Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 12-10-19 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2019 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Jha All present ROLL CALL: Commissioners Chu, Gallagher, Jha, Kozak, Mason None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 Minutes of the September 10, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the September 10, 2019, Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Gallagher, to approve the Minutes of the September 10, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Mason and Chu recused themselves. Motion carried 3-0-2. Approved the 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — NOVEMBER 12, 2019 Minutes of the November 12, 2099 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the November 12, 2019, Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Chu, to approve the Minutes of the November 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes—Planning Commission December 10, 2019—Page 1 of 9 PUBLIC HEARING: Item continued to 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2019-00001, DESIGN REVIEW 2019- the January 28, 00005, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2019-00001 FOR JOINT-USE 2020 Planning PARKING, SITE AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS, AND A LOT LINE Commission ADJUSTMENT meeting. APPLICANT: Douglas S. Ely, AIA DSEA, Inc. 145 South Olive Street Orange, CA 92866 PROPERTY OWNER: Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana DBA: Trinity Broadcasting Network 2442 Michelle Drive Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 2442 Michelle Drive, 14132, 14152, and 14171 Chambers Road, and 14101 and 14131 Franklin Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 1 and Class 5) pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4398, approving: a. CUP 2019-00001 for the establishment of joint-use parking. b. DR 2019-00005 for the design and site layout associated with facade, landscape and hardscape improvements, including modified parking stalls. c. LLA 2019-00001 to consolidate four (4) lots into one (1) parcel. Motion: The applicant requested modifications to four (4) of the proposed conditions of approval for the subject project. Given the significance of the requested modifications and the time needed to address the matter, staff recommended that this item be continued. It was moved by Chu, seconded by Kozak, to continue the item to the January 28, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Minutes—Planning Commission December 10, 2019—Page 2 of 9 Adopted 4. CODE AMENDMENT 2019-002, FREEWAY ADJACENT DIGITAL Resolution No. DISPLAY BILLBOARDS ORDINANCE 4396 and Resolution No. 4397, as amended. The proposed code amendment would allow digital display billboards under certain conditions and provide benefits to the City, such as the removal of additional legal non-conforming billboards, advertising of City events and public service announcements, and/or financial contributions to the City. A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above project has been prepared in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and, on the basis of that study, finds: That although there is evidence that the proposed project may have an effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4396, recommending that the Tustin City Council; adopt the Negative Declaration for Code Amendment 2019-002. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4397, recommending that the Tustin City Council approve Code Amendment 2019-002 (Ordinance No. 1505), adding subsection 9404(b)(7) and amending Section 9402 and subsections 9404(a)(1)(h), 9404(a)(1)(k), and 9404(b)(2), relating to freeway adjacent digital display billboards. Craig Presentation given. Jha Jha questioned the number of applicants who have inquired with the City if their billboards could be converted to electronic. He asked about the number of potential new locations, if conforming, and if the City is entertaining new billboards or only reducing the number of existing billboards. Jha also asked if the City is for or against billboards. Craig In response to Jha's questions, Craig stated that the proposed ordinance is not intended to add additional billboards, but only to address existing legal non- conforming billboards or, in the case of the Tustin Auto Center, the existing digital freeway signs which they are not allowed to do off-site advertising. He added that the proposed ordinance would limit the number of potential digital billboard signs, which was further clarified with the supplemental red-lined ordinance that was placed at the dais. Craig stated, that the existing sign regulations does not allow off-site advertising. If the City moves forward with the Minutes—Planning Commission December 10, 2019—Page 3 of 9 Craig proposed ordinance, it would only deal with the existing billboards that are in compliance with the ordinance. Willkom Per Willkom, with respect to the existing billboards, the City has been approached in the past by an advertising company who wanted to convert the billboards to digital. These billboards are no longer permitted