Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 07-27-21 MINUTES ITEM #1 VIDEO CONFERENCING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 2021 6:04 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. Given. INVOCATION: Reverend Ken Suhr, Aldersgate Methodist Church All present. ROLL CALL: Chair Mason Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Chu, Higuchi, and Mello None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —JUNE 22, 2021 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the June 22, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Chu, to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Adopted Reso. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2021-0010 AND SIGN CODE No. 4434. EXCEPTION (SCE) 2021-0001 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: James P. Caiopoulos Geoff Moore Galaxy Oil Company Mutual Liquid Gas & Equipment Co., I nc. 303 N. Placentia, Suite D 17117 S. Broadway Fullerton, CA 92831 Gardena, CA 90248 LOCATION: 1001 Edinger Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Minutes—Planning Commission July 27, 2021 —Page 1 of 8 REQUEST: A request to amend the Mutual Propane Plaza Master Sign Plan to include changeable gas pricing copy and a Sign Code Exception (SCE) for static wayfinding text on existing LED sign within Mutual Propane Plaza. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4434 approving CUP 2021-0010 to authorize an amendment of the Master Sign Plan for Mutual Propane Plaza for the addition of changeable gas pricing copy on the existing LED monument sign and a SCE for the addition of static wayfinding copy on the existing LED freeway freestanding sign. Newton Presentation given. Chu Chu's comments generally included: Sign Type F and the black background versus the monument sign background being gray — could they be matching in color (i.e. either both gray or both black). Kozak Kozak made favorable comments on the sign and stated the sign will help the Edinger Avenue off-ramp. He was in support of the item. 6:28 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing. Mr. James P. In response to Chu's comments on the color of the sign background, James P. Caiopoulos Caiopoulos, the applicant, stated that the colors of the 76 sign are the required colors. The freeway sign background can be changed which he was considering changing. The software engineers can re-do the sign colors if that is what the Commission wants. Mr. Caiopoulos commended Newton on the work done on the project. He also thanked the Commission for their support on the project. He mentioned this site being the highest producing site and that he has received a lot of positive comments with regards to the wayfinding portion of the site. Mr. Caiopoulos also discussed the monument sign and the need for dual displays, or the ability to change the sign to reflect pricing. This site is the only gas station that has four(4) specific prices for fuel. 6:34 p.m. Closed the Public Hearing. Mason Mason commended staff in working with the applicant on this project. She was in support of the item. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Chu, to adopt Resolution No. 4434. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes—Planning Commission July 27, 2021 —Page 2 of 8 Adopted Reso. 3. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2021-0002; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Nos. 4435 and (DA) 2021-0001; SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2021-0001/VESTING 4436. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17822; 20% DENSITY BONUS; CONCESSION/INCENTIVE FOR A REDUCTION IN PRIVATE AND COMMON OPEN SPACE AND A WAIVER OF PARK FEES FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Craig Swanson WASL Tustin Investors V LLC Irvine Asset Group, LLC c/o Irvine Asset Group, LLC 4000 Mac Arthur Blvd., #600 4000 Mac Arthur Blvd., #600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL: An addendum to the RHASP Final Program EIR (FPEIR) has been prepared for this project. An addendum is appropriate pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 because none of the conditions identified in Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR has occurred and because the project is a later activity within the scope of the RHASP FPEIR pursuant to Section 15168. REQUESTS/RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4435, recommending that the City Council approve the Addendum to the FPEIR for DR 2021-0002, DA 2021-0001, SUB 2021-0001, a twenty (20) percent Density Bonus, a concession/incentive for a reduction in the required amounts of common and private open space, and a waiver of the payment of required park fees for the six (6) affordable units. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4436, recommending that the City Council approve- 1. pprove:1. DR 2021-0002 for the design and site layout of a new mixed-use project consisting of 137 residential units including six (6) affordable residential units, 7,000 square feet of retail commercial space, at-grade parking containing 227 parking spaces, and associated improvements; 2. DA 2021-0001 to facilitate the development of the site and to provide public benefits to the City; Minutes—Planning Commission July 27, 2021 —Page 3 of 8 3. SUB 2021-0001/VTTM No. 17822 for commercial condominium, merger, and re-subdivision purposes; 4. Density Bonus of twenty (20) percent to authorize an additional twenty-three (23) residential units; 5. Concession/incentive for a reduction of the required amounts of common and private open space; and 6. Waiver of the payment of park fees for the six (6) affordable units. Demkowicz Presentation given. Chu Chu requested clarification regarding Resolution No. 4436 and the applicant having the option to convert the property from leasing to for-sale units. Chu asked under what circumstances would the applicant exercise the option to convert from lease to sale. Mr. Craig Per