and therefore take action. Smith No comments. L.umhard Favorable comments for Reekstin The item was received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission of the following: • Kudos to Staff since the Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines were prepared in-house. Received an American Planning Association Awards for both documents. • City Staff will be receiving an award for updating the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. • May 9, 2018 -Wally Karp Memorial at City Hall at 5:30pm. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason made favorable comments to staff for the many historic education programs provided. Good job Reekstinl Smith No concerns. Thompson Thompson congratulated the Jennings Hewes House. He asked that the Cultural Resources District be added to a future consent item along with the Commission's role in the Cultural Resources District. He attended the following: ■ 4111 The Flight Tour • 4112 Tour with OCTA - Environmental Cleanup Allocation Committee meeting 4/16 Gentlemen's Haberdashery Heart of Jesus Retreat Center in Santa Ana ■ 4117 OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting • 4119 OC Real Estate Luncheon in Support of Veterans r 4120 Cal State Long Beach Mock Interviews for the Next Generation of Engineering Leaders 4120 TCA Plein Air Outdoor Event • Week of April 30'h - ULI Conference in Detroit ■ April Conference—"Affordable Housing" Binsack Per Thompson's comment on the Commission's role in the Cultural Resources District, Binsack stated that the City Council is going to add the item to the agenda for the City Council's consideration. Minutes—Planning Commission May 8, 2018—gage 7 of 8 Kozak Kozak thanked Reekstin for the presentation and congratulations to Steve and Linda Jennings on the National Register Recognition and to City Staff on the upcoming awards for the Tustin Legacy Community Specific Plan. Kozak attended the following events N 4/28 Disaster Preparedness Event (City Sponsored) « 5/5 "Dollars for Scholars" fundraiser for the TLlstln High and Foothill High Seniors. Lumbatcf Lurnbard attending the following events 5/2 Lumbard pailicipated in a BCA QC Next Gen I]anel 4128 CSC Brewers Guild in Newport Beach Happy Cinco De Mayo everyone? 8:25 ADJOURNMENT- The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way Closed in Honor of the Hewes Horse. AUSTIN LOM5ARD Chairperson de-F IZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary klinuies-Planning Commission May 8 2018-Page 8 of 8 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 22, 2018 7:00 p.rrr CALL TO ORDER Given, INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mason AN present. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Kozak, Lombard, Mason, Smith, Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR; Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 8, 2018 Minutes of the May 8, 2098 RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the May 8, 2018 meet0g, as Planning Commission meeting as provided. amended. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak to approve the Minutes of the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 7:02 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING- 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2018-00005 Adopted APPLICANT Dong He Yong Resolution No. Tustin Buffet, Inc. 4365. 17531 East Seventeenth Street Tustin, CA 02780 PROPERTY OWNER: Patti Byrne Greenwood & Mckenzie 440 West First Street Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION. 17631 East Seventeenth Street REQUEST. To sell alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 1011 uses—lalanrnF g Commission May 22, 2018- Page. 1 of 5 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4365 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2018-06005 to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption in conjunction with an existing restaurant establishment (Cafe China Super L alta) located at 17631 East Seventeenth Street. Aguilar Presentation given. Ti70i77p30r7 Thompson asked for elaboration on the complaints regarding odor that staff received prior to the meeting, as well as Air Quality Management District (AQMD) not having any record of previous complaints. He also asked what. the City's customary approach is with this type of complaint. Thompson also inquired as to whether or not the City has any code enforcement authority with regards to noise complaints. Binsack Binsack clarified Thompson's previous statement stating that AQMD did have records. In 2006, AQMD received an odor complaint therefore AQMD issued a Notice of Violation to the business owner. At that time, the owner approached the City and applied for a permit to have an air pollution control unit installed in the restaurant. Binsack explained that a permit was issued and finaied in 2008. She added that another odor complaint was filed in 2016 and that AQMD responded and found no violation. Binsack stated that if there are nuisance conditions, the City could identify that as code enforcement issues. She added that the City would rely on AQMD to provide assistance to staff. Minimal complaints have been filed over the last 18 years which Binsack did not believe constituted being a nuisance, particularly when AQMD did not find a violation existed in 2016. Smith Smith's questions generally included; what was the nature of the 2006 violation; was the air pollution control unit's filter designed for particulate mitigation in addition to odor mitigation; would it be atypical or inappropriate to condition the Conditionai Use Permit including a good standing with AQMD; and if someone were to operate a business that requires AQMD permitting, would staff check the AQEVID permit as part of issuing a business license to operate in the city. Binsack Binsack's response to Smith's questions generally included: in 2006 ANMD issued a Notice of Violation based on odor and as a result of that, the property owner came to the City and requested approval of the air pollution control unit that provides the filter; Binsack confirmed that the air pollution control unit's filter was designed for particulate mitigation in addition to odor rnitigation; conditioning the CUP is not what the Commission is considering but if the property owner was amenable to it, it could be included in the Conditions of Approval; and staff does check the AQMD permit as part of issuing a business license for someone to operate. Kozak Kozak asked Binsack if there is information that the air pollution control unit is in place and working properly. Minutes—Planning Commission May 22,2018—Page 2 n, 5 Billsock Binsack confirmed that the air pollution control unit is working properly and that the permit was finaled by the City. Smith To further clarify 6insack's response, Smith asked if the permit was finaled two (2) years ago when the unit was installed. He also asked if the carbon filters in the unit have to be replaced. Binsack Binsack stated that the permit was finaled in 2008- 7:11 p,m, Public Hearing Opened/Closed. The Commission deliberated further. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff about the issues raised in the supplemental provided prior to the meeting. The other issues/comments mentioned generally included: complaints received were that the restaurant is a public nuisance and that the hours of operation would change; suggested the Commission ask staff to follow up and make sure the CUP is in good order and if it is not, then the Commission has discretion (i.e. Condition 1.7 of the Conditions of Approval); wanted to ensure the hours of operation of the restaurant were not changing; asked Binsack if there were any code enforcement issues which there were none; stated that the applicant would stili be subject to the City's Noise Ordinance restrictions and if there were neighbors experiencing issues, they could contact the City; and he was in support of the item. Mason Mason referenced the complaint that indicated the restaurant being near a church then she referred to a section of the agenda report stating that it is a bona fide restaurant and is exempt from distance separation requirements to residential and sensitive uses, She was also in support of the item. Smith Smith wanted to ensure that there is language in the Conditions of Approval stating that if the applicant is out of compliance with AQMD's required permit, that they will address the issue. Lumbard In response to Smith's question, Lumbard's understanding of Condition 17 allows the Community Development Director to follow up with the applicant and if the business is becoming a nuisance, for a various number of reasons, the Community Development Director has the discretion to consider revoking the CUP if there are issues with the AQMD permit, Lumbard also asked that staff follow up with those residents that filed complaints prior to the meeting, Thompson Thompson added that the Orange County Health Department could also check in on the food preparation at the restaurant in order to ensure they are in compliance. If the Commission approves the item, there should also be an extra special assurance that there will be compliance to the concerns previously mentioned. Kozak Kozak's questions of staff generally included: to follow up with the applicant to ensure permits are current; if the apiAcant asked for the hours of operation to change; if there are any enforcement issues; and he also Mmutes Planning Commiss.aii May 22,2018-Page 3 of 5 requested that staff follow up on the AOMD permit to make sure it is in order. Motion: it was moved by Mason, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4365, Motion carried 5-07. Lu nbard Lumbard stated, for the public's benefit, that the item is appealable and there are ten (10) days to appeal. 