Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 5-25-21 ITEM #1 MINUTES VIDEO CONFERENCING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 2021 6:01 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Given. INVOCATION: Mello All present. ROLL CALL: Chair Mason Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Chu, Higuchi, and Mello None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 11, 2021 Minutes of the May 11, 2021 meeting, as amended. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the May 11, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Mello Mello clarified he attended the BIA meeting virtually, not in person. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Chu, to approve the Minutes of the May 11, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. None. PUBLIC HEARING. REGULAR BUSINESS: Received & 2. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS filed. A summary of projects and activities 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. Minutes—Planning Commission May 25, 2021 —Page 1 of 5 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file the report. DiLeva Presentation given. Kozak Kozak commended DiLeva for an excellent report. He also made favorable comments to the City for reaching out to those in need with regards to the assistance programs mentioned in the presentation. Mello Mello also commended DiLeva for a great presentation. He asked if any houses of worship took advantage of the temporary use permit program. Mello also asked how the criteria is established for the Community Development Director to make a determination on what constitutes a Cultural Resource and are there guidelines or parameters set by an outside professional or legislative body. Huitron Huitron stated, in response to Mello's question, that the only businesses that took advantage of the temporary outdoor expansions (temporary use permit) were fitness centers, personal services, and the majority were restaurants and further stated that places of worship had not obtained a permit from the City. Reekstin Reekstin added, that the Tustin City Code provides the specific criteria that needs to be met when a Cultural Resource is designated (i.e. if the resource is identified with a historical figure or if the resource is identified with an architectural style, it can be designated). The Cultural Resource needs to meet one of those criteria in order to be designated and the designation of a Cultural Resource is done by the City Council. Chu Chu asked staff about the Certificate of Appropriateness—she referred to the rating 5131 (local listing) S3 (national listing) and what would make a property rate as "national". She also thanked DiLeva for her presentation and commended the City of Tustin for the many programs available to the community. Chu voiced her concern with the graffiti issue and what could be done to get involved with the Tustin Police Department (TPD) to resolve the issue. Mason Mason asked if there were particular steps being made by TPD to mitigate the graffiti issue. Reekstin In response to Chu's question on the rating, Reekstin stated that there are many different criteria that are looked at when evaluating a resource to determine its significance: 1) Integrity—and how well it conveys its significance. Some properties may have been significant but the property may have been altered so significantly that they lose some of their significance); 2) Uniqueness of architectural style; 3) The builder or architect of the building; and 4)Who may have lived or worked in the building. He added that just because it is listed on the National Register does not Minutes—Planning Commission May 25, 2021 —Page 2 of 5 Reekstin mean it has to have "national" significance, it may but it also might have regional or local significance. Willkom In response to Chu and Mason's question regarding mitigating the graffiti issue, each graffiti incident is handled by the City's contractor who will take photos of the graffiti and share them with the TPD and Code Enforcement staff to further investigate. City staff does ensure the City contractor is notified immediately in order to remove the reported graffiti. TPD believes that due to juveniles being home during the pandemic, that it could have contributed to the rise in graffiti. City staff is hopeful the amount of graffiti lessens once the juveniles are back to school in- person. Higuchi Higuchi thanked DiLeva for her presentation. Based upon the Strategic Plan approved by the City Council, he is looking forward to a longer project list next year. Mason Mason thanked City staff for their hard work and to the many businesses for making our community a vibrant and thriving one. Also, for the work that has been done, very rapidly, during the pandemic. Mason also thanked DiLeva for her presentation. Received and filed. Adopted 3. FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2021-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Resolution (CIP) FINDING OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN No. 4431. Under Section 65401 of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission is to review the list of proposed public works projects recommended for planning, initiation or construction during the ensuing year and report to the City Council as to conformity with the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4431 finding the proposed FY 2021-2022 CIP in conformance with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the California Government Code. Nishikawa Nishikawa introduced himself to the new members of the Commission. He provided an outline of the agenda report - to ensure it is in conformity with the General Plan. Mello Mello's comments/questions generally included: Capital Improvement Projects and how they are determined and how they made the list; private developers (i.e. Brookfield and SchoolsFirst) and their requirements for the CIPs since they are required to make improvements off-site and to set up maintenance facilities for ongoing maintenance and how that correlates with their obligation versus the City's obligation to fund improvements associated with their work. Minutes—Planning Commission May 25, 2021 —Page 3 of 5 Nishikawa Nishikawa's response to Mello's question generally included: 1) many of the items come from the City's annual maintenance review (i.e. annual roadway maintenance project - the city is broken up into 7 zones and maintenance rotates through those zones, which is ongoing); parks facilities; buildings -the City will have certain items that come up for updates/upgrades; 2) projects through the Strategic Plan process — City Council will have priorities that come up and will take precedence (i.e. Tustin Legacy, Old Town); 3) Specific Plan areas (i.e. Downtown Commercial Core Plan — to make the area more walkable, more pedestrian-friendly) several projects such as Main St. improvements and parklets were derived from the DCCP; Redhill Avenue Specific Plan (i.e. medians); 4)development projects (i.e. SchoolsFirst Credit Union CIP project — new median, traffic signal, driveway facilities); 5) outside agencies — new standards City staff has to address (i.e. stormwater management-CIP)certain improvements have to be worked on; ADA accessibility issues (i.e. upgrade PED push buttons, ramps); environmental discharge issues—groundwater pollution; CIP projects (i.e. new well). In response to Mello's second question, SchoolsFirst— half of the median and traffic signal is the cost responsibility of SchoolsFirst and the other half is the City's responsibility. In terms of doing the project, the City has their own CIP that covers the City's cost which the City has been taking care of on a reimbursement basis with SchoolsFirst. Brookfield also has their own responsibilities as far as infrastructure. Anything above and beyond that impacts City facilities and/or properties or the major roadways would be a CIP for the City. Chu Chu referred to the chart in the agenda report and the categories. What kind of project would fall under the category of"growth management"? Nishikawa Per Nishikawa, for Public Works, there are not too many items that would fall under that category. Currently, Public Works is not working on anything classified as growth management. Willkom In response to Chu's question, growth management would be more of a planning related project. City staff would take a look at cumulative development impacts occurring in the City as well as adjacent cities. Higuchi Higuchi asked Nishikawa if he was optimistic if the CIP project list would expand based upon Federal legislation. More specifically, the South Hangar rehabilitation Phase 1. Nishikawa Nishikawa's response to Higuchi generally included: using Federal funding for infrastructure is more difficult to use than State funding. Currently, City staff is trying to improve the infrastructure of the South Hangar and are working on plans (i.e. permanent power, upgrading the sewer), which would all help to get better capacity for events and open the South Hangar up to more uses. Motion: It was moved by Mello, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4431. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes—Planning Commission May 25, 2021 —Page 4 of 5 STAFF CONCERNS: Willkom No concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Higuchi No concerns. Higuchi thanked City staff for tonight's presentations. Mello Mello thanked staff for tonight's discussion and presentation. He would like to learn more about the Tustin Legacy. He is hopeful, with children going back to school the graffiti issue will lessen. Chu Chu made favorable comments to City staff for their hard work. Kozak Kozak also made favorable comments to City staff for tonight's presentations. On May 11, 2021, he participated in the virtual City Council/Planning Commission Workshop and on May 12, 2021 the City's Strategic Plan Workshop. Mason Mason also participated in the City Council/Planning Commission Workshop and the City's Strategic Plan Workshop. 6:51 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 8, 2021. Minutes—Planning Commission May 25, 2021 —Page 5 of 5