Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 DRAFT PC MINUTES 2-26-19 ITEM #1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 26, 2019 7:03 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Kozak All present. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Gallagher, Jha, Kozak, Mason, Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: Approved the CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar, as 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 12, 2019 amended. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the February 12, 2019, Planning Commission meeting as provided. 2. 2018 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT AND ANNUAL MITIGATION MONITORING STATUS REPORT FOR FEIS/EIR FOR MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 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. Section 65400 (b) of the Government Code requires that the City's planning agency provide an annual report to the City Council on the status of the General Plan and progress in its implementation. The City Council certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin along with its Supplemental and Addendum. The FEIS/EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin, which included the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. The attached MMRP is a review of actions performed by the City or other responsible agencies in implementing mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR. 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. Agenda—Planning Commission February 26,2019—Page 1 of 7 Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Gallagher, to approve the Consent Calendar, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 3. RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION RESERVATION (RAR) 2019-00001- DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2017-0016; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-025; LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2017-00002, AND DENSITY BONUS. A request to demolish an existing real estate office building at 13841 Red Hill Avenue, combining the lot with the existing adjacent vacant lot at 13751 Red Hill Avenue and constructing a new five-story up to 66'1" high mixed use building with 249 residential apartment units, a provision of 5 percent very low income housing on-site (11 affordable units), 7,000 square feet of commercial retail space with a six (6) level parking structure to accommodate the project. APPLICANT: CRAIG SWANSON IRVINE ASSET GROUP, LLC 4000 MACARTHUR BLVD., EAST TOWER, SUITE 600 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOCATION: 13751 & 13841 RED HILL AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL: Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA requirements. CEQA Section 15270 states that "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4378, denying Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) 2019-00001; Design Review (DR) 2017-0016; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-025; and Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) 2017-00002 for a mixed-use project containing 249 residential units and 7,000 square feet of retail commercial. Chairperson Kozak informed the Commission and audience of the supplemental items Kozak received at the dais, which included correspondence received from the applicant's attorney Nossaman, along with the City's response letter to Nossaman from Woodruff, Sprad ling and Smart (WSS). He then turned to Ms. Binsack and Ms. Bobak for further direction on how the Commission should proceed. Elizabeth In response to Kozak's previous question, Binsack stated that the applicant was Binsack requesting a continuance of the item to either March 26, 2019 or April 9, 2019. Staff did not think there was a need to continue the project for more than two (2) weeks. As noted in the City Attorney's response letter to the applicant's Agenda—Planning Commission February 26,2019—Page 2 of 7 attorney(Nossaman), notice was provided but staff does need to provide notice to the applicant, as well as the applicant's representatives in order to meet the March 12, 2019 deadline. This would allow adequate time for staff to prepare for a supplemental staff report, compile any public comments and respond to any other inquiries from the Commission and the public. She said there is adequate time to address the item at the March 12, 2019 hearing. Binsack suggested that the Commission should not receive any public comments this evening, if they were going to recommend a continuance. She also stated that it was not staff's intention to provide a presentation because staff did not want the Commission to consider the merits of the project. For those individuals unable to be present at a future hearing date, Binsack stated they would accept comments (i.e. letter, email, or if they prefer to meet with a staff Planner, an interest list to be compiled, and will include the speaker forms given that evening). Staff could also provide a copy of the staff report to anyone that was interested. Binsack informed the Commission, for their consideration, if the item was continued to March 12, 2019, the Commission could take advantage of a presentation as well as a public hearing at that meeting, and if the Commission chose to do so, they could continue the item again, to April 9, 2019. Lois Bobak Bobak explained to Kozak that the Public Hearing item should be opened in order to continue the item to a date certain. She also stated that the noticing process would not have to be done again and would remain valid as long as the item is continued to a certain date. Bobak further explained that the formal written notice would be provided to the applicant and the applicant's representatives, as they requested, for the March 12, 2019 hearing date. 7:13 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing. Commissioner Gallager was concerned with the applicant's request for the March 26 and April Gallagher 9, 2019 continuance dates. He asked if the request