Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 05-24-22 DocuSign Envelope ID:5 BAB E51 A-A67B-4D53-8636-3C E7B89FD2C0 MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBER & VIDEO CONFERENCE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 24, 2022 7.00 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Given. INVOCATION: Pastor Michael Truong, Mariners Church Given. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lisa Chu, Commissioner Present. ROLL CALL: Chair Mello Commissioners Chu, Higuchi, Kozak Absent. Commissioner Mason had an excused absence. None. PUBLIC INPUT: Hurtado confirmed no public input was received. Approved CONSENT CALENDAR: the Consent Calendar, as presented. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 10, 2022 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the May 10, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Chu, seconded by Higuchi, to approve the Minutes of the May 10, 2022 meeting, as provided. Motion carried: 3-0-2*. Mason had an excused absence. *Mello abstained from the vote due to his absence from the previous meeting. 2. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY AB 361 FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF TELECONFERENCE FOR MEETINGS In order for the Planning Commission to continue to have the option to meet via teleconference during the pandemic, AB 361 requires the Commission to make specific findings at least every thirty (30) days. RECOMMENDATION: Make the following findings by a majority vote of the Planning Commission: Minutes—Planning Commission May 24, 2022—Page 1 of 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:5 BAB E51 A-A67B-4D53-8636-3C E7B89FD2C0 a. A state of emergency has been proclaimed by California's Governor due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and continues to be in effect; b. The Commission has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency; and c. State and local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing to slow the spread of COVID-19. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Consent Calendar, as presented. Motion carried 4-0-1. Mason had an excused absence. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2021-0030 AND DESIGN REVIEW Reso. No. (DR) 2021-0016 4450, as provided. APPLICANT/ Hamid R. Mir, M.D PROPERTY OWNER: Nalsh, LLC 220 Newport Center Drive, #11-282 Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 17631 Seventeenth Street ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REQUEST: A request to establish a new development plan for the construction of an 11,323 square foot, two-story medical office building located at 17631 Seventeenth Street. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4450 approving CUP 2021-0030, to authorize construction of a new development plan and DR 2021-0016, for building design and site layout for a new medical office building located at 17631 Seventeenth Street within the Planned Community— Commercial (PC-COM) District. Barragan Presentation given. Barragan Barragan stated City staff received one (1) letter of concern from a neighboring property owner which included: lighting, landscaping, and the trash enclosure location. He stated that the areas of concern will be addressed as follows: light Minutes—Planning Commission May 24, 2022—Page 2 of 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:5 BAB E51 A-A67B-4D53-8636-3C E7B89FD2C0 Barragan poles are going to be required to have light shields to direct light away from the residential zones and uses; landscaping will be maintained with certain existing trees along the property (north/east property lines) and new landscaping will add to screening; trash enclosures will not be located near any residential structures, to the east - the trash enclosure will be located closest to the end of cul-de-sac and adjacent to the carports for the condominiums. Chu Chu's questions/comments generally included: whether the Commission is supposed to make a finding that the development or construction of the professional or general office use would be "more compatible" with surrounding uses in the area than retail commercial uses on the subject property; and does the project have to be "more compatible" or"equally compatible? Willkom Willkom's response to Chu's questions generally included: the zoning of the property is designated as Planned Community Commercial, which generally allows retail and office uses; the district regulation indicates that should an office use be proposed on the site, the Commission needs to look at the proposal and via the CUP then make a determination that the office use will be more compatible than a retail use; to assist the Commission, staff looked at the site and the surrounding area; the proposal for a medical office is compatible with the medical building located across Treehaven Lane; considering that the site is an adjacent residential use, medical use would be more compatible in terms of hours of operation as they are typical of an office use versus retail or restaurant use being open late hours; staff also looked at the site design and building siting; the proposal is designed so that the building is away from the residential area and more towards the intersection; ultimately, staff considered the proposal to be more compatible than retail use and thus the recommendation to the Commission; and staff included several findings for the determination which were included in the proposed resolution. Higuchi Higuchi asked if there was ever a grease interceptor on the property previously and asked when the development application was submitted originally. Willkom Per Willkom, there must have been a grease interceptor on the property previously since the site was a restaurant. Staff did not have the information at that moment as to when the development application was submitted. Kozak Kozak toured the project site and he felt it was an appropriate use of that vacant property. He made favorable comments regarding the