Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 10-26-21 DocuSign Envelope ID:F864E7EA-2625-495F-ABAF-1826DA2F7D5B MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBER& VIDEO CONFERENCE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 26, 2021 6:06 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Given. INVOCATION: Father Bao Thai, St. Cecilia Church Conducted. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. All present. ROLL CALL: Chair Mason Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Chu, Higuchi, and Mello None. PUBLIC INPUT: Hurtado Hurtado stated an e-Comment was received at 5:27pm, and was forwarded to the Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR: Hurtado Hurtado confirmed there was no public input received for the Consent Calendar. Approved 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—OCTOBER 12, 2021 the Minutes of the October 12, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the October 12, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. It was moved by Chu, seconded by Mello, to approve the Minutes of the October 12, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Minutes—Planning Commission October 26,2021 —Page 1 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID:F864E7EA-2625-495F-ABAF-1826DA2F7D5B PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: Adopted 2. CODE AMENDMENT 2021-0001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1517)— Reso. No. ACCESSORY AND JUNIOR DWELLING UNITS (ADUs and JADUs) 4441. SUMMARY: Proposed Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin City Code (TCC), revising the City's regulations pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling units (JADU) in compliance with 2019 Senate Bill (SB) 13 and Assembly Bills (AB)68, and 881 (collectively "ADU State Law"). The proposed amendments would update regulations permitting the development of ADUs and JADUs in conjunction with any residential development in all zones that allow single- family and multiple-family dwellings. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The proposed code amendment is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15060(c)(2) in that the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) in that the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Additionally, pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the California Public Resources Code, CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city to implement the provisions of Government Code Section 65852.150 et seq. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4441, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1517, amending Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the TCC related to ADUs and JADUs in compliance with State Law. Dove Presentation given. Mello Mello provided a scenario that if a person were to apply for a 1,600-sf accessory structure on a single-family residential property and then later requested to convert the accessory structure to an ADU using the provision under the converted ADU definition; the person could then have an ADU that is 1,600-sf in size thus circumventing the size limitations of the ADU requirement. Mello referred to the maximum height of sixteen (16)feet for a single-family ADU, the chart within the report showed the previous height being twenty-five (25) feet, which was lowered to comply with the zoning Minutes—Planning Commission October 26,2021 —Page 2 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID:F864E7EA-2625-495F-ABAF-1826DA2F7D5B Mello district. He asked for Dove to provide him with an example to have a better understanding. Mello also referred to Table 1 of the report and guidelines being developed and if those guidelines would be addressing design guidelines and/or certain criteria per zoning district or per neighborhood. Dove Dove confirmed that Mello's hypothetical scenario would be possible. In response to his second question, Dove stated that the standards were revised to allow for the height of the ADU to be consistent with the height allowed according to the zoning. However, State Law requires ADUs should be allowed, at a minimum, of sixteen (16) feet in height. Per the design guidelines, the City is limited in some ways, but an objective standard, such as compatibility of the architecture with the primary resource, can be considered and staff may request that the applicant have the same finish on the building, have same type of window openings, roof style, etc. Mello Regarding the design guidelines, Mello asked if the applicant would be privy to what is expected of them prior to submitting an application. Dove In response to Mello's previous question, Dove stated that the expectations can be made available prior to the applicant submitting their application. Mello Mello referred to the creation of an ADU and JADU within the report and his comments/questions generally included: suggested the criteria for the completed application be clear and concise; would the criteria be made available to the applicants, and is the building permit issued upon automatic approval; would CEQA provide a "deemed complete" letter to the applicant; and he inquired on an efficiency kitchen, whether a cooking preparation area and cooking area being defined as a specific type of appliance or if it could be a microwave. Reekstin In response to Mello's comments/questions, Reekstin stated that the City has a plan to develop a handout for the public once the ordinance becomes effective in January 2022, which will include basic information on what the applicant should submit to the City. Staff is also working on design guidelines for ADUs. Plans would be submitted through Plan Check then to the Planning Division for review. Huitron Huitron further addressed Mello's questions in general: the process will work similarly to the current process: the ADU applicant submits an application for a building permit which is