was in order for the applicant to provide updated information or if the Commission would expect the same packet and same concept. Gallagher also wanted to know why the applicant was requesting a continuance. He also asked if the Commission could hear from the applicant to find out if they are able to provide updated information within the timeframe or if the Commission would be in violation of the open discussion. Gallagher added that it would be helpful to hear from the applicant before the Commission makes a decision on the continued hearing date. Binsack In response to Gallagher's questions, Binsack stated it was not clear as to why the applicant requested new hearing dates and that it would be difficult to provide anything substantially different than what was already provided to the Commission, other than the applicant may be responding to information that was provided in the staff report. Bobak Per Gallagher's last question, Bobak informed him that the Commission could ask the applicant why the continuance to a specific date, but since staff is not providing any comments, along with the public's comments on the merits of the project until the next meeting; the applicant should limit his comments to the date of the next meeting. Agenda—Planning Commission February 26,2019—Page 3 of 7 Pamela Ms. Pamela Sapetto, representing Irvine Asset Group, stated that the reason Sapetto the applicant and representatives asked for the April 9, 2019 hearing date is that they believe they have significant new information they can provide to the Commission that would assist in their deliberations, including the project itself and the alternatives in the project. She requested the Commission's indulgence to let them return with the item on April 9, 2019. Kozak Kozak asked Sapetto to explain the three (3) dates requested within the letter including the applicant and their representatives' suggestion to continue the item to April 9, 2019. He also asked if there was more information that the applicant and/or representatives need to develop. Sapetto In response to Kozak's previous question, Sapetto stated that the April 9, 2019 hearing date was included in the last letter from their attorney, Nossaman to the City's Attorney, WSS, which is the date they confirmed would be preferred. She also stated that there is more information that needs to be developed. Chair Pro Thompson's comments generally included: there being an expediency in this Tem matter, the challenges of continuing the item; if it is a substantially different Thompson package, then it would be a new application; and six (6) weeks would be problematic because the expectation from the audience is more expedient and that the Commission needs to be sensitive to that. Commissioner Mason wants the project to move forward and was in favor of the March 12, Mason 2019 hearing date. She added that if there were something of a significant difference, the process would have to be revisited. Kozak Kozak was also in favor of the March 12, 2019 date. He asked his fellow Commissioners if they would like to present a motion to continue the item to the March 12, 2019 hearing date. Mr. Neil Sherman, Vice President of the Tustin Meadows Community Association, spoke from his seat (in the audience) and then approached the podium stating his concern with the March 12, 2019 hearing date, since he has to attend a board meeting on that same evening. Kozak Kozak further explained to Mr. Sherman that if the item was to be continued to March 12, 2019, in order to consider any new information from the applicant and if more time is needed, the Commission could request another continuance to a date certain. He suggested to Mr. Sherman that a representative attend the March 12, 2019 hearing date if he is unable to attend. Bobak Bobak interjected into Mr. Sherman and Kozak's dialogue and informed the Commission that Mr. Sherman was getting into the merits of the application rather than the question of the continuance date. She reminded Mr. Sherman to only address the question of the continuance date. Thompson Thompson suggested the item be addressed at another public hearing date in order to make it more convenient for those audience members that cannot attend the March 12, 2019 hearing and to help the applicant. He suggested continuing the item to the March 26, 2019 meeting. Agenda—Planning Commission February 26,2019—Page 4 of 7 Mason Mason's final comments generally included: first major development since they voted on the Red Hill Specific Plan; numerous discussions have already taken place; the item needs to be presented to the Commission as soon as possible; causing distress to others in the community; she stayed with the March 12, 2019 hearing date; and she asked staff to educate the audience on the process if the applicant submits any additional materials to the City. Binsack Per Mason's question on the process, Binsack stated the following: if it is a substantially different project, the applicant has to submit an entirely new application after withdrawing the original application; any minor modifications would be provided and then submitted to the Commission to identify those differences at whichever meeting the Commission recommends; everything is always public and staff would identify what those differences are; if the item is substantially different, staff would not be able to bring the item back to the Commission in two (2) weeks, one (1) month, or six (6) weeks; and if the item is substantially different, it would have to be re-routed to the various agencies and utilities for review and input. Mason Mason asked if the City received a substantially different project,would the item be pulled immediately and removed from the Planning counter. Binsack Per Binsack, if the applicant submits a substantially different project, City staff would have to make a determination of moving the current proposed project forward before the Commission, if the applicant did not withdraw the application or request an indefinite continuance. City staff is in a