715 p,n7. Closed the Public Hearing Item. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack did not have any concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason did not have any concerns. Smith Smith did not have any concerns Thompson Thompson attended the following events: May 17 ULI Local Council May -17`n • May 22 Board of Supervisors meeting May 24. Open House for the 1-5 Freeway Project at Tustin High School to discuss the widening of the 1-5 Freeway between the 4015 and the 55 freeways (i.e. noise abatement, aesthetics). Thompson referred to an article regarding a recent Measure passed by the State Legislature for California being the first State to mandate solar panels on new homes beginning in 20}207. Kozak Kozak attended the following events: 519: Wally Karp Memorial Ceremony • 5115; Successor Agency meeting • 5f23: Orange Section American Planning Association's Awards Ceremony where Community Development is a recipient of an award, Kozak thanked staff for all of thein hard work. Lombard Lumbard attended the Wally Karp Memorial Ceremony on May 9, 2018 and he wished all mothers a Happy belated Mother's Day. On May 18, 2018, 1-Urnbard's daughter, Aubrey, served as the honorary "bat kid" for the Anaheim Angelsll Minutes- Rlanni[Ig CO(Tinii%gion May 22, 2019—Rage 4 of 5 7 21 p.m, ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Closed the meeting in memory of Antonia "Toni"5uclla, a 40+year Tustin resident and Assistant City Attorney Lois Bobak's sister's mother--in-law. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson wELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Planning Commission May 22,2018—Page 5 of 5 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 26, 20118 7:03 p.m. CALL TOORDER Given, INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lumbard All present. ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Mason, Smith, Thompson PUBLIC CONCERNS: Thompson Thompson introduced some members in the audience, True Tamplan, who is part of an executive's mentorship program, along with Kevin and Sean Liam, students at USC and UCLA. 7:05 p.m. Opened/Closed the Public Concerns Section. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-- MAY 22, 2018 Minutes of the May 22, 2098 RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the May 22, meeting. 2018 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Mason to approve the Minutes of the May 22, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2018-02 PROPERTY OWNER/ Parke Miller APPLICANT: Lincoln Property Company 18200 Von Karman Ave., Suite 784 Irvine, CA 92512 LOCATION: 1700 through 1787 Flight Way REQUEST: A request to establish a master sign plan for the Flight at Tustin Legacy's Creative office development, Minutes—Planning Commission June 26,2018—Page 1 of 8 ENViRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311 (Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4355 approving CUP 2018,02 authorizing the establishment of a master sign plan for the Flight at Tustin Legacy office development. Hutter Presentation given. Thompson Thompson's questions/comments generally included: he asked if all signs would be illuminated or only the signs on the building and referred to Condition 2.7 which addresses illumination; he voiced his concern with regards to the higher signs (i.e. off of Barranca Parkway) illuminating towards the neighborhoods on the north side; he asked how the signs would be addressed for the businesses located within the development; and Thompson asked the applicant for the background on the proposed paper airplane sign being that the Legacy's arches represent the Hangar. Hutter In response to Thompson's questions, Hutter described the following, which generally included: there are different illumination applications and designs for the varying signs, some will be illuminated internally (i.e. the tenant monument signs will have a "soft glow" on the sides and the tenant names will also be illuminated.); the sculptural directional signs will have "edge" lighting on the paper airplane display and the other would simply be lighting the logo; the monument signs off of Barranca Parkway will not be seen by the residents to the north and the nearest residential is Aman development; and the tenant monument signage for the internal businesses are addressed in the Conditions of Approval, the applicant will submit a more refined copy at a later date. Smith Smith asked if there are any other rooftop approved signs in Tustin. Hutter Per Hutter, there are currently no other rooftop signs in Tustin. Mason Mason's comments/concerns generally included: the signage being different than what is customary but unique to the design of the building; she asked if there is a condition requiring a usage of the fonts and that the only unique branding of a company would be on the signage on the roof, that it would never appear on the art wall, would never appear on the signage and it would stay consistent regardless of the company or brand; and Mason asked if the landlord would ever be able to sell the art wall for commercial purposes or advertising. Hutter Hutter's response to Mason's questions generally included: that the master sign program does include specific fonts which were displayed throughout the sign program; the landlord does reserve the ability to approve a different font but primarily the font within the sign program will Minutes—Manning Commission Acne 26,2018—Page 2 of 8 be encouraged; the art tower would not be promoting a business or a product and would go through the design review process to see what images are being proposed; and Huffer confirmed Mason's statement that the landlord would never be able to sell the art wall for commercial purposes or advertising. Smith Smith referred to the signage and asked about the developer's flexibility to use other fonts, including colors (i.e. "Campbell's soup and Sera font"). Hatter In response to Smiths questions, Hutter referred to the staff report, which states that the developer's use of other fonts would be particularly for the tenant sign area, where as names and logos must be white, She added that corporate logo type names are permitted it approved by the building ownership association. Kozak Kozak voiced his concern with the rooftop signs (referred to Conditions No. 23 and 2.5). He asked how the two (2) rooftop signs would be monitored for maintenance and if there would be an inspection program. Also, Kozak asked if it would be up to the tenant or property owner regarding the maintenance of the rooftop signs. HLIUer Per Mutter, if it is brought to the City's attention, that the signs are not in good condition, then the City will follow up and pursue a remedy. 7:25 p.m. Opened up the Public Comments Section. Bishop John Bishop, JB3Q design firm, commented on the following, which generally included: favorable comments towards the City for working with him on the Flight project and sign program; the challenge of the building skins (i.e. tenant signs F sign companies, patched bricks, patched stucco); perforated patterns, metals and such are used on the buildings and his design firm's job is to make sure they protect the architecture; the rails, fins, tenant monuments, lighting will draw interest; the design/brand of the Tustin Legacy and the Hangers is iconic (the 2 arches resemble the Hangars) — purposely did not incorporate those; timeless font; wanted it to be sculptural; subtle reinforcement and the simplest form with the concept of Flight; installed the parking structure signage; and can see the sophistication, clean graphics. Mason Mason questioned the font used for the tenant name and if a national brand name were brought in, would the applicant defer to the tenant on what signage the tenant uses or would they encourage the tenant to use the existing font for consistency. Bishop Mr, Bishop's response to Mason's question generally included: the white font is consistent; he used examples - Apple Products could have the apple emblem on the sign in white, Campbell's Soup emblem could also be in white font on the sign; tenant monuments have one (1) font; allowing those brands (i.e. national/international) that typically have gone through a very detailed process to come up with a brand, it is important for them to be able to use it and for visitors to recognize who they are; it is Minutes--Planning Commission .lune 26,20,18—Page 3 of 8 purposefully done to allow flexibillty and to not allow damage to the buildings (i.e. fin faces would get replaced when a tenant moves out); the tenants at the Mess Hall have names listed on individual panels and creative brands which gives it extra visual texture; and the art towers do not have brands because they are intended to be art.. Smith Smith asked Mr. Bishop what involvement he had with the rooftop signage. Bishop Mr. Bishop's response to Smith's question generally included: the client wanted rooftop signage to be seen by airplanes (note: the rooftop signage cannot be seen from the ground); he has worked on similar rooftop signage near the Staple Center in Los Angeles; the client's desire is to keep the maintenance up on the signage. student A member from the audience, who did not fill out a speaker form, made favorable comments regarding the paper airplane signage and he asked how people would figure out it is a sign. He also asked if anything could be done to make the paper airplane more "sign-like Bishop In response to the previous questions, Bishop stated that there are a series of directional signs that have names and arrows pointing visitors driving in the right direction. The sign was intended to be a sculpture with a secondary directional sign and it was meant to be a whimsical creative piece. Mr. Bishop added that the directional signage will have reflective lettering (not lit). 