new landscaping and screening to the east and the north, and was pleased the mature trees on-site will be maintained. Kozak was pleased to find out that there will be light shields to take care of the lighting concern. Mello Mello echoed Kozak's comments regarding the trees (screening). He questioned the photometric plans and asked whether the photometric plan considered the screening provided by the trees. Mello also asked why the need for organic waste recycling on a medical facility. Minutes—Planning Commission May 24, 2022—Page 3 of 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:5 BAB E51 A-A67B-4D53-8636-3C E7B89FD2C0 Barragan Per Barragan, the lighting levels shown on photometric plans is without the trees. He explained the organic waste recycling is a State requirement. Also, the organic waste recycling is not related to any biological waste and it is a completely separate process handled inside the building which is governed by Cal/OSHA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Barragan added that the applicant will enlist a vendor to properly dispose of any biological waste. Higuchi Higuchi asked Barragan for examples of the types of organic waste being disposed of in the outdoor bins. Barragan Barragan explained that the types of organic waste could be any landscaping material, lunch scraps, etc. Again, it is a State requirement that the bins be located on the project site. 7.28 p.m. Mello opened the public hearing and invited public input. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public input was received. Mr. Mike Mr. Mike Schaeffer, architect for the project, was present to answer questions of Schaeffer the Commission. Chu Chu asked if the property owner had any other development ideas for the project site, other than the proposed commercial. She asked, being that the project site was formerly a restaurant, why a professional/medical building was being proposed, especially since she understood the owner does not have any other tenants in the building. Chu wanted to understand why the property owner would get rid of a restaurant building in place of a professional/medical building. Mr. Mike Mr. Schaeffer stated that the project is being developed by a physician who has Schaeffer his own practice, which will locate the medical practice in the building as well as other physicians, such as physical therapy, and other modalities associated with that type of medical practice. Mello Mello asked about the types of medicine being practiced inside the building and how much of the building space the applicant would be using. He also asked when work would begin on-site. Mr. Mike Mr. Schaeffer stated that the applicant is an orthopedic surgeon so typically there Schaeffer would be medicines associated with physical therapy or other modalities. He further explained that between the applicant's practice and the procedures he conducts, he will more than likely be using seventy-five (75) percent of the building space, along with the other physicians joining him. Per Mr. Schaeffer, if the project is approved, with the City's approval process, the applicant plans to start work as soon as possible. 7.33 p.m. Mello closed the public hearing. Minutes—Planning Commission May 24, 2022—Page 4 of 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:5 BAB E51 A-A67B-4D53-8636-3C E7B89FD2C0 Higuchi Higuchi made favorable comments to the applicant for investing in the City of Tustin. Chu Chu made favorable comments regarding the design of the project and the modern look. She did have some concern with the project site and stated that personally she feels that there could be multiple family buildings and it could be more compatible to the surrounding residential areas due to the current housing crisis. Kozak Kozak added his support to his fellow Commissioners comments and he looks forward to the opening of the new building. Mello Mello understood the housing crisis problem, and stated that the site is not zoned for housing. It is a great project for the proposed parcel, which has been vacant for many years. He was in support of the item and also thanked the applicant for investing in the City of Tustin. Motion: It was moved by Mello, seconded by Higuchi to adopt Resolution No. 4450, as presented. Motion carried 4-0-1. Commissioner Mason had an excused absence. Adopted 4. CODE AMENDMENT 2022-0002 (ORDINANCE NO. 1524) - (CODE Reso. No. STREAMLINING AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM) 4452, as presented. SUMMARY: This Project is a City-initiated request to amend Tustin City Code (TCC) Article 3 (Business Regulations), Article 5 (Public Safety) and Article 9 (Land Use). The City's Strategic Plan identifies development streamlining as one of its goals. The proposed Code Amendment also streamlines the entitlement process in order to increase effectiveness and efficiency. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4452, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1524, amending Part 3 of Chapter 6 of Article 3 (Business Regulation), Section 5502 of Chapter 5 of Article 5 (Public Safety) and various sections of Article 9 (Land Use)of the TCC relating to the Code Streamlining and Improvement Program to provide clarity, consistency of terms and definitions, and compliance with State law. Huitron Presentation given. Higuchi Higuchi asked when the Commission would revisit the code amendments and what the limits of amending the codes would be before triggering CEQA (i.e. the Minutes—Planning Commission May 24, 2022—Page 5 of 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:5 BAB E51 A-A67B-4D53-8636-3C E7B89FD2C0 Higuchi City's residential zoning code minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. Could the City amend the code to 5,000 square feet?) Huitron Per Huitron, it takes a lot of staff time to revise the zoning code. Any future clean- up of the zoning code will be brought back to the Commission in either July or August, which will be on focused topics than what was presented that evening. She added that staff would bring back a variation of code amendments, similar to this item, towards the end of the year. Huitron added that at this point, staff is focusing on code amendments that would not trigger CEQA. