HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 02-09-21 DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
MINUTES
VIDEO CONFERENCING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
FEBRUARY 9, 2021
Mason "During the Statewide COVID-19 Emergency, the public is not permitted to
convene in person for this public meeting. However, the public may still view
and comment on the meeting as follows.":
Mason To watch the meeting, the public may observe the meeting via the City's
Granicus service at https://www.tustinca.org/282/Meetings-Agendas or on
local Cox Channel 851.
Mason To comment on one or more items, you may send your comments to
Plan ningCommission(a-)tustinca.org or by accessing the City's "SpeakUp"
comment system as follows:
6:09 p.m. CALL TO ORDER:
Given by Mason. INVOCATION:
All present. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Chu, Jha
Chair Pro Tem Kozak— late due to technical difficulties.
Chair Mason
Distributed PUBLIC CONCERNS:
emails/
eComments to
staff and
Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — DECEMBER 22, 2020
December 22,
2020 Minutes, as
amended.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the December 22,
2020 Planning Commission meeting, as amended.
Motion: It was moved by Chu, seconded by Jha, to approve the Minutes of the
December 22, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion
carried 3-0. Kozak was not present for this portion of the meeting, as he
entered the virtual meeting late due to technical difficulties.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 1 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Adopted Reso. 2. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY (GPC) 2021-0001; DEVELOPMENT
Nos. 4417 & AGREEMENT (DA) 2020-0002; AND DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2020-0011
4418.
APPLICANT: FAMILY PROMISE OF ORANGE COUNTY (FPOC)
ATTN: CYNDEE ALBERTSON
310 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE
ANAHEIM, CA 92805
PROPERTY
OWNER: CITY OF TUSTIN
300 CENTENNIAL WAY
TUSTIN, CA 92780
LOCATION: 1941 EL CAMINO REAL
ENVIRONMENTAL:
This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32)
of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for
the California Environmental Quality Act) pertaining to in-fill development.
REQUESTS:
1 . GPC 2021-0001 to determine that the location, purpose, and extent of
the proposed disposition of an approximate 16,790 square-foot (0.385
acre) lot for the development of a seven (7) unit multi-family apartment-
style building for short term transitional housing and services for qualified
families with children experiencing homelessness or at risk of
homelessness.
2. DA 2020-0002 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an
approximate 16,790 square foot (0.385 acre) site.
3. DR 2020-0011 for the building design and site layout for a seven (7) unit
multi-family apartment-style building for short-term transitional housing
and services for qualified families with children experiencing
homelessness or at risk of homelessness, including a resource room,
office, common areas and amenities.
4. Density Bonus to authorize two (2) additional units for a total of seven
(7) units in the R4 Zoning District.
5. Two (2) development concessions for a reduced front yard setback and
waiver of covered parking.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 2 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 4417, for GPC 2021-
0001 , determining that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed
disposition of an approximately 0.385-acre site for the development of a
seven (7) unit multi-family apartment-style building for short term
transitional housing for qualified families with children experiencing
homelessness or at risk of homelessness is in conformance with the
approved General Plan.
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 4418 recommending
that the City Council approve:
a. DA 2020-0002 to facilitate the development and conveyance of
an approximate 0.385-acre site located at 1941 EI Camino Real
for the development of a seven (7) unit multi-family apartment-
style building for short-term transitional housing for qualified
families with children experiencing homelessness or at risk of
homelessness.
b. DR 2020-0011 for the building design and site layout of a seven
(7) unit multi-family apartment-style building for short-term
transitional housing for qualified families with children
experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, a
density bonus to authorize two (2) additional units for a total of
seven (7) units in the R4 zoning district and development
concessions for a reduced front yard setback and waiver of
covered parking.
Reekstin Presentation given.
Jha Jha expressed concern with the area being poorly lit at night and asked staff if
there would be lighting and security (i.e. cameras, fencing) added to the project
site. He commented that he thought that this would also enhance the new
building and overall look of Browning and Red Hill Avenues.