7:42 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section, Thompson Thompson made favorable comments towards the sign program (i.e. size of signs impressive, addresses stand out, sensitivity to non-illumination to the residential side; rooftop signage). He was in favor of the sign program. Smith Smith echoed the favorable comments previously mentioned (i.e. simplicity of the fonts, logos, branding, loves the concept). He added that this is a marketing property being that it is within eye shot view of the John Wayne Airport. Smith also commented that this is a "gateway property to say this is where Tustin is" and asked the Commission if they would consider discussing that the City work with the developer about adding the City's Dago to the rooftop signage to recognize the City of Tustin. Binsack In response to Smith's previous comments, with regards to City logos, Binsack stated that if the Commission is desirous of Smith's recommendation, collectively, staff could present language to the Commission to amend the resolution to allow them an opportunity to delegate that responsibility to staff. A decision could be made then staff could work with the applicant on size, proportionality, etc, on the City logos being added. Minutes—P[anning Corn mission Juni;26,2018--Page 4 of 8 Lumbard Lumbard added clarification that the proposed amended item would not have to go to the City Council, unless it is approved by the Commission collectively. Binsack Binsack stated that it would not have to go to City Council, unless appealed by either a member of the public or the applicant. Thompson Thompson did not feel the Commission should be changing the applicant's idea. If the City wants logo identification, he suggested adding the City logo to the Blimp Hangar, and then the City could maintain it to ensure it stays true to form. Thompson was uncomfortable adding the City logo to a private landowner's building. Smith Smith then added that technically the applicant is not in a position to have signage on the rooftops, with the exception of the Commission's approval. Mason Mason was in favor of Smith's idea, and she thought the entire project was creative and unique, The.more flexibility, the more space to market the company or brand in various recognizable ways in order to attract tenants. She welcomed Smith's consideration on adding the City Logo to the rooftop signs. Mason was in support of the sign program, but did not want to hold up approval to the applicant, but add consideration to the developer of designating this to use an innovative approach to allowing the larger tenants to get exposure on the rooftops. Smith Smith did not want to hold up the approval process being that he was excited about the project moving forward. Lumbard Lumbard asked Smith to clarify whether he was suggesting the City's logo or City of Tustin (i.e. project name at Tustin Legacy) idea. Smith Smith deferred to staff to work with the applicant on the logo idea. Kozak Kozak thought Smith's idea was innovative, but he voiced his concern with the City logo or the City of Tustin's name next to a commercial advertisement'because it might appear to be an endorsement. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated that the Commission does not want to hold up the project and he encouraged staff/applicant to discuss City identification on the rooftops. If there is not, or the builder is not willing to do it, at least staff asked. But if there is, perhaps staff could be innovative. Smith Smith could not help but feel that this is an opportunity for staff to work with the applicant. Lumbard Lumbard was also in favor of encouraging staff and the applicant to discuss this idea further. Minutes-Planning Commission June 26,2018-Page 5 of 8 Bobak Per Bobak, since the idea is not included in the Master Sign Program, in order to have staff consider the issue and talk to the applicant a condition would have to be added to the Conditions of Approval, If the Commission, collectively, is considering the idea, the item could be brought back as a design review. Binsack Binsack added there is some language that staff can work out later but stili approve the plan, if the Commission is desirous of doing that, but give staff the opportunity to work with the applicant as well. At this point in time, nothing would have to be brought back to the Commission. Binsack read some verbiage to the Commission regarding incorporating rooftop signs. Lumbard Lumbard asked if the City has a review process for the rooftop signage as it currently stands, Binsack Sinsack confirmed that the City does currently have a review process for rooftop signage, but not with the City's logo which is why a condition would have to be added to the Conditions of Approval. Again she stated that nothing would come back to the Commission. As per the language within the resolution, the City would propose adding Condition No, 2.12 which would state: "that the rooftop signs shall incorporate the City of Tustin logo and/or City branding, if desired by the City. The location and size of the logo and/or branding shall be determined by the Community Development Director at the time of permit application. The associated Master Sign Program and/or graphics shall be amended accordingly'. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated that the Commission does not want to hold the project up over Smith's suggestion. Kozak Kozak was in favor of the program. He made favorable comments regarding the signs. 7:58 p.m. Re-opened the Public Comments Section. Applicant Per Mr. Bishop, if he asks the client to add the City sealllogo, it would have to be fairly big in order for people to read it. He suggested that staff and the applicant consider either having the word "Tustin" as the solution and/or maybe "Tustin Legacy". Mr. Bishop also would want the signs to be effective and affordable in its maintenance. The City seal would be tough to write and to keep maintained versus having "Tustin" and the scale of those word or words would be such that one could actually see it since the idea was to only have one (1) logo on the rooftops, per the client. 7:59 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Smith Smith commented on the language Binsack suggested could be added to the Conditions of Approval. Moutes-Planning commission June 26, 2018-Page 6 of 8 Binsack The addition of Condition No. 2.12 will state that the rooftop signs shall incorporate the City of Tustin logo and/or City branding, if desired by the City. The location and size of the logo and/or branding, shall be determined by the Community Development Director at the time of permit application. The associated graphics of the Master Sign Program shall be amended accordingly. L.umbard Lumbard asked Bobak if the words "if feasible" and "required or desired by the City" should be added to Conditions of Approval. Thompson Thompson's final comment is that he would want what can collaboratively be worked out between the City and the applicant. Motion: It was moved by Smith to adopt Resolution No. 4366, as amended. Seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 5-0. 8:03 p.m. Closed the Public Hearing. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the. Commission that the City Council approved the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan. There will also be more outreach with regards to whether or not First Street will be narrowed. Substantial modifications were made to the conceptual plan as well. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason No concems. IHOP did not change their name to IHOB. It was only a temporary name change, Smith No concerns. Thompson Thompson attended the following meetings/events: * 5/24: 1-5 Widening meeting ■ 6121: Mayor's Business Recognition Luncheon * 6121: Symposium to recognize UCI Professor Betty Olson * 6119: City Council Meeting - DCCSP - kudos to the public because they care about their community. * 719: Thompson's going back to school for six (6) months and a formal request has been submitted to the City Council, Kozak Kozak attended the following meetings/events: * 6/19: City Council meeting * 6121: Mayor's Business Recognition Luncheon Minutes--Planning Commission June 26,201E-Page 7 of 8 Kozak He has also been attending the Concerts in the Bark Kudos to Director Wilson and staff! Happy 4" of July everyone! Lumbard Lombard attended the following meetings/events: • 613: Tustin Street Fair & Chili Cookoff • 615: Annual classical dance center recital • 6121. Mayor's Business Recognition Luncheon 6/21- He participated in the world's largest swim lesson at Blue Buoy Lumbard asked that the meeting adjourn in celebration of Cole Kennon Gallagher's birthday (June 13, 2018). 