difficult position because they have already deemed the application "complete" which leads to other issues to address. Bobak Per Bobak, one of the reasons the Commission cannot consider a substantially modified project is because staff has given notice on the project which is the subject of the staff report presented that evening. If there is a substantial modification, staff would not be able to notify members of the public, far enough in advance, to give them the opportunity to come in and have meaningful input on the new application. Staff wants to make sure the public receives proper notification as to what the applicant is requesting. Kozak Kozak mentioned one important aspect, which is the public notice that has already been posted and if that public notice would remain effective for the March 12, 2019 meeting. He questioned if the further out the meeting is held, would the public hearing notice become less effective and would staff have to re-notice. Binsack Binsack further informed the Commission that as long as they continue to a date certain, that notice remains active, but whether or not it remains effective are two (2) different things (i.e. the public might lose track of the continuance date). Staff's intent is, whatever meeting the Commission continues the project to, staff will re-post the notice at the property. Binsack added that approximately 2,500 notices were mailed to the public. Staff will re-post the notice at the property, City's website and FaceBook page (the City will not post on Tustin Buzz—it is not administered by the City), including any other locations that we formerly noticed, without sending the notice out to all of those 2,500 Agenda—Planning Commission February 26,2019—Page 5 of 7 individuals. To the greatest intent possible, staff will let the public know and will send out a mass email to the interest list. Mason Mason asked if the City has the completed application, as the Commission has reviewed, available for public review. She also asked if there are any substantial changes to the plans, when they would be available for review. Binsack Per Binsack, anyone from the public can review the completed application either on the City's website or at the Planning counter. She also added that if anyone from the public wants to meet with staff, they could meet with Ms. Demkowicz. Regarding any substantial changes to the plans, the applicant has not yet provided any revised plans to the City. Binsack also stated that any changes to the plans given to staff would be made available at the Planning counter the same day received. Thompson After hearing further dialogue, Thompson stated that it does seem that information is important to those providing input and it would be difficult if information came in the day of the next meeting. He suggested that perhaps if the meeting was to be postponed one (1) month, within three (3) weeks the applicant has to provide that information to the City in order to make available for one (1) week in advance to the public. Thompson felt it would be stressful to move the meeting two (2)weeks. Binsack Per Thompson's comments, Binsack stated that four (4) weeks is not a sufficient amount of time for staff to obtain substantially new information and prepare another report to provide to the Commission. Thompson Thompson asked if the idea is that whatever the cut-off date is, the public has at least one (1)week to respond. He felt that if the meeting was to be continued to March 12, 2019, there would not be enough time for the entire process. Kozak Kozak asked what the March 26, 2019 Planning Commission agenda looks like. Binsack Binsack stated that as of now, the March 26, 2019 meeting agenda is fairly full. Mason Mason stated that this submission of this application was already deemed complete. She would like the item to be presented at the March 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Mason added that if there are significant changes to the plans, then there needs to be an entirely different conversation when that takes place. Gallagher Gallagher reiterated comments previously made by his fellow Commissioners. Whether new information comes in or not, remains relevant because if it is so significant that it changes the project, then it is a different application. Per Gallagher, he was in support of continuing the item to the March 12, 2019 hearing. Commissioner Jha's final suggestion was that staff obtain the audience's information to keep Jha them in the loop for those interested in being notified. Agenda—Planning Commission February 26,2019—Page 6 of 7 Bobak Bobak informed the audience of the speaker forms received that evening at the dais. She suggested that their email addresses be included in order to be added to the list of interested parties. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Gallagher, to continue the item to the March 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Gallagher, Kozak and Mason were in favor. Thompson and Jha opposed. Motion carried 3-2. 7:34 p.m. Public Hearing Closed. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack None. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Gallagher None. Mason Mason had a few questions regarding where staff is with the parkland as well as the Newport Avenue/Edinger Avenue fundraising, which she will wait for a follow-up on from staff. Jha None. Thompson Thompson thanked staff on all of their hard work on Item #2 (i.e. yellow highlights helpful). On February 21, 2019, he attended the Transportation of the Year Award for the American Society of Civil Engineers. Thompson is expecting his first grandchild on April 2, 2019 - Wesley James DeGracia. Kozak Congratulations to Grandfatherhood! On February 23, 2019, Kozak attended the Tustin Community Foundation Tustin Sip & Swirl. He thanked staff for all the hard work that goes into the agenda reports. 7.40 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, March 12, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Agenda—Planning Commission February 26,2019—Page 7 of 7