and are considered non-conforming signs. TCC does not allow structural alterations or modifications to any existing non-conforming off-premise signs or billboards. As for changeable copy signs, such as the Tustin Auto Center, the current TCC allows changeable copy signs with the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). Willkom added that the Tustin Auto Center did obtain a CUP for a changeable copy sign; however, they cannot advertise off-site businesses or products. Kozak Kozak asked, under the adoption of the proposed ordinance, if anything for the Tustin Auto Center would change. Willkom In response to Kozak's question,Willkom stated there are currently six(6) signs, four (4) are billboards that advertise off-premises. One (1) sign used to be Al's Woodcraft, which they advertised the existing business on-site. Per Willkom, there is currently a changeable copy sign for the Tustin Auto Center. The proposed ordinance would allow the freeway adjacent digital billboard to replace an existing off-premises or billboard sign or changeable copy sign meeting certain criteria; the digital billboard has to be within 400 feet from the freeway, and the digital billboard has to be 300 feet away from the residential area. Willkom added, only two (2) digital billboard signs would be eligible, which would be the Tustin Auto Center sign and the existing billboard on Edinger Avenue. Chu Chu voiced her concern regarding the possibility that businesses may rent regular billboards then eventually convert to digital billboards. She asked Craig what the potential number of billboards would be that fits the criteria and if they could be erected in Tustin. Chu also asked if the current number of billboards is the maximum number for the entire city. Willkom In response to Chu's previous questions, Willkom stated the following, in general: new billboards are not allowed under the Tustin Sign Code (TSC); the proposed ordinance would allow freeway adjacent digital billboards, which is very specific to the location and manner of the sign that is being proposed; the billboard has to meet the City's criteria; the proposed ordinance requires public benefits to be proposed in conjunction with the sign and a Development Agreement has to be approved; Willkom confirmed there are currently six (6) billboard signs in the City; and with the exception of the Tustin Auto Center, sign owners can continue to advertise off-site businesses provided they do not structurally alter the sign. Mason Mason asked if a new business opens up near the freeway and they erect a changeable copy sign, could that at some point, change to outdoor advertising and revenue generation, or simply be erected to promote a business. Minutes—Planning Commission December 10,2019—Page 4 of 9 Craig Per Craig, clarification was made in the proposed ordinance that if a business in the City had an electronic changeable copy sign, they could not convert it because the proposed ordinance is specific to those signs existing at time of adoption. This would only allow for the existing six (6) billboards and only two (2) signs are in compliance with the City's ordinance. Gallagher Gallagher asked if the City evaluated whether an existing business could re- locate the signs on the same parcel and be eligible for a new digital sign. He also voiced his concern with off-premises advertising — making the billboard more effective to an out-of-city business, which he felt would not benefit the City. Can we control advertisement to local businesses? Gallagher also asked if the City could require the removal of additional billboards without modifying the proposed ordinance. Craig Per Craig, four (4) of the existing off-premises signs are not eligible due to the closeness of the signs to residential properties, with respect to sign content, the City does not control content for advertising based on the Gilbert case ruling. In the 20 years since the signs became non-conforming, they have not been removed and now the proposed ordinance does give the City an opportunity to have some of these signs removed. The City Council has the potential to have additional billboards removed. The City could end up having one (1) additional display billboard along the Interstate 55 freeway and remove three (3) of the four (4) existing legal non-conforming billboards currently in place. Kozak Kozak asked the following, in general: in terms of removal of an existing non- conforming sign, with the establishment of a new digital billboard —what if there are different property owners or entities involved with the exchange of a new confirming digital billboard?; can the City require the removal of another property owner's billboard when dealing with different property owners? What kind of presentation or proof would be needed to have a property owner remove the billboard? He added that the current proposed ordinance does not indicate any specific timeline or mechanism to remove non-conforming signs. Kozak asked about the financial exchange and if those funds would be used to remove those signs or would the City look to the property owner or owner of the sign and could the City offer a monetary