Reekstin In response to Jha's concerns, Reekstin stated that lighting would be provided
to ensure the site is safe and secure for both the residents and the employees
at the project site. He added that there will be a wall on three (3) sides of the
property and a point of contact to be provided in the event of an emergency
(after hours). Reekstin was unsure if the applicant would be providing a security
camera.
Willkom Willkom addressed the comment on security. She commented that the facility
is not an emergency homeless shelter, but more of an apartment complex. The
on-site residents would be families with children who have been screened by
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 3 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
Family Promise. She did not anticipate security issues being a major concern
knowing that staff members will be on-site for eight (8)to ten (10) hours per day
and that the applicant would provide a point of contact that would be shared
with the Tustin Police Department (TPD) should the need arise. Willkom also
stated City staff will be working with the applicant to ensure the project site is
always secure and safe. This project is a partnership with Family Promise,
Home Aid, Brookfield Homes and the City, and many hours have been invested
in bringing this project forward.
Chu Chu expressed her concern with visitors, other than residents living on-site.
She asked if the proposed project was consistent with zoning since the project
is near a residential site and questioned if the facility is considered a non-profit
business. Chu asked City staff if they could ensure a security camera be
installed somewhere on the site because she felt it was a mixed-use project.
Willkom In response to Chu's comments, Willkom stated there will be a resource center
on the project site. City staff asked Family Promise to include a resource
center. The idea was to connect the families with resources. Not only will the
residents be utilizing the resource center but also the Tustin community (i.e.
veterans, low-income families, elderly). Willkom added that it is more of a
resource center versus a business, like Chu mentioned previously. The
resource center will be staffed by a Family Promise Housing Navigator and
other staff who will assist those who are in need. As for the security, City staff
can discuss further with the applicant.
Kozak Kozak added that the proposed project will be a great resource for the
community and commented that the project is a compatible land use for the site
and will provide much needed housing and services to families with children
who are in need. He was in support of the recommended action.
Mason Mason had various comments which, in general, included the following: she
asked if the action tonight would be a recommendation to the City Council, if
this is a resource center where people will be working; that the proposed project
will not necessarily be a revolving door of folks in the community; and if the
Commission agreed, and finally, could the Commission make a
recommendation to the City Council as they consider the project, considering
the additional information and conversation, along with the consideration that
the proposal is a partnership between the City and Family Promise, in order to
move the project forward.
Willkom Willkom confirmed Mason's previous comments. She informed the
Commission that the proposal includes a Development Agreement, which has
to be approved by the City Council via Ordinance. The remaining entitlement
applications would be reviewed concurrently by the City Council. Willkom
reiterated that the item presented to the Commission would be a
recommendation to the City Council, if the Commission approves the item.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 4 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
6:51 p.m. Hurtado confirmed there were no additional comments received by the public.
Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Chu, to adopt Resolution Nos. 4417 and
4418. Motion carried 4-0.
Adopted Reso. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2020-0009 & DESIGN REVIEW 2020-
No. 4419, as 0008
amended.
APPLICANT: CHRISTIAN DE ANDA
1029 E. 4TH STREET
SANTA ANA, CA 92701
PROPERTY
OWNER: CHRISTIAN DE ANDA
1029 E. 4TH STREET
SANTA ANA, CA 92701
LOCATION: 14232 NEWPORT AVENUE
ENVIRONMENTAL:
This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to section 15303 (Class 3) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
REQUEST:
A request to construct and operate a 1,390 square foot restaurant
(Taqueria Hoy) with a drive-thru facility and outdoor seating.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4419 approving
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)2020-0009, authorizing the establishment of
a drive-thru facility and associated drive-thru signage, and Design Review
(DR) 2020-0008, approving the site planning and design proposed for a
new 1,390 square foot restaurant (Taqueria Hoy) and associated outdoor
seating located at 14232 Newport Avenue.
Daudt Daudt informed the Commission that Jha recused himself from the item due to
the proximity of his business and the project site.