8:15 P.M, ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, July 10, 2018, at 7.00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way, AUSTIN LOABARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A, BIKSACK Planning Commission Secretary hlini i[ns - ' '"rir^ C:.rmfrrsFinn June 26, 2018—Page 8 of 8 N MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2018 7:10 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Given, INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson Present, ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Mason and Thompson Absent. Commissioner Smith, None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: Approved the CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—JUNE 26, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting as provident. 2. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS The report provides a summary of projects and activities since the last summary of projects report was presented at the April 24, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. The report focuses on the status or projects that the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or staff approved; major improvement projects; Certificates of Appropriateness; Code Enforcement activities; and, other items which may be of interest to the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file this item. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Masan to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0-1. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-49 & DESIGN REVIEW Resolution No. (DR) 2017-408 4379, as amended. PROPERTY OWNER: Song Am, Inc. 1501 Nisson Road Tustin, CA 92780 Miourtes—Planning Commission August 14,2018—Page 1 of 15 APPLICANT: Sungwun Son Song Am„ Inc. 1501 Nisson Road Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1501 Nisson Road REQUEST: CUP 2097-09 and DR 2017-008 to convert an existing hand car wash to an automated express car wash, add eleven (11) self- vacuum stations, sates kiosk and trash and vacuum enclosures, and exterior modification to the existing building. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 1/Class 2) pursuant to Section 15309 and Section 15302 of the California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4371 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-09 and Design Review (DR) 2017-008 to convert an existing hand car wash to an automated express car wash, add eleven (11) low-profile self- vacuum stations, add sales kiosk, trash and vacuum enclosures and exterior modifications to the existing building. Dove Presentation given. Thompson Thompson asked staff to clarify the City's Noise Ordinance from evening to daytime hours. Dove Per Dove, from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. the noise levels cannot exceed 55 decibels in the residential zone and then from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the noise level cannot exceed 50 decibels in the residential zone, Thompson In response to Dove's explanation, Thompson then asked if the applicant would have to comply with those reading levels. Dove Per Dove, decibel levels are cumulative and is a complex measurement. The noise standards would be cumulative for a thirty (30) minute period. Thompson Thompson referred to the back-up material of the noise study within the staff report and the recommendation for the sound enclosure built around the units and addition of dense vegetation, and that they are required to do both. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14,2018-Page 2 of 15 Kozak Kozak had no comments. Mason Mason had no comments. 7:24 p.m. Public Comments Opened. Mr. Alex Woo, Mr. Clayton Prezekop, from Genesis Consulting Inc., and Ms. Vanessa Villanueva, who performed, the noise study, represented the applicant. Collectively, their comments included: provided letters of support at the podium, to be added to the case file; mitigating measures are appropriate: the issue with canopies associated with the vacuum pumps and the main reason for the canopies is for the health and safety of the customers; the visual aesthetics of the canopies is relevant; adjacent to the freeway and property — presented several handouts at the podium to provide the Commission with a visual of the concrete wall and freeway, street, property line, etc.; and he asked the Commission to approve the project, "as is", in terms of the proposed vacuum pumps. 7.30 p.m. Public Comments Closed. Thompson Thompson stated that the project started with a code violation and an issued complaint, then the project was brought into compliance. He appreciated what was being presented, but he was inclined to go with staff's recommendation with regards to the vacuum systems. Mason Mason concurred with Thompson's comments and she also appreciated the aesthetic aspect of the project. She was also in support of staffs recommendation and ensuring noise mitigation issues are remedied. Kozak Kozak also supported the recommended action. He commended the applicant for improving the aesthetics and the painting of the building. Kozak added that the project is consistent with development guidelines, as conditioned. Lumbard Lumbard stated that the applicant should comply with the vacuum models the City has approved in the past. He added that if there is a need for shade, then the applicant should work with staff. Lumbard was in support of everything else in the application: Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, -to adopt Resolution No. 4371, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. 7.33 p.m. Closed Item #3. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14,2013- Page 3 of 15 Adopted Resolution 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2018-04007 AND DESIGN No. 4370, as REVIEW (DR) 2018-00011 amended, PROPERTY OWNER: Tustin Heights SC LP 621B South Melrose Avenue Vista, CA 92081 APPLICANT. Michael Zislis Rock & Brews 321 12ttti Street, #200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 LOCATION: 1222 Irvine Boulevard REQUEST.. CUP to authorize Type 47 Alcohol Beverage License for on-site consumption, live entertainment and outdoor seating in conjunction with a remodel, expansion and fagade upgrade to an existing restaurant building within the Tustin Heights Shopping Center. ENVIRONMENTAL.: This project is categorically exempt (Class 1 and Class 2) pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15302 of the CEQA. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4370 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2018-00007 and Design Review (DR) 2018-00011 to authorize a Type 47 alcohol beverage license for on-site consumption, live entertainment and outdoor seating in conjunction with a remodel, expansion and fagade upgrade to an existing restaurant located within the Tustin Heights Shopping Center at 1222 Irvine Boulevard. Demkowicz Presentation given. Thompson Thompson asked how the doors would be closed when the band was playing when the doors are being used for service. Demkowicz In response to Thompson's questions, Demkowicz referred to the Conditions of Approval in that the doors would need to remain closed during the live entertainment. The live entertainment area is located within the restaurant, not the patio. Mason Mason asked how close the closest residential is to the project site. Minutes--Planning Commission August 14,2018--Page 4 of 15 I 1 Denmkowlcz Per Masons question, Demkowicz stated approximately less thanlOO feet from the project site. Lumbard Lumbard referred to the project's alcohol license (Type 47) and he asked what type of ABC license the previous tenanf had. Willkom Per Willkom, the previous tenant had the same type of ABG license as the applicant. Mr. Zislis The applicant, Mr. Michael Zislis, provided the fallowing information: background information on the project; commented on live entertainment and that the live entertainment woOld not occur often; Mr. Zislis has other locations in El Segundo, Torrance, Buena Park, LAX and so far there have been no complaints of noise; and as per the sound measure, all doors will close automatically. Kozak For clarification purposes, Kozak wanted to ensure there would only be three (3) musicians, at most, on stage. Mr. Zislis Per Mr. Zislis, it is usually one (1)or two (2) musicians, but periodically, there may be three (3) musicians on stage, but no more. Thompson Thompson referenced the Black Marlin and commended them with there being no concern with the noise level. Since the doors close automatically when there is live entertainment at the project site, he did not believe there would be a noise issue for Rock & Brews as well. Thompson encouraged the applicant to minimize the noise level. Dr. John Kendall Dr. John Kendall, resides behind the medical complex, closest to the project site and he voiced his concern with the patio and the access to the restaurant. He was also concerned with the security and the problems prior tenants have had with employees and people "partying" after the restaurant is closed, Dr. John Kendall thanked staff for answering his questions. Ms, Francine Ms. Francine Righter, a nearby resident, was concerned there would Righter be noise coming from the project site. Ms. Righter asked if there would be a cutoff point of the noise that would be enforced as well as being part of the Conditions of Approval. 