applicant, Mr. Swanson, the subdivision map will allow the applicant, to return Swanson in the future and request permission to convert the project to condominium units. He indicated that it is not contemplated to take place immediately and that it would be in a number of years. He indicated that the legal framework surrounding for-sale condominium units of this nature are such that it is very difficult and that discussion on that would be postponed for approximately five (5) to ten (10) years. Higuchi Higuchi thanked staff for a thorough presentation. Mello Mello commended staff on the presentation. His comments generally included: clarification regarding the six (6)affordable units driving the density bonus as well as the reduction in the required parking spaces; the garage units — how are they assigned and what are the size of the garages? If a prospective tenant has more than one (1) car or a larger vehicle, and it did not fit in the garage, what would be the alternative in terms of finding parking? Swanson Swanson clarified Mello's comments regarding the density bonus and the required parking spaces. Huitron Huitron's response, per Mello's questions, generally included: the garages, Huitron stated that the minimum size, per the TCC, ten (10) by twenty (20) internal dimensions and would be verified by staff during the plan check process; assignment of the parking spaces —the Parking Management Plan (PMP) specifies there would be a certain limit of number of spaces that could be assigned to individual units. The PMP would handle the tenants parking spaces along with accommodating tenants' personal vehicles (not work vehicles). The City would also monitor on a quarterly basis, along with the applicant per the PMP. Minutes—Planning Commission July 27, 2021 —Page 4 of 8 Mason Mason mentioned the twelve (12) spaces on-street parking and asked if these on-street parking is time limited parking? Will the parking be metered? She asked when the street widening would take place. Mason also asked if the commercial parking and the retail outlets were closed, would they be available for guests and residents. Mason asked if this the highest building within the RHASP. Demkowicz In response to Mason's previous questions, Demkowicz stated that the time would be limited and restricted so one would not be able to park on the street for a long period of time. Nishikawa Nishikawa also responded to Mason's questions related to Redhill Avenue widening and stated that at this time there are three (3) lanes, in both directions, on Red Hill Avenue even with the added on-street parking. At this time, the peak volumes do not require Redhill Avenue to be widen. If in the future, there needs to be a street widening, City staff will address it then. The capacity for three (3) lanes is approximately 50,000 average daily trips at the average speed limit. Even with the buildout of the Specific Plan, the average is approximately 30,000 daily trips. Willkom Willkom also stated that this project will be the tallest building within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan corridor. 7.10 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing Item. Scott Mr. Scott Couchman spoke in favor of the mixed-use concept but opposed further Couchman decimating Tustin High School neighborhood with more cars parked on the streets. He was also concerned with insufficient off-street parking and the project access from San Juan Street. Mr. Couchman indicated that he received the same answer from the City Council that the project meets the parking requirement. Mr. Couchman also voiced his concern that the garages would be used for storage and not for cars. He did not agree with the proposed parking plan. Neil Sherman Mr. Neil Sherman, lives at the south end of Red Hill Corridor, and voiced his concern with the lack of appropriate parking, which is currently an issue with parking coming down from Newport Avenue onto the Red Hill Avenue corridor area. Also indicated the potential need to increase parking spaces for residents particularly during street sweeping. Charles Mr. Charles McKenna, Old Town resident, generally commented as follows: it is McKenna not residents who live at the project site as their primary residence, who add to parking and traffic problems, but will mostly come from the commuters; the staff report addressed the parking adequately; he was in support of the project; need new high quality development to bring improvement to the Red Hill Corridor; will bring permanent residents to the community, vibrancy, improvement over vacant lots and blight; and essential to improving overall what Tustin has to offer. Minutes—Planning Commission July 27, 2021 —Page 5 of 8 7.25 p.m. Closed the Public Hearing. Mason Mason asked if there will there be regulations on how the parking garages will be used? Mason recommended garage use be shared with the City Council. Willkom In response to all of the parking comments previously mentioned, Willkom reminded the Commission of the reciprocal parking within the commercial and residential uses. Although the City cannot require many more parking spaces than what density bonus law provides, the applicant has provided assurances in providing the parking study which encompasses a variety of uses at different peak hours. The parking study concluded that during the weekday peak hours, there are approximately forty-one (41) surplus spaces available and during the weekend hours, there are forty-two (42) surplus spaces available. In addition, the parking study did not include the twelve (12) additional spaces on-street parking along Red Hill Avenue, which are additional spaces on top of the 227 parking spaces the project proposed. The applicant also included the parking management plan in which the applicant will regulate how parking spaces are assigned to each unit and the forty-one (41) and forty-two (42) surplus spaces within the weekdays or weekends, the surplus can also be assigned