Salman Presentation given.
Mason Mason referred to the drive-thru depiction in the site plan, specifically, the menu
board location. She also referred to the wall height being fairly low and wanted
confirmation that the height would be elevated, which Salman stated it would
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 5 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
be elevated to six (6) feet eight (8) inches and will be a benefit to the nearby
residents. Mason also asked her fellow Commissioners to consider keeping
the drive-thru hours to 24 (on a trial basis) in order to ensure the applicant's
business succeeds.
Willkom Per Willkom, the Tustin City Code (TCC) limits the outdoor seating hours to
11:00 p.m., however, the drive-thru hours can be amended, if it is the desire of
the Commission to allow the 24-hour operation. Willkom advised the Chair to
receive input from the other Commissioners; then if they agree, amend the
Conditions of Approval within Resolution No. 4419.
Chu Chu echoed Mason's suggestion on the 24-hour drive-thru operation due to this
being the applicant's main source of income. She suggested limiting the
indoor/outdoor dining to 11 :00 p.m. in order to avoid any possible noise-level
issues with the nearby residents. Chu was also concerned with cars blocking
the parking spaces along Newport Avenue during busy hours. She asked staff
if four (4) of the parking spaces could be relocated in order to avoid them from
being blocked.
Willkom In response to Chu's concerns, Willkom stated City staff has worked with the
applicant with several versions of the layout. There are many requirements the
City imposed, including the number of cars that need to be able to be stacked,
which is seven (7) cars. In addition, there is a ten (10) foot dedication that
eventually, when the City is ready, the applicant will need to provide. With the
ten (10) foot dedication and parking requirement, it is difficult to relocate the
parking spaces to the opposite side of the site. Willkom also mentioned that
City staff had worked with the Public Works Traffic Engineer and the TPD to
review the internal circulation. One of the project conditions is to have an
employee working the drive-thru area, during high peak hours, in orderto speed
up drive-thru process and keep the vehicles circulating within the site. With the
Conditions of Approval, the TPD's Traffic Division and the Public Works
Department are comfortable with the layout (i.e. parking and circulation) that
the applicant has proposed.
Mason Mason asked for further clarification with regards to the outdoor dining hours
being limited to 11:00 p.m. and staff's recommendation to extend the indoor
dining to 24 hours, and the indoor capacity.
Willkom Willkom mentioned the three (3) requests made by the applicant:
1) Indoor dining hours to be open until 3:00 a.m.;
2) Outdoor dining hours, to be open until 11:00 p.m. - the TCC limits
the outdoor dining when the business is adjacent to residential
properties; and
3) Drive-thru hours - the TCC does not limit the hours of operation,
however, due to the close proximity to the residential properties, staff is
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 6 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
recommending hours be limited to 11 :00 p.m. to be consistent with the
outdoor seating hours.
She added that the applicant has indicated that their other restaurants are well
known for their 24-hour drive-thru operation. During Covid-19, drive-thrus have
become an asset to the City since people may not dine-in. She mentioned that
after Covid-19, restaurants may change the way they operate their business.
Willkom concluded, that if it is the desire of the Commission, the Commission
can decide whether or not they want to allow extended hours for the indoor
dining and drive-thru but the hours of outdoor seating must be 11:00 p.m., per
the TCC.
Kozak Kozak thanked the applicant for the proposed project in order to better the
community. He supported staff's recommendations. The outdoor dining hours
and indoor hours made sense. Kozak suggested a six (6) month monitoring
period, if the Commission agreed on allowing the drive-thru hours to operate
24 hours, then to report back to City staff.
Chu Chu thanked the applicant for returning to the City of Tustin for their project.
She was also in support of the project.
Mason Mason asked Willkom for direction on how to allow the applicant to operate their
business, while allowing amended drive-thru hours, for a period of time.