7:50 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff to answer the previous speakers concerns regarding security, safety, and noise. Binsack In response to Lurnbard's concerns, Binsack referred the Commission to the Conditions of Approval Nos. 3.16 and 3.17 (identifies issues related to security and refers to the Tustin Police Department) of Resolution No. 4370, which addressed the concerns previously stated. She reminded the Commission that they have the capability of re- reviewing items within the Conditions of Approvals on an annual basis Minutes- Planning Commission August 14, 2018- Page 5 of 15 I Binsack or more often, in the event the applicant violates the Conditions of Approval or create any other violations within the Tustin City Code (TCC). To date, the City has not had any issues with most of the establishments that have been issued CUPS. Thompson Thompson thanked those speakers who voiced their concerns with noise issues and Binsack for her input on the Conditions of Approval. It appears to be a good solution. Thompson suggested coordinating security with the security of the center, Kozak Kozak's comments generally included: he appreciated the public's comments on the noise complaints; welcomed the addition to the Tustin Shopping Center; patio areas will attract patronage; and Rock & Brews has worked in other communities and will work in Tustin as well. Mason Mason was in agreement with her fellow Commissioners comments. She made favorable comments towards this new concept coming to Tustin and that it will revitalize the Tustin Heights Shopping Center, Mason asked that staff ensure the review period is followed with regards to the noise ordinance and aligning the security with the Tustin Heights Shopping Center. Lumbar+ Lumbard made favorable comments towards the project and he was in support of the recommended action. Thompson Thompson requested language be added to Section 3.17, of the Conditions of Approval, referring to collaborating/coordinating the security with the Tustin Heights Shopping Center. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4370, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. 7:55 p.m. Closed Public Hearing Item#4. 7:58 p.m. Opened Public Hearing Item #5. Continued to the 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN September 25, (SP-13) AND ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED GENERAL_ PLAN 2018 Planning AMENDMENT 2017-00001, ZONE CHANGE 2017-0001 AND Commission FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR meeting. THE PROJECT AREA APPLICANT: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 36 acres along a portion of Red Hill Avenue generally bounded by Bryan Avenue to the north and Walnut Avenue to the south bisected by Interstate 5 (1-5), extending one (1) parcel east and west of the Red Hill Avenue right-of-way. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14,2018—Page 6 of 15 i REQUEST: To establish new development standards ani regulations for a portion of Red Hill Avenue through the approval of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13) that would allow up to 500 additional residential units and 325,000 square feet of additional nonresidential square footage and introduce neva integrated mixed- use land uses within the project area. Zone Change (ZC 2017-001) would amend the City of Tustin zoning map and change the existing zoning designation from Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) to SP-13. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017-01 would amend the City of Tustin General Plan land use map and include minor text amendments to ensure consistency with the proposed specific plan. ENVIRONMENTAL: A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR SCH 2017041031) and statement of overriding considerations and findings of fact have been prepared in accordance with Article 7 of the CEQA. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4307, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2017041031, malting required environmental findings, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations,- in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4368, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 201.7-01 for changes to the text and Land Use Map to ensure consistency with the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan SP-13; 3. Adopt Resolution Na 4369, recommending that the City Council approve ,Zone Change 2017-00001 to amend the City of Tustin Zoning Map changing the Retail Commercial (C-1)f Central Commercial (C-2), and Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) zoning designations to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13) and adopt Ordinance No. 1498 - Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13). Binsack Binsack's comments, before the presentation, generally included: the proposed RHASP will serve as a comprehensive regulatory planning document for a fifty-two (52) acre commercial area along Red. Hill Avenue (north and south of the 1-5 Freeway); of the total acreage, 36 acres are privately owned and the remaining area is within the right-of- Minutes-Planning Commission August 14,201 a--Page 7 of 15 Binsack way; the goal for the area is to create a distinct sense of place and identity for properties along Red Hill Avenue Corridor and to revitalize the existing commercial area; there has been a desire to revitalize the Red Hill Avenue Corridor for decades in order to improve the area; the RHASP has been developed over the last two (2) years along with there being several workshops with the technical assistance from the City's consultant, Kimley-Horn & Associates; introduced Kimley-Horn staff who also participated with the presentation; per comments heard at the public workshops, if the plan is adopted then if there would be a change in use or occupancy or additional square footage built or developed to the site; not dissimilar to the existing TGC (Le, landscape upgrades may be required, disabled access requirements, etc.); many existing commercial buildings along Red Hill Avenue are in need of regular property and landscape improvements; significant deferred maintenance issues; over the years, the City has expended significant resources through code enforcement efforts to have properties maintained satisfactorily and have had various violations and have been consistently unacceptable to the community; the shopping center's owners have benefitted from a piece-meal approach of City approvals; the City's trying to do something in the public right-of-way to improve the Red Hill Corridor and to propose incentives far the shopping center to improve private property areas; several comments were received today in writing and via social media and may not be able to respond to everyone's comments/concerns due to the lateness of the comments; and Binsack asked that the public provide their comments/concerns in advance in order to allow staff to provide in- depth responses to those comments. Mr, Dave Barquisf Mr. Cave Barquist, Kimley-Horn, spoke generally on the overview of the RHASP which included the following: to improve the aesthetics to the publiclprivate realm; the RHASP is a guidance document — an ability for a developer/applicant to have the ability to do what is wanted; discussed the boundary of the RHASP, specifically the San Juan area; removed residential area within San Juan Street vicinity after comments from Workshop #1; wanted to create a vibrant, mixed-use, pedestrian oriented place; first workshop was exploratory, second workshop project boundary and vision statements further defined; third workshop —joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop and the Final Craft Specific Plan was presented; standards similar to the DCCSP; plan goals; discussed the Specific Pfan Vision along with the existing character north/south on Red Hill Avenue; listed what the RHASP would address; the evaluated threshold is "up to 500 new residential units and up to an additional 325,000 of square feet of commercial'; examples of how Standards compare with the TCC; discussed the City's current parking standard; design expectations; guidance in terms of architecture, along w/ recommended design elements and styles; and the open space, Minutes--Planning commission August 14,2018—Page 8 of-15 Ms. Dana Privill Ms. Dana Privitt, Kimley-Horn, spoke on the Program EIR, the process and the involvement with the community which generally included: the City issued Notice of Preparation (47117); Scoping Meeting (4120117); City issued Notice of Availability (211!1$); 45-day public review period closes (3119!18); Draft Program EIR evaluated; various topics addressed in the Program EIR along with the studies defined in the document; build out year of 2035; Program EIR'findings and public comments; summary of