to the residents, should there be a need for more than one (1) parking space. Willkom stated staff can add Mason's recommendation to the parking management plan. Also, the TCC states that garages must be used for storing of vehicles, not storage of personal items. Swanson Swanson stated that with past projects, the garages typically will have windows in order for the operations team to monitor the garages to ensure they are being used for vehicle parking and not for storage. The tenants will have ample amount of storage spaces as the project is designed with storage units. Chu Chu's comments generally included: other cities are experiencing parking issues; suggested building parking structures; encourage "walk-only" after certain hours of the day to make it easier for residents to get around; and she suggested accent colors (i.e. orange, red) to the development. Mello Mello commended the project. He wished the City had transit systems or alternate transportation systems and an allowance for one (1) to one and one half (1.5) parking spaces per unit. With his past experience of developing high density buildings, he was concerned with the parking management plan (i.e. forcing residents to park elsewhere) and concern of the overflow onto San Juan Street. Higuchi Higuchi disclosed he met with Craig Swanson prior to the meeting to discuss the project. He thanked staff for the thorough presentation and the applicant for their high-quality project. Higuchi's final comments generally included: the property is zoned for residential, subject to California State Density Bonus laws, did not think there was a lot of room with respect to allowing residential project that is leveraging density bonus laws to deny a project based on parking; he jogs around Minutes—Planning Commission July 27, 2021 —Page 6 of 8 Higuchi Green Valley where there is currently a parking issue and underutilization of garage space; during a Tustin High football game, there may be an issue with parking; most apartments in Tustin do not have a parking management program; he mentioned regulating cars license plates; the economic benefit of this project- low-income housing need and this project will take care of the blighted area; he spoke of the economic benefits of the project and clarified some of the fees that would be paid by the developer being significant; in support of the item; and he commended staff and the applicant for the great outreach of this project item. Daudt Daudt confirmed that due to the State law, the City is required to apply the State mandated parking ratio to the residential units in this project. With respect to the commercial component, staff has applied the City's own commercial parking ratio to balance site with parking. Nishikawa In response to Higuchi's comments, the City is currently looking at an overall residential permit parking with Dixon Management(consultant)and one (1)Zoom meeting has already been held with another meeting being held in September. The City has received a lot of input already from the community with permit parking in various areas of the city. All public streets in Tustin are being looked at and the project is moving forward quickly. Kozak Kozak made favorable comments for housing in this area on this vacant site. He added that this project can be an example of what can be accomplished in other difficult sites that need housing. He was in support of the item. Mason Mason's final comments generally included: State mandated parking, staff and applicantworked hard on moving this project forward; reality is, parking is already an issue in Tustin; well thought out project; nice addition to the area; need more housing; mixed-use is bringing a bright light to the area; making the city walk- able; and she was in support of this project. Mello Mello's final comments generally included: he did not necessarily agree with the State mandate. He understands the City is going in the right direction but difficult for him to support an item if there is going to be a problem. He was not in support of the project. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Chu to adopt Resolution Nos. 4435 and 4436. Motion carried: 4-1. Mello dissented. Willkom Per Willkom, this item will be going to the City Council on August 17, 2021 and will be re-noticed. The speakers will be notified via the information provided on the Request to Speak forms. None. REGULAR BUSINESS: Minutes—Planning Commission July 27, 2021 —Page 7 of 8 STAFF CONCERNS: Willkom Willkom reminded the Commission of the Old Town Tustin Re-Opening Event July 29, 2021 from 4:00-9:00 p.m. and to please check emails from Elaine Dove regarding upcoming Historic Preservation Training. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Higuchi Higuchi attended the Sip n' Stroll on July 17, 2021. He provided a shout out to Arvida Books. The Chili Cook-Off takes place on August 15, 2021. Mello Mello thanked everybody for the great dialogue and great projects. He attended Sheriff Don Barnes briefing on July 20, 2021 who mentioned the long-term lease in Tustin and the real time crime center coming soon to Tustin. Chu Chu thanked staff for a wonderful job with the presentations and all of the hard work put into the items. Kozak Kozak thanked staff for the excellent work done on the Red Hill project and working with the developer to bring the proposal to the Commission and the City Council. He participated in the following events- 7/1- vents:7/1: Tustin Planning Commission Briefing (virtually) • 7/4: Fourth of July Event at Tustin High School • Concerts in the Park (Wednesdays) • 7/17: Old Town Sip n' Stroll • 7/20: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Mason Mason closed the meeting in honor of her Father, Phil Kavanaugh, MD, who passed away on July 1, 2021. Many condolences to the entire Kavanaugh family. 7.54pm ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 10, 2021. Minutes—Planning Commission July 27, 2021 —Page 8 of 8