Willkom Willkom stated that if it is the desire of the Commission to allow the 24-hour
drive-thru operation, they could do so on a trial basis for a period of six (6)
months, as long as the City does not receive many complaints. She asked the
Commission to clarify the hours of operation for the indoor dining since the
applicant is requesting hours be extended to 3:00 a.m. Again, she reiterated
the hours of operation for the outdoor seating would have to be 11:00 p.m., at
the latest.
Chu Chu requested the hours of operation for the indoor/outdoor dining be 11:00
p.m. in order to avoid any noise issues (i.e. cars, voice levels), but she was in
support of the drive-thru hours being 24 hours.
Kozak Kozak echoed comments from Chu with respect to the 11 :00 p.m.
indoor/outdoor dining and 24-hour drive-thru, but would be willing to do a "test
period" during the summer months and monitor the project site with the
applicant. He was in support of the project with the added conditions.
Mason Mason thanked Chu for her comments on the 11:00 p.m. indoor/outdoor dining
hours of operation; however, staff's recommendation for the indoor dining hours
would be 3:00 a.m. She recommended allowing the 3:00 a.m. indoor dining
and the 24-hour drive-thru operation and if there are complaints, City staff can
address at that time. Or if the Commission would be in favor of allowing staff's
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 7 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
recommendation but allowing a contingency that after the project has been
open for six (6) months, City staff review for complaints or issues. She also
asked when the project would be complete.
Salman Salman did not have a project completion date.
The Commission collectively agreed to the Chair's final recommendation.
7:26 p.m. Hurtado stated she had received an email from Mr. Bryan Elenes at 7:26 p.m.,
which she immediately emailed to City staff and the Commission.
Willkom Willkom shared the email from Mr. Elenes. His concerns were as follows: what
type of mitigation would be in place for spillover onto Newport Avenue when
the drive-thru is full— City staff is proposing a condition which would require that
an employee be at the drive-thru lane during peak hours; could the
homeowners be part of the planning and design process of the project —
following the Commission's consideration/approval of this project, there will be
a plan check process and at that time there may be minor modifications City
staff can provide or look into, and if the homeowners have any concerns, they
can contact Mary Salman and if City staff can accommodate, they will try to
facilitate in order to resolve the issue; his concern with the large trash trucks
arriving early in the morning (i.e. noise) and if the trash pick-up could be
arranged for later in the day— Willkom stated that Salman can discuss with the
business owner to make arrangements and if it is the Commission's desire,
another condition can be added to Resolution No. 4419 as well; lastly, he asked
if the residents could be provided with the six (6) month monitoring period for
public comments/input — Willkom mentioned that the Commission previously
mentioned the trial period of six (6)months to see how the business is operating
and if there are any problems, City staff can bring them back to the
Commission.
Mason Mason stated she assumed the applicant would be conducting community
outreach, with regards to Mr. Elenes' email comments. She was also in favor
of adding the trash pick-up time to the Conditions of Approval within Resolution
No. 4419.
Kozak Kozak was in support of Mason's added condition previously mentioned.
Daudt Daudt did ask for one (1) clarification to Mason's suggested amendments.
During the monitoring period, he suggested the Commission delegate the
responsibility to the Community Development Director to determine within that
time frame whether or not there have been issues with noise or nuisance
conditions which would mean that the item would not be returned to the
Commission for reconsideration. Or, the Commission could state, as an
absolute requirement, that this matter will come back to the Commission six (6)
months after commencement of business operation for a report from the
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 8 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
Director to allow the Commission to decide whether or not they want to modify
that condition.
Motion: It was moved by the Chair, to approve staff's recommendation with the following
amendments: 1) allowing the operator a six (6) month trial period for the 24-
hour drive-thru operation to be delegated to the Director; 2) indoor dining hours
to remain 24 hours; and for the business owner to arrange a later trash pick-up
time. Seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4419, as amended. Motion
carried 3-0-1 with Jha recusing himself from the item.
Adopted Reso. 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 2019-00001 AND DESIGN
No. 4420, 4421, REVIEW (DR) 2019-00019
& 4422, as
amended.