a ministerial review process that is initiated when the applicant submits a permit application to the Building Division (i.e. similar to a tenant improvement or a remodel). The 60-day review period is initiated when the applicant applies for a building permit and there have been no issues addressing ADU applications and associated reviews within the 60-day time limit. Minutes—Planning Commission October 26,2021 —Page 3 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID:F864E7EA-2625-495F-ABAF-1826DA2F7D5B Dove Per Dove, regarding the cooking preparation area and cooking area, the type of appliance could be a microwave or a small oven. Chu Chu commended Dove on the presentation and she asked if the Commission would get involved with the approval process. Dove Per Dove, the Commission would typically not get involved unless there was an appeal. The approval process is ministerial which means it is handled by City staff. Mason Mason asked if an applicant were to build a JADU, would they be subject to the same requirements in terms of securing building permits as well as approvals from the building inspectors (i.e., same approvals as home renovations). She also deferred to Daudt regarding what would happen if the Commission voted against the item. Also, how would City staff track the volume or activity in determining if additional resources are necessary to manage if the ordinance is adopted? Daudt Per Daudt, under State law, if the City does not have a local ordinance enacted, the City would default to the State's minimum standards. Technically, an applicant could apply before the ordinance goes into effect and begin the process of an ADU while local cities are getting their ordinances in place. He added that the upside of the City having their own local ordinance is that the City could then have control over a certain number of areas that they would not be able to control otherwise. For example, the City would then not be able to regulate height limitations and objective design standards, which were discussed earlier in the meeting. Staff will be working on standards to be made available to developers prior to submittal. Without the implementation of the proposed ordinance, the City could not create standards. With the ordinance in place, this would "cleanup" the existing TCC provisions which would allow all requirements to be in one place and will cause less confusion during the application process. Willkom In response to Mason's last question, Willkom stated that the ADU Ordinance has existed since 2016 with the latest version effective in 2020. So far, the City has received approximately ten (10) ADU applications therefore per year, there had been no need for additional resources. In the Housing Element, the City has forecasted thirty-five (35)ADUs for the next eight (8)years based upon the past trend. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public input was received. Mello Mello's final comments generally included: he thanked staff for the work involved with the resolution and ordinance; heightened awareness with the need of housing in the State of California, specifically, the City of Tustin; affordable housing has gotten worse; sad to see the need to implement the Minutes—Planning Commission October 26,2021 —Page 4 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID:F864E7EA-2625-495F-ABAF-1826DA2F7D5B Mello State's mandate without the provisions that would have been preferred to modify our local concerns; and he hopes with the new City Council the City can look to be proactive with the future housing needs and all of the other needs before the State decides to take control of those other needs as well. Higuchi Higuchi also thanked staff for the presentation and he, too, was not in favor of the State's mandate. He is hopeful the proposed ordinance will benefit the City of Tustin (i.e.to keep families in Tustin). He asked staff to consider ADUs in satisfying affordable inclusionary zoning requirements (i.e. new development ADUs rent be below market rate). Kozak Kozak thanked staff for the presentation. This is a step in the right direction to response to the State mandate and he was in favor of the recommendation. Mason Mason's final comments included: poignant comments from Mello; the need to look at the City of Tustin long-term; look at housing and parking concerns as the City looks to create critical mass in Old Town; look at more creative, innovative mixed-use with housing options in Tustin; and she commended the work staff is doing and for the presentation. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4441, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1517, amending Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the TCC related to ADUs and JADUs in compliance with State Law.. None. REGULAR BUSINESS. STAFF CONCERNS: Willkom Willkom informed the Commission of the following upcoming events: • Permit Parking Workshop— 10/28 at 6:00pm (via Zoom) • Halloween Howl — 10/29 at Columbus Tustin from 3:00-5:00pm • Dino Dash — 10/31 at 5:00am • Mayor's Thanksgiving Breakfast— 11/18 at 7:00am COMMISSION CONCERNS: Higuchi No concerns. Mello No concerns. Chu Have a happy and safe Halloween! Minutes—Planning Commission October 26,2021 —Page 5 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID:F864E7EA-2625-495F-ABAF-1826DA2F7D5B Kozak Kozak participated in the following events: • OCTA Citizens Advisory Board Meeting - 10/19 • City Council Public Hearing "City Districting" - 10/25 Kozak will be attending the PDAOC Forum at the Nixon Library on 10/28. Mason Mason is glad to be back with her fellow Commissioners and staff in the Chamber. 6:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, November 9, 2021. DocuSigned by: D327366D898A43D... AMY MASON Chairperson DocuSigned by: (�u 0 In)iQ�,c ED45DA2623654A5— JUSTINA L. WILLKOM Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Planning Commission October 26,2021 —Page 6 of 6