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public input received. 7.47 p.m. Mello opened/closed the public hearing. Higuchi Higuchi thanked staff for hearing his complaints, since he has been a Commissioner, regarding items coming before the Commission (i.e. Casa De Sol and the CUP needed for a mural). He had concern with the amendment in Section 61 of the proposed Resolution No. 4452. It leaves discretion for staff and there is no finality on streamlining. Higuchi thanked Huitron for her work on this great task. Kozak Kozak thanked staff for their hard work and he was in favor of the item and supportive of the action. Chu Chu also echoed Kozak's favorable comments. Mello Mello also echoed his fellow Commissioners for their favorable comments. He was also in support of the recommended action. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Chu, to adopt Resolution No. 4452, as presented. Motion carried 4-0-1. Mason had an excused absence. Adopted 5. CODE AMENDMENT 2022-0001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1523) - (SENATE Reso. No. BILL 9 — TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND URBAN 4451, as LOT SPLITS) amended. SUMMARY: This project is a City-initiated request to amend Chapter 2 (Zoning) and Chapter 3 (Subdivisions) of Article 9 (Land Use) of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to regulate qualifying Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) two-unit residential developments and urban lot splits within single-family residential zones in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7. Minutes—Planning Commission May 24, 2022—Page 6 of 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:5 BAB E51 A-A67B-4D53-8636-3C E7B89FD2C0 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4451, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1523, amending Chapter 2 (Zoning) and Chapter 3 (Subdivisions) of Article 9 (Land Use) of the TCC to regulate qualifying SB 9 two-unit residential developments and urban lot splits within single-family residential zones in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7. Huitron Presentation given. Huitron Since this is a Public Hearing item, Huitron informed the Commission that staff received a phone call from Kenneth Lee that day and the person stated they were in support of SB 9 Ordinance. Staff also received written correspondence from California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund which was provided to the Commission and posted on the City's website that day. Staff reviewed the letter and coordinated with the City Attorney's office and as a result, staff was proposing revisions to the ordinance (Pages 11 and 16 of the ordinance)that was provided in the report, which were also provided to the Commission at the dais. Staff recommended the Commission approve incorporating the revisions in their motion of this item. Higuchi Higuchi referred to the staff report (Page 91 of the meeting packet) with regards to HOA's and SB 9 developments and asked Huitron if it was legal theory or case law and if HCD ruled on it. Higuchi also asked if the City is required to post SB 9 information on the City's website. Daudt Per Daudt, HOAs limitation on SB 9 developments have not been developed through case law, but initially, ADU laws were enacted and were silent as to whether or not HOA's were able to regulate the siting of ADU's. At that point, it was interpreted by HCD that the local CC&R's would still control the HOA's areas and in subsequent years, there were amendments to the ADU laws to make it clear that HOA's are now prohibited from imposing any limitations on ADU's. Daudt added, as the statute exists currently, it is likely that similar amendments were to occur with SB 9 units, but for now the legislation is silent as to whether or not an HOA can prohibit the development of SB 9 units. The HCD has issued guidance acknowledging that an HOA would be able to restrict the siting of SB 9 units within the community. Huitron Per Huitron, due to the many complexities related to SB 9, and although not required by the City, the City's website does contain SB 9 information. Higuchi Higuchi asked for the number of requests the City has received regarding filing a parcel map for SB 9. With the Commission making a recommendation on this item, and if the City Council did not adopt SB 9, what exposure would the City have? Minutes—Planning Commission May 24, 2022—Page 7 of 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:5 BAB E51 A-A67B-4D53-8636-3C E7B89FD2C0 Huitron Per Huitron, the City currently has one (1) project under review—a request for an urban lot split and a two-unit development combination located on a corner lot. This particular lot is a good location for a subdivision since the lot is accessible from the side street. Although a two-unit development, it looks like a two-story home. Daudt Daudt explained that if the City does not enact a local ordinance, the default is the State's SB 9. An applicant, by right, would be able to apply for an SB 9 unit following the State's statute. What is included in the proposed ordinance is what the State law provides, but to the extent, the City is able to craft the regulations to meet the local needs in development standards of the City of Tustin. Again, if the City does not move forward with the local ordinance, applicants would simply do what is required of State law (i.e. would not have specified height limitations, front yard setbacks, etc.)which staff incorporated into the proposed ordinance. Mello Mello asked about the HOA's having to amend their CC&R's, per SB 9, and if they would also be able to modify their design guidelines or if it would have to be addressed through their CC&R's. Daudt Daudt stated