APPLICANT: BARAY KARIM
7 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
188 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SUITE N
IRVINE, CA 92681
PROPERTY
OWNERS: CHRISTOPHER KELLSTROM
1042 SAN JUAN STREET
TUSTIN, CA 92780
RONALD C. WEBBER
17092 OLIVE GROVE LANE
SILVERADO, CA 92676-92719
R0001
LOCATION: 1042 SAN JUAN STREET
1052 SAN JUAN STREET
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ONLY)
ENVIRONMENTAL:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Article 6
of California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.
REQUESTS:
1 . GPA 2019-00001 to amend the General Plan land use designation from
Community Commercial (CC)to High Density Residential (HDR)at 1042
and 1052 San Juan Street. 1052 San Juan Street is included in this
application for general plan consistency only.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 9 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
2. DR 2019-00019 for the building design and layout for construction of two
(2) duplexes and one (1) detached single-family structure and the
preservation of an existing single-family residential historic resource at
1042 San Juan Street.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4420
recommending that the City Council find that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration is adequate for GPA 2019-00001 for 1042 and 1052 San
Juan Street and DR 2019-00019 for the proposed project at 1042 San
Juan Street.
2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4421
recommending that the City Council approve GPA 2019-00001 to
change the properties' General Plan Land Use Designation from
Community Commercial (CC)to High Density Residential (HDR)at 1042
San Juan Street and 1052 San Juan Street.
3. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4422
recommending that the City Council approve DR 2019-00019 for
building design and site layout for two (2) duplexes and one (1) single
family residence and the preservation of an existing single-family historic
resource at 1042 San Juan Street.
Reekstin Presentation given.
Jha Jha suggested adding a condition requiring that residents renting or purchasing
the units must use their carport/garage for parking and not storage being that
there is already an issue with street parking.
Chu Chu asked if City staff knew if the applicant was intending to sell or lease the
units.
Reekstin Per Reekstin, the proposed units would all be rental units. There is no
subdivision being proposed. He was unsure if any units would be owner
occupied.
Mason Mason agreed with Jha's concerns previously mentioned and she asked if a
condition could be added to Resolution No. 4422.
Willkom Per Willkom, the TCC does require garages to be used for parking of vehicles;
however, if it is the Commission's desire to add a condition it can be specified
within the Conditions of Approval that the garage is to be used for parking of
vehicles and limited storage, provided that cars can still be parked in the
garage.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 10 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
8:04 p.m. Hurtado confirmed there were no additional public comments.
Chu Chu suggested parking permits be required in order to assist with the already
current parking issue.
Mason In response to Chu's previous comment, Mason stated that parking permits
could be a requirement in the future, but that it is not a requirement now.
Willkom Willkom provided further clarifications regarding carports and garages. The
TCC requires covered spaces and in the case of this project, the nature of the
proposal is a duplex. City staff encouraged the applicant to design the project
with garages as staff felt that garages would be more appropriate than a
carport. As far as parking and storage of materials inside a garage, the TCC
states garages must be used for parking of vehicles and limited storage is
acceptable provided vehicles can still be parked within the garage. If it is the
desire of the Commission, City staff can add a condition that clearly identifies
garages must be used for parking of vehicles.
Motion: It was moved by Jha, with the suggested added condition requiring vehicle
parking in the garage, seconded by Chu, to adopt Resolution Nos. 4420, 4421
and 4422, as amended. Motion carried 4-0.
REGULAR BUSINESS:
Adopted Reso. 5. 2021 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ADVISOR WORK
No. 4416. PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission, acting as the Historic and Cultural
Resources Advisor (HCRA) to the City Council, adopt a 2021 Work
Program per Resolution No. 4416.
Reekstin Presentation given.
Chu Chu commended Reekstin for the presentation. She had no further comments.
Jha Jha asked Mason why the Commission was appointed this role and inquired as
to why there was a need for six (6) hours of training. He voiced his opinion
regarding the webinars currently being offered not being related to Tustin. Jha
would prefer having the training on Tustin's history.