incentive if the City is receiving funds, Daudt Per Daudt, if the will of the Planning Commission is to impose the mandatory requirement or to specify that one absolutely required or the aspect of the public benefit is the removal of no less than one (1) existing legal non-conforming billboard, it would be permissible. The fact is, those properties may be owned by different entities and would have to be sorted out by the respective parties and the individual to gain the benefit of updating their existing billboard. They may have to work out a private deal with someone else that results in removing the billboard which the City would not be involved. In response to Kozak's last question, as far as the mechanics it would be something along the lines with conditioning the actual construction or issuance of building permits with the digital billboard on the actual physical removal of the other sign that they identified through the development agreement as being the facility that would be removed in exchange for their entitlement. Minutes—Planning Commission December 10, 2019—Page 5 of 9 Craig Craig added that as part of a development agreement, if the Planning Commission and the City Council both have stated that the ordinance requires the removal of a legal non-conforming billboard, staff would ensure that occurs before a new billboard was constructed. Currently, the four (4) legally non- conforming billboards are currently owned by the same owner. The City would look to the owner of the sign to remove those signs. Gallagher Gallagher asked why staff does not just develop the development agreement first, and then come with the proposed ordinance. He asked if what is being proposed is a typical approach. He voiced his concern with having to weigh in on what could hypothetically impact the City. Willkom In response to Gallagher's question, Willkom explained the development agreement, which is a specific agreement entered between the City and the party involved. Depending upon the site, location, manner, things can be differently agreed upon. If it is the consensus of the Commission, in order for a new digital billboard to be erected, not only does the property owner need to replace one (1) existing legal non-conforming, but they also need to remove another one, which could be the Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Mason Mason asked Craig now other cities deal with billboards. She wanted to know if the removal of these billboards are taken care of through the Commission, City Council, land owner based on the relationship with the media company that owns all of the legally non-conforming signs. Mason asked if the City benefits financially from the billboards. Craig Per Craig, if the property owner alters the structure, then the sign must be removed. However, to date, this has not yet occurred. i111kom Willkom further explained that legal non-conforming signs generally indicates that at one time it was legally constructed. Now it is no longer allowable or permitted. The TCC provides the ability for the property owner to continue the advertisement or the use of that sign, provided the sign is not structurally altered. If the Commission or the City Council wishes to remove the billboards from the City, typically, staff would need to create a policy, ordinance or resolution to allow owners of the sign to recoup their investment and allow them to continue until such a time then they would need to remove the sign. Craig Per Craig, the City could possibly benefit financially under a development agreement. 7.50 p.m. Opened/Closed the Public Comments. Jha Jha's final comments generally included: if staff modified the amount of billboards, nothing will happen with the leases on the billboards due to different property owners; less of an incentive and will not make financial sense for owners to remove the legal non-conforming billboards if they are on an extended lease. Minutes—Planning Commission December 10, 2019—Page 6 of 9 Gallagher Gallagher's final comments generally included: he was not in favor of additional billboards nor the direction this will take the City; he did not feel the City would benefit financially; there are too many unknowns (no control on content, there is -no specific proposal to weigh in on as to which billboard would be removed); and this will lead to a path of unintended consequences. Chu Chu asked approximately how much revenue the City would gain by having the existing billboards. Craig In response to Chu's question, the revenue is received annually from the Edinger Avenue property, which is approximately $60,000. Per Gallagher's previous comments, Craig stated that the Commission has the ability to add a finding which states a billboard needs to be removed. For example, the company that owns all four(4) legally non-conforming billboards that advertises off-site businesses could be reduced down to one (1). W111kom In response to Gallagher, currently, the City does not allow off-site advertisement. The City cannot regulate content, but can regulate time, manner and placement of billboards. The Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration and the City Council