environmental issues; collaborative effort wl the City of Irvine to provide adequate responses regarding parking and traffic; and public outreach (notices, FaceBook, Next Door, etc.) no new issues addressed. Demkowicz Demkowicz provided further information to the Commission regarding the supplemental items received that week which would be made part of the public record, The PowerPoint included the comments and concerns raised by Commissioner Thompson and the public which generally included, Parking Standards; joint-use parking can be requested with the preparation and approval for a Parking Demand Analysis (PDA); how the past senior congregate development approval of the church site would be permitted and considered a commercial use; independent senior housing would be considered residential use and would only be permitted with mixers-use; stand-a-Ione commercial projects setbacks; the massing of the high rise buildings; design review would allow staff to consider projects on a case-by-case basis; Interstate 5 freeway ramp was coordinated with Cal Trans and the City, but the City cannot control portions of Red Hill Avenue but will coordinate with Cal Trans, OCTA and other agencies to determine what improvements are adequate for the RHASP; proposed streetscape palette in the RHASP; and limited favorable comments received up until the start of the public hearing_ Lumbard Lumbard questioned one (1) of the maps provided by an audience member which was handed to the Commission with no cover sheet. Thompson Thompson stated that he spoke with John Nielsen who was representing Sapetto Rea; Estate Solutions. He notified the Commission and audience members that his son works for Kimley- Horn's office in Denver and he had no association with staff working on the project. 8:58 P.M. Opened Public Hearing Comments Section. Mr. Craig Shucker Mr. Craig Shocker's concerns generally included: parking; too high density (high rise 5-story building would block the sun); there will be a need for additional first responders and the cost; traffic/congestion; increase in water usage with there currently being drought restrictions; mixed-use section of the RHASP, hurting low-income housing, encroaching in areas; Cal Trans improvement to the sound wall along Nisson Road could potentially change the traffic pattem; potential density; water main under Red Hill Avenue could be replaced; parking spaces to be displaced; no real benefit to the shopping center; }property Minutes-Planning Commission August 14, 2018- Page 9 of 15 Mr. Craig Shucker owners would have challenges; need a redevelopment fund or property owners will be under funded; bike lanes should not be on the street or provide more protection; shuttle service could be a solution; and added traffic signals, Mr. Charlie Mr.. Charlie Laumann's concerns generally Included: density; parking Laumann concerns and overflow into residential areas; Mitigation Measure {4.2.1 and 4.2.2} are "suggestive"; added pollution; and he suggested the RHASP plan be re-evaluated. Mr. David Larson Mr. David Larson's concerns generally included: high density not being warranted; inadequate parking requirements; and the City should verify use of garages within the City. Ms. Beverly Ms. Beverly Laumann's concerns generally included: the spacing of Laumann 500 units and some areas could be overly concentrated; traffic impacts to Red Hill Avenue and Interstate Freeway intersection; and she asked where the water usage would come from since the city is already under drought restrictions.. Mr. Bruce Mr, Bruce Heathcote, represented Red Hilt Village and Stater Bros. Heathcote shopping centers. He stated that the bulk of the project area would not be a part of the RHASP and would only apply to three (3) shopping centers. His concerns were related to change of tenants and the need to comply with required improvements. Mr. Heathcote added that the RHASP would also create blight and loss of additional sales tax. Ms. Valerie Spear Ms. Valerie Spear's comments/concerns generally included, the neighborhood is "run down" and "needs help"; "Red Hill Avenue is not nice anymore"; maximum stories should be three (3) and no more; parking -- 2.25 spaces per dwelling unit is not enough; inadequate parking; and high density belongs to New York, not Tustin. Mr. Toby Moore Mr. Toby Moore, fives adjacent to the plan area, and he was supportive of "most aspects" of the RHASP. His concerns generally included: Interstate 5 freeway widening; traffic and parking impacts to Nisson Road and loss of approximately 180 parking spaces; encroachment to the low-income households; suggested building a parking structure; and movement of the sound wall along Nisson Road between Browning and Newport Avenues could potentially change traffic patterns. Mr. Mike Abel Mr, Mike Abel, represented owners of Red Hill Plaza and investors of Big tots, voiced his concerns, which generally included; RHASP will not be a benefit to the shopping center; challenges with lease terms with option to expand; prospective tenants would riot want to conform with the nuisance of the RHASP; and he was in support of a specific plan that could potentially work for everybody, but not the RHASP. Minutes—Platin ing Commission August 14.2018--Page 10 or 15 Mr. Robed Mr. Robert Machado was concerned with the proposed four (4) to five Machado (5) story building and it would not be compatible with the surrounding residential area. He also voiced his concern of the potential traffic impacts along Red Hill Avenue (San Juan and EI Camino Real). Mr. John Nielsen Mr. John Nielsen discussed the following, in general; the dilapidated structures along Red Hill Avenue, built in the 1660s, and the area needing to be invigorated; landowners need to be liven the opportunity to build; incentives need to be given to developers and builders; and there is also misconception regarding the RHASP. Ms. Pamela Ms. Pamela Sapetto, 13751 Red Hill Avenue, was, in support of staffs Sapetto recommendation, but voiced her concern as follows: current homelessness issue; parkland mitigation fees should be fixed and imposed on a per unit basis rather than by a project basis (she submitted letter the day of meeting); and parkland fees collected should only be used for the additional or improvements to existing parks in a reasonable proximity to projects being approved and also within the RHASP area. Mr. Bob Imondi Mr. Bob Imondi commented on the following in general: parking issue on San Juan Street; against proposed five (5) story building; cost will be affected by public services (police, fire, etc_); and overcrowding in schools. Mr. Michael Mr. Michael Hubman stated that the proposed high rise building would Hubman block the sun. Mr. Robert Mr. Robert Kirchaessner voiced his concern with how parking would be Kirchaessner affected along San Juan Street. Ms. Michelle Ms. Michelle Terpstra excited to see the landowners improve their Terpstra property and she was in favor of mixed-use. She also encouraged the audience to take advantage of current technology to see what the projection could look like, as per the proposed high rise building. Ms. Kristin Rhodes Ms. Kristin Rhodes would like Red Hill Avenue to be improved. She would also like to see more bike lanes. Ms. Rhodes stated that the project is not feasible to add 500 units. Ms. Elizabeth Ms. Elizabeth Calleros was not in favor of the high density, but she Calleros would like to see Red Hill Avenue improvements. She voiced her concern regarding the dangers of walking along Red Hill Avenue. 9:38 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Mason Mason's follow up questions/comments generally included: how did the the RHASP come about; are the plans for a 500 unit building currently under review by the City; explain how parking requirements would be reduced without further affecting the parking area; she asked if the senior housing would be impacted with the number of units in the Minutes—Planning Commission August 14,2018—Page 11 of 15 iL?ason RHASP and if not, would that number be included with the 500 units being proposed; she asked what Vintage paid with regards to parkland mitigation fees and how it impacted development; and what does the City do with the fees collected? Binsack Binsack's response to Mason's questions generally included: over the years the City was approached by the development community that was interested in possible residential development within the plan area; as previously stated, workshops were held to discuss density with the City Council and the Planning Commission; there was a desire to enhance the public right-of-way as well as the adjacent private properties and incentivize those private properties to allow for the opportunity to have mixed-used/residential; the City is currently not reviewing the plans for a 500 unit building; the specific plan analyzes 500 dwelling units for the overall area; the City has been reviewing a plan that has been submitted for the old church site but it has not been deemed complete, and would be brought to the Planning Commission and the City Council for review; the RHASP does require compliance with what the City's current standards are (the commercial aspect); with mixed-use, the RHASP would allow for shared parking so when the demand for commercial use is lower, then the