Reekstin In response to Jha's previous comments, Reekstin stated that the City Council
appointed this role to the Commission because they felt the Commission was
well versed in historic preservation issues and what happens in our city. The
City Council wanted to consolidate some city functions and at one time there
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 11 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
was a separate committee that worked on historic preservation issues and the
City Council made the decision to give the Planning Commission the
opportunity to carry out these duties. As part of that, the City Council wanted
the Commission to feel comfortable with historic preservation as a topic so they
instituted the requirement of training. The City is also required to have the
Commission trained pursuant to the requirements of the Certified Local
Government (CLG) program, which is run by the State of California and City
staff is required to encourage the Commission to provide training opportunities
related to historic preservation if the City wants to remain in the CLG program.
Reekstin further explained that the CLG program recognizes the cities
throughout the State that value historic preservation. Tustin was the first city in
Orange County to become certified, and City staff takes pride in knowing what
the City has done with historic preservation in valuing the Old Town area. He
added that there are some grants available to CLG members each year and
the City has taken advantage of those types of grants in the past (i.e. surveys,
access to expertise from the State Office of Historic Preservation). Reekstin
concluded that the CLG program is more of a recognition program that
recognizes cities that have adopted an ordinance for historic preservation and
those that have completed a survey of a property, etc.
Willkom Willkom added that with this new role, City staff plans on bringing the
Commission to the Historic District to educate the Commission directly about
the City's resources. Due to Covid-19, a lot of the programs are not taking
place. City staff is hoping, in the near future, they can provide some training
and workshops that relates more to the Tustin community.
Kozak Kozak thanked Reekstin for the presentation and for his knowledge and
passion for historic preservation.
Mason Mason asked for the total cost of a bust and also about the status of the survey
and the firm the City is working with. She also mentioned the great opportunity
to be a part of the HRC and she commended Reekstin and Dove for their part
with the entire historic preservation process.
Willkom Per Willkom, the total cost for the bust is $10,000 with donations from
individuals for the base of the bust, which is somewhat costly. Last year, the
bust program did not carry out due to lack of donations. In addition, she stated
that due to Covid-19, the survey was delayed, but the firm (ARG) is completing
all of the necessary work — ARG has visited all of the resources that may or
may not be eligible in the inclusion of the survey. Right now, ARG is writing the
narrative and context statement and they should be complete in the near future
which will be shared with the Commission.
8:28 p.m. Hurtado confirmed that there was no public input received.
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 12 of 13
DocuSign Envelope ID:553AF62C-D8C0-45A2-BCO2-FCAF7F9FDF74
Motion: It was moved by Chu seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4416.
Motion carried 4-0.
Received & filed. 6. CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2020 YEAR IN
REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission receive and file the report.
DiLeva Presentation given.
STAFF CONCERNS:
Willkom City staff is continuing to work on the Housing Element (HE) Update as well as
in the process of working on community outreach (i.e. email, dedicated HE web
page) and currently, there is an on-line survey for residents to complete. This
will assist City staff in obtaining input on what is important to the community (i.e.
vision, goals to be included in the HE). Willkom encouraged the viewers and
audience members to visit the City's website and complete the survey.
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Chu Chu commended DiLeva for the Year in Review presentation and to staff for all
of their hard work.
Jha Jha had no concerns.
Kozak Kozak thanked staff for the meeting presentations and reports. On January 19,
2021 , he participated in the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting and
Supervisor Wagner's Third District meeting.
Mason Welcome Irma Huitron!
8.48 p.m. ADJOURNMENT:
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for
Tuesday, February 23, 2021 .
DocuSigned by:
D3273B6D898A43D...
Docusigned by: AMY MASON
�" ^� �. O� Chairperson
ED45DA2623B54A5...
JUSTINA L. WILLKOM
Planning Commission Secretary
Minutes—Planning Commission February 9, 2021 —Page 13 of 13