has the ability to accept or decline the Commission's recommendation. The proposed ordinance furthers the goals of Economic Development. Mason Mason stated that the Commission could take the recommendation, as amended,with an addition of a consideration of one(1) non-conforming billboard for one (1) digital billboard removal of signs and still forward the item to the City Council for their consideration. Willkom Willkom further clarified that the proposed ordinance is an enabling ordinance. For any signs to be erected or to replace the existing signs, a CUP and development agreement are required and will have to go�before the Commission before construction takes place. Jha Jha suggested language be included in the ordinance stating that if a property owner wants to convert a sign to a digital billboard the property owner could provide funds to the City in lieu of removing another billboard. Kozak Kozak added that there is no certainty that an agreement can be made between the sign owner and the property owners. He asked if the City has enforcement abilities with the proposed ordinance. He does see a need for the ordinance for regulating the proliferation of the billboard signs. Craig Craig added that if the billboard company wants to convert their sign to a digital display to generate higher revenue, they have the ability to do that since they also own other billboard signs, and the removal of the sign may not be an issue. This has been done in other jurisdictions. Mason Mason also agreed there is a need for the ordinance and the specificity of what is legal and what is conforming. She sought for clarification on options the Commission can consider and forward to the City Council. Minutes—Planning Commission December 10,2019—Page 7 of 9 W111kom Per Willkom, the Commission's could consider the following options: option one - direct staff to amend the ordinance to require one (1) more removal of a legal non-conforming sign, in addition to the one (1) sign being replaced, to be recommended to the City Council; and option two — the removal of additional signs could be included in the development agreement, which will go before the Commission when a new sign is being proposed, but that provision is not included in the ordinance. Daudf Daudt further clarified as follows: the ordinance, as proposed, would allow both the Commission and the City Council some latitude in terms of considering.what public benefits are offered (i.e. removal of a billboard). if the language is amended in the proposed ordinance, to specify that .the public benefit must include no less than the removal of one (1) billboard, in addition to the other items discussed that may be included. A third option, if and when a development agreement comes back to the Commission for consideration, the Commission is interested in the ultimate removal of billboards and would weigh heavily on the proposal and includes the removal of billboards in a development agreement, which will be a separate item to be considered by the Commission. The ordinance cannot be modified yet to specify what we expect to see in the development agreement but the Commission will be provided with an opportunity to amend at that time. Tonight's discuss is mainly about the mechanism the City is trying to put in place to allow the Commission the opportunity to consider these calculations in the future. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution Nos. 4396 and 4397, as amended. Motion carried 4-1. Gallagher opposed. None. REGULAR BUSINESS Willkom Willkom wished the Commission a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! STAFF CONCERNS: COMMISSION CONCERNS: Gallagher Gallagher stated that the reason he voted against the previous item was because he believed the City should have the requirement, that at a minimum, one additional billboard should be replaced. Kozak Kozak attended and reported the following events: 11117: Dignified United States Flag Retirement Ceremony (OCFA) 11121: Mayor's Breakfast 1213: City Council - Mayor's Reception 1215: CPF webinar--Legislation SB 50 and SB 330—he requested a one page summary of each legislation. 1216: Christmas Tree Lighting Best wishes to all for a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Minutes—Planning Commission December 10, 2019--Page 8 of 9 Jha Jh:a wished everyone happy holidays! Merry Christmas! Happy Hannuka! Happy Kwan aa! Happy New Year! Chu Chu informed the Commission of the Architectural Design Competition currently on display at the Tustin Library, Mason Mason attended and reported: the following events-, 12/3: City Council - Mayoral Changeover 12/7: Christmas Tree Lighting Mason, thanked former Mayor Chuck Puckett for his service and congratulations to current Mayor Allan "Doc" Bernstein and Mayor Pro Tern Letitia Clark, She also thanked staff for their hard work and happy holidays! 8:22 p,m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, January 1,4, 2020, at 7:00 p.m, in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. AMY-MA$ON Chairpers�brj JO�TINA L, WILLKOM Action Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Plannng: Commission December 10, 2019—Page 9 of 9