that it is within the purview of the HOA's and their attorneys to determine how they would like to address SB 9. As of this time, the State recognizes that it is within their purview to determine whether or not they want SB 9 units developed within the community. Mello Mello asked how the City plans on dealing with an applicant wanting to split their lot and if the high-quality transit map provided in the report would be made available on the City's website. Huitron Huitron explained that the City has incorporated into the process, which staff is currently developing alongside the proposed ordinance, a self-certification form for the property owner to attest that they do have the authority to exercise SB 9 developments in their HOA's. Once the high-quality transit map is refined, to ensure the boundaries are properly aligned, staff's goal is to add the map to the SB 9 webpage. Kozak Kozak thanked staff and consultants for developing the proposed ordinance. Chu Chu asked for clarification that the Commission is only making a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed ordinance and that it seemed that not too many people were interested in taking advantage of SB 9, per Huitron's comment made earlier on there only be one (1)application currently for a lot split. She stated interest may increase with SB 9 if the Commission forwards the item to the City Council. 8:18 p.m. Mello opened the public hearing. Mr. Neil Mr. Neil Sherman, HOA member for Tustin Meadows, commented on his Sherman concern with the lot splitting process through his CC&R's. Currently, the process Minutes—Planning Commission May 24, 2022—Page 8 of 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:5 BAB E51 A-A67B-4D53-8636-3C E7B89FD2C0 Mr. Neil takes approximately sixty (60) days. He recommended the lot splitting process Sherman go through an architectural control committee who could provide the review capability almost immediately. This would allow the HOA to allow lot splitting or else lot splitting would not be allowed in Tustin Meadows. Ms. Cecilia Ms. Cecilia DeHeras, general manager for Tustin Meadows, commented on the DeHeras following, in general: she received a recommendation from the Tustin Meadows attorney regarding SB 9 being silent on the issue pertaining to any provisions that supersedes any HOA or CID governing documents; and, she recommended that the Commission include in the ordinance that the ordinance does not supersede any of the CC&R's, which would allow Tustin Meadows the time to update their CC&R's with any upcoming laws or senate bills. 8:25 p.m. Mello closed the public hearing. Higuchi Higuchi's final comments generally included: Referenced how State laws and how the SB 9 Bill will affect the City of Tustin. Although the Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council, by adopting the proposed ordinance, the Commission's recommended action acknowledges controlling the destiny within the City. Higuchi referred back to Daudt's explanation of adopting or not adopting the proposed ordinance. His recommendation was to state on the City's website that the law is silent on the HOA's and that the City is currently defaulting to CC&R's until further interpretation is received from HCD. Chu Chu asked what the Commission's legal obligation would be when adopting the proposed ordinance. Huitron Per Huitron, the proposed ordinance is designed for the City to be in compliance with SB 9 and in addition, there are some additional examples of standards mentioned previously (i.e. height and front yard setbacks)that the City of Tustin's current Ordinance addresses and limits. Huitron further explained that if the proposed ordinance were to be forwarded to the City Council, then adopted, the ordinance would ultimately go into effect and the City's obligation would be to follow the adopted Code. If the Commission did not recommend the proposed ordinance be forwarded to the City Council, then the City would still be obligated to implement SB 9 but refer to the language in the Government Code sections. Huitron referred to the SB 9 (Table 1), which was included in the staff report. Kozak Kozak's final comments generally included the Commission's task with SB 9 legislation and moving the item forward to the City Council. He was in support of the recommended action. Mello Mello's final comments generally included the State taking away local control, but none-the-less, he was in support of the City having more control than less control. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Chu, to adopt Resolution No. 4451, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. Mason had an excused absence. Minutes—Planning Commission May 24, 2022—Page 9 of 10 DocuSign Envelope ID:5 BAB E51 A-A67B-4D53-8636-3C E7B89FD2C0 None. REGULAR BUSINESS. STAFF CONCERNS: Willkom Willkom thanked staff and Daudt for all of their hard work on the items. On May 3, 2022, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Avalon Bay for the development of 1,200 multi-family units at the Tustin Legacy of which 302 of those units will be set aside for affordable housing. This item will be brought to the Commission at a later date. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Chu Chu had no concerns. She thanked staff again for the presentations. Higuchi Higuchi thanked staff for the presentations and hard work. The City's Chili Cook- Off will be on June 5, 2022. Kozak Kozak echoed his fellow Commissioners favorable comments. On May 12, 2022, he was re-appointed to the OCTA Citizens Advisory Commission and on May 20, 2022 he attended his granddaughter's high school graduation in Temecula. Mello Mello thanked staff for the presentations. 8:38 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 14, 2022. EDOCn Signe^d by: �^ a w a/ V 6MBF005E13A455... DAVID J. MELLO, JR. P DoanSigned by: Chairperson ,,;v, , d. tow-j,— ED45DA2623B54A5... JUSTINA L. WILLKOM Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Planning Commission May 24, 2022—Page 10 of 10