residential demand takes over and vice versa; shared parking could work if managed well; with regards to the senior project, which was approved years ago, the entitlement has since expired (congregate care facility) and was considered a commercial use; unsure of the exact amount Vintage paid for the parkland mitigation fees (calculation was done at the time of the appraisal) but they paid full parkland mitigation fees for the project;. and the fees are used to offset impacts on the City's parkland fee dedications. Lumbard Lumbard asked how many number of units were approved at the senior congregate facility. Binsack In response to Lumbard`s question, a 201-unit congregate care facility was approved. Thompson: Thompson requested more information regarding the following in order to gain a better understanding and he did not want to rush into any decisions: • What does the 5-story structure look like in relation) to the existing homes and apartments that are going to remain? • Parking — will there be enough or does the mixed-use really benefit the area? Explain how the parking will work, showing areas for demand and capacity (and time of use) through an exhibit. Traffic — what hoes the traffic look like today and when all of these uses are added, what is the increased percentage? Provide an exhibit to show current traffic volumes (average daily traffic) on streets and what that is forecasted for the future, so we can understand overall increase. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 12 of'15 Thompson • Transition — how do the shopping center owners transition to this new order being defined in the RHASP so there is not an adverse financial impact, as expressed by some of the large land owners. Cal Trans — if the sound wall takes away parking, how will that affect the area? Would like to get a summary of all comments (emails, letters, blogs) staff has received and how responses are being addressed. Summary of comments should be placed in a matrix of significant common themes or categories, to better understand key areas of comments. Source of comment should be understood, either by letter, email, blog, etc. Kozak Kozak commended the public's participation. Staff needs to address the following concerns which were: • Density/co nee ntration • Traffic impacts • Parking or lack thereof • Building height • Cal Trans widening and potential impacts Kozak's final comment was that the Commission is not in a position to make a decision until the Commission can give further consideration to the list of concerns and possible resolutions before the Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council. Lumbard Lumbard also commended the public for their ,participation in the process. He stated, as a community, we want what is in the best interest of the RHASP. Lumbard was also not in a hurry to make a decision. He was also in agreement to have staff return to the Commission with an analysis of the letters and comments received from the public which have not been responded to as of yet. Mason Per Mason, "a specific plan does not build anything, it is a framework". She added that the plan is introducing mixed-use, improving walkability, adding 500 dwelling units to the area, etc. Motion. Thompson moved to continue the item in order to address the items previously mentioned, seconded by Kozak, to a date certain. Motion carried 4-0-1. Binsack Outreach will be complete (no re-noticing). Staff could be done with responding by September 25, 2015. Asked the audience and viewers to provide any additional comments received in two (2) weeks and staff will respond to all comments. Kozak Kozak would like to make sure staff and the consultants have sufficient time to address letters, emails, etc. to respond. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14,2018--Page 13 of 15 Binsack Per Binsack, the Commission would need to continue the Public Hearing item to a date certain, without having to do a re-notification. Staff will still conduct outreach (i.e. add to City's website). It was a significant cost to send notices out to 3,500 individuals. Per Binsack, staff will need to respond to the Commission's request and they could be ready by September 11, 2018, but would prefer bringing all responses to the Commission at the September 25, 2018 meeting. If anyone in the viewing public and who was present at the meeting, if there are additional comments, and if they would like to be submitted before the next Planning Commission meeting, to please provide to City staff within the next two (2) weeks. This would avoid the public hearing item be continued yet again. Binsack wanted to make sure staff is responsive to everybody's comments adequately. Cation: It was moved to continue the Public Hearing item, in order to address the topics previously stated, to the September 25, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 4-0-1. 10:10 P.M. Recess. 10:99 P.M. Meeting reconvened. None. REGULAR BUSINESS. Binsack STAFF CONCERNS: None. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason had no comments or concerns. Thompson Thompson attended the following events: • 6128: Participated in the USC Marshal's School of Business • 6129: Services for Steve Nordic, business pioneer in the City of San Juan Capistrano * 7112: OCTA Environmental Clean Up Allocation Committee « 7117: Thompson was reappointed to the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee • 7117: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting 811: ULI Tour of the Spectrum in Irvine Kozak Kozak attended the following events: ■ 7117: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting 0 7119: California Preservation Foundation webinar with the Community Development Department 7121: Tustin Hoe-Down fundraiser for Veterans sponsored by the Tustin Exchange Club 0 817: Annual Community Night Out sponsored by the Tustin Police Department Minutes—Planning Commission August 14,20'18—Page 14 of 15 Kozak • 8111: Broadway in the Park"Little Mermaid" On August 22, 2018 the Tustin Library grand re-opening. Kudos to Adrianne DiLeva-Johnson for the Summary of Projects!. Lumbard Lumbard attended the following events: • 7117: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting • 7121; Tustin Hoe-Down fundraiser for Veterans sponsored by the Tustin Exchange Club • 8111: In Seattle with his Bride celebrating their wedding anniversary, Congratulations Mr, and Mrs. Lumbard! 10.24 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 28, 2018, at 7:00 p.m, in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. AUSTIPJ I.-IJMBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Planning Commission Augusl 14.2018—Page 15 of 18 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2018 7:00 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER, Smith INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, Present ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Mason, Smith, Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES--AUGUST 14, 2018 Minutes of the August 94, RECOMMENDATION: 2098, Planning Commission, That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the August 14, as amended. 2018, Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason, to approve the Minutes of the August 14, 2018, Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried 440-1, Smith abstained from the vote. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2018-00006 Resolution No. 4372. APPLICANT: James P. Caiopoulos Galaxy Oil Company 303 forth Placentia Fullerton, CA 92310 PROPERTY OWNER: Geoff Moore Mutual Liquid Gas & Equipment;Co., Inc. 17117 South Broadway Gardena, CA 90248 LOCATION: 1001 Edinger Avenue Minutes—Planning Commission August 28,2018—Page 1 of 5 REQUEST: A request for a Master Sign Plan for Mutual Propane Plaza to establish design criteria and signage placement for tenants in the plaza. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311 (Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4372 approving Conditional Use Permit(CUP)2.518-00008 to authorize the approval of the Master Sign Plan for Mutual Propane Plaza. Thompson Thompson provided a disclosure that his Tablet was being updated; therefore, he did not want the public to think he and Kozak were exchanging notes. They were simply snaring a binder. Aguilar Presentation given. Thompson Thompson asked if the general public would know what Mutual Propane means. He also asked that since the sight is only accessible From the Edinger Avenue off-ramp, if there should be additional clarity on the proposed freeway sign as to which off--ramp drivers should exit. Aguilar Per Aguilar, Mutual Propane is the business name. Tle applicant would explain how the propane fueling operates. She further stated that staff did not consider way findings as part of the freeway sign and that the sign was simply the applicant's business identification. Lumbard Lumbard questioned the consistency of the height of signs along the freeway (i.e. the 76 sign appeared taller than the hotel sign). Binsack Binsack confirmed that the signs are consistent with the other signs along the freeway. T08 p.m. Opened the Public Comments Section. Moore Mr. Geoff Moore, property owner, addressed Thompson's previous question by stating that Mutual Propane is the name of the company and it has been in business for 54 years. The business serves both public motorists, commercial and city motorists (i.e. the applicant has a contract with the City of Tustin's Street Sweeping service)for propane services. Caiopoulos Mr. James Caiopouios, applicant, provided background'information on the business, His comments generally included: beneficial operation for the City and his partnership with Mutual Propane; the freeway sign is a new type of "EMC" sign that will have the ability to have scrolling on the sign, exit Edinger Avenue" as well as the ability to have a public service Minutes—Planning Commission August 28,2018—Page 2 of 5 I caiopoulos message on the sign (similar to the Tustin Auto Center signs), Mr, Caiopoulos added that the sign is one-third (113)the energy use of regular service station signs and is less costly. Smith Smith asked when the service station would be opening. Caiapoulos Caiopouios stated the tentative opening date would be either Tuesday, September 4,.2018, or September 5, 2018, if approved by the City. 7:11 p.m. Ciosed the Public Comments Section. Mason Mason gave kudos to Thompson's questions and thanked the applicant for providing directional signage. She was in favor of the public service announcement. Kozak Kozak thanked the applicant and owner for being present. He made favorable comments regarding the project. Kozak was in support of the project, as proposed. Binsack As a paint of clarification, Binsack stated that the changeable copy was not part of the Commission's consideration being that it was not part of the application. She further explained that the applicant would have to return to the Commission for consideration on the way findings and changeable copy items. Smith Smith asked for clarification regarding the LEC] or changeable text, along with the process.. Binsack In response to Smith's question, Binsack stated the sign is lit with LED but it is not changeable copy. Lombard Lumbard asked if staff would have authority over the changeable copy or if the item would have to be brought back to the Commission. He suggested that the Commission discuss the item being presented that evening and approve without the way finding and changeable copy since they are not part of the application. Lumbard was in support of the sign plan, specifically, because the deviations are consistent with other signs- Binsack Per Binsack, staff would have to take a look at what was being proposed by the applicant, then make a determination at that point in time. Mason Mason further asked if the way findings and changeable copy would be a possibility and wanted to be clear that the Commission was not voting on those items that evening. Thompson Thompson referred the Commission to Figure 6 where it calls out LED display area of the sign and that the messages have to be subsequently approved by City staff. Minutes—Planning commission August 28,20.18 Page 3 c)(5 Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Kozak, to adapt Resolution No, 4372. Motion carried 5-0. 7:15 p.m. Closed the Public Hearing. REGULAR BUSINESS: Item continued 3. WORKSHOP— CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT to a date uncertain. The Planning Commission requested that a series of workshops be conducted to better understand the fundamentals of planning, zoning, and development related laws. Since almost all Planning Commission actions incorporate some aspect of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), this topic is selected for the workshop. The workshop will include many aspects of CEQA including goals and purpose, framework, process and procedures, applicability, timeline and required documentation. Presented by Ricia R. Hager,Woodruff, Spradling & Smart Binsack Binsack requested the Commission continue the item to a date uncertain. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack None. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Thompson Thompson attended Cal State Long Beach alumni fundraiser on August 19tH He reminded the Commission that he will be out first two weeks in October to attend school. Kozak Kozak attended the following: • 8119 Enderle Center Car Show and Community Fundraiser. 8/22 Grand Re-Opening of the Tustin Library Note: "We are upon a new school year. Let us keep a watchful eye out for kids walking to and from school." Mason Mason commended Tustin Ranch Golf Club "Music Underthe Stars", She also thanked Bryan Penny, Food and Beverage Director of the Tustin Ranch Golf Club and an active member of the community _thanked him for all of his hard work. Smith Smith announced he will be tendering his resignation as a Planning Commissioner, effective immediately. He made favorable comments to City staff and the public. Wnutes—Planning Commission August 28,2018—Page 4 of 5 7.21 p.m. ADJOURNME=NT:. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, September 11, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. AUSTIN LUVBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secreta,, Minutes—Planning Commission August 28,2018 Page 5 of 5 I A"I"Ti"k Cl*,�riV��A E--1"I'l- C' 7 Community Here's what's happening in Thank 4"+[)C1 for VISItltlgr Town 40 SPECIALTY SHOPS Tustin during 2018! 010 .�.� 3. Rasta ( owboy Retards Every Wednesday: Tustin Farmers" 17TH STREETShopping 4, hnitial Embroidery and Market Custom Silk Screening ! OLD TOWN Spring �, � Dining B Four Crows Jewelry and Gifts March 11th: Han ar Half IRVIIv> I Hangar 1ST ST 339 EI Camino Marathon 22. Brushstrokes Paint and Party March 31st: Easter Egg Hunt ' r Event Guide ,ust � ` rTail April 14th: Community 23. sau!'s custom Tailoring Yard Sale May 5th: Promenade Home & 4 ' 26 EI Camino Pet Grooming Garden Tour EDINGER �' June 3rd: Street Fair and Chili g 27. old Town Flooring Cook-Off i�E� � ,iiain 5tr:=et 28. Assistance League of Tustin S1.1mmer..eeO....tltlbY8e6.v �C� � »� Thrift Shop June 13th - August 1st: Concerts � ,� ' �� r;`,�l��o ���`'� t g �++ 29. Armstrong Garden Center in the Park (Wednesdays) :O] P canlino ilii,X71 July 4th: Independence Day 30. Saddleback Flowers Celebration For event details and more information 60 EI C.eimmo Re,,_il July 12th - August 9th: Movies in please visit the City of Tustin's ;Nebsite at 37 Time watches the Park (Thursdays) www.tListinca.org -'' 1 + = August 7th - 11th: Broadway in 39. Growers Direct the Park 1:x,5 W. Fi,_t Sri-, Fail i 41. Grace Music .............................. WSJ MAN r E_,C+ vv M,'in Oct. 5th - 7th: Tiller Days s 43. Branch & Stone October 6th: Tiller Days Parade ;; 181 EI Camino Real October 20th: Old Town Art Walk " October 31st: Halloween Howl �. November 5th: Dino Dash Winter December 7th: Christmas Tree Guide provided by the City of Tustin 4 TM Lighting 300 Centennial Way I Tustin, CA A 92780 (714) 573-3000 Publication Date:June 2018 COX'S MARKE"I PLAIA • Town Shopping i �Di • . • HERITAGE EI Camino Real—Main Street PLAZA �. • Spice and Tulips 0 ANTIQUES 0 HEALTH & BEAUTY p Johnny.leans Clothing • James Kanan Designs Jewelry and Repair 17, Mrs. B°s Consignments f tc 10. Hypnotic Salome and Spa • Centro Winery/Brewery 13. Salon Avant Gtirde O The Young American Salon BOUTIQUES & APPAREL 170 EI C:ani rno Real PARK PARK 0 Tustin Grille 1. Phylfisophical 14. Salon Gallery EL CAMINO PLAZA 191 F Mr_rin Street. Suito 1A 9. Morning Lavender Boutique and 19. Kelly's Hair Design (D EI Camino Real—Sixth Street Cafe • Cream Pan Bakery 330 E] Camino Real 24. The Wooden Indian • Acai Republic Juice Bar 12. Btondie's Custom Couture 100 5i'. Mla i n S1r et, Suite 3 C5 Laxmi Sweets & Spices Restaurant 155 El Camino Real 33. Prospect Village Beauty &Body – . O Tanakaya Japanese Soba Restaurant 15. Kelly's Tuxedo 286 Prospect Avenue CITY OF TUSTIN O Kitajima Sushi &Thai Restaurant 34. Shear Bliss SalonSENIOR 325 C Street O Deva's Bar CENTER � 21. Gary's Rack 290 Prospect Avenue O Rasoi Curry Point Restaurant 140 - '148 W Main Street 40. Face & Body Skin Care Retreat FARMERS' O Beauty Salon 38. Surfas Ltd, Furriers 145 W. Main 5tre et, Suii_t' 140 MARKET Q Longhai Vietnamese Chinese Restaurant 145 W. First Street 42. Michael Anthony Beauty Salon TUSTIN UNIFIED V ItiO O.C. Kosher Market 108 W. First Street SCHOOL DISTRICT O Bardat Coffee 0 RESTAURANTS, CAFES & BARS D O My Sport 2, Free Soul Caffe 0 MUSEUMS �5 TUSTIN 0 Q 0 0 Orange County Rustic Furniture 191 E. Plain Street, Suite 1 B S. Tustin Area Museum PRESBYTERIAN � FARMERS' MARKET 6. American Grub X95 1-1 Camino Real CHURCH 365 F1 Camino Real 0 EI Camino Real=Third Street 7, The Swinging Door a (Wednesdays, 9!00AM--I:00PM) 355 El Camino Real �i t sox's � �► HERITAGE PLAZA, 11, Morey's Place MARKET ''� EI Camino Real--First Street 303 El Camino Real STEVENS PLAZA O LaBella Nail Spa 16. Zama Tea and Kombucha SQUARE � Q)434 E.! Camino Rr:�zi i • Maraca's Mexican Kitchen 18, McCharles Haase Restaurant, a UP j O Salon 29:11 - Q Rakish Fashions Tea Room &Gardens 335 C St � m I i.; 158 W. Main Street Q Modern Barber 20. Rutabegorz Restaurant • Orange Roll & Sushi JAMESTOWN VILLAGE JAMESTOWN VILLAGE 31. Roma D'Italia 611 E1 Camino Real AM El Camino Real—Sixth Street 32. The Black Marlin 0 Honda-Ya Restaurant SrO El C:arryino Real fD Grant's Not Just Antiques Q Agency the Salon 35. Chaak Kitchen Coming Soon! ,wj Kollekcio 36. El C�inmino Ca fc EL CAMINO �J O Whimzy Studio PLAZA ® 0 Ivy's Bridge CafO