Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 DRAFT PC MINUTES 07-12-22 MINUTES ITEM #1 COUNCIL CHAMBER & VIDEO CONFERENCE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 12, 2022 7.05 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Given. INVOCATION: Pastor Michael Truong, Mariners Church Given. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Chu Present. ROLL CALL: Chair Mello Commissioners Chu and Mason Absences Commissioner Higuchi and Chair Pro Tem Kozak had excused absences. None. PUBLIC INPUT: Hurtado confirmed no public input was received. Approved CONSENT CALENDAR: the Consent Calendar, as presented. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JUNE 14, 2022 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the June 14, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. 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: 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 Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2022—Page 1 of 9 c. State and local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing to slow the spread of COVID-19. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public comments received. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Chu, to approve the Consent Calendar, as presented. Motion carried: 3-0-2. Higuchi and Kozak both had excused absences. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 3. CODE AMENDMENT 2022-0003 (ORDINANCE NO. 1526) — (OUTDOOR Reso. No. DINING AND SEATING) 4454, as presented. SUMMARY This Project is a City-initiated request to amend Tustin City Code (TCC) Article 9 (Land Use). The proposed Code Amendment 2022-0003 is an update to TCC Section 9277, the City's outdoor dining regulations. The intent of this amendment is to increase restaurants' ability to provide outdoor dining and seating areas while maintaining an attractive design and protecting the public interest. The subject amendment is a response to changes in resident, business owner, and patron preferences since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. If adopted, this amendment will terminate the Temporary Outdoor Dining, Retail, and Assembly Uses Program set to expire on September 30, 2022. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4454, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1526, amending Section 9277 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 (Land Use) relating to outdoor dining to provide increased flexibility for restaurants to establish and offer outdoor dining and seating areas to customers. Maldonado Presentation given. Mason Mason commented on the vacant lots in Old Town Tustin and the owners not developing those lots. She referred to the vacant lot next door to the Chaak restaurant as an example. Mason commented that people park illegally in this vacant lot and the association with the demand for parking by diners frequenting the area. Mason asked if there have been discussions with the vacant lot owners on how to utilize those lots during the busy weekend times. Mason also suggested the City could close off the streets in Old Town to support outdoor dining, which she believes would bring more people into Tustin. Mason asked if there was anything the City could do to support interim uses of the vacant lots so as to prevent illegal parking as more customers visit Old Town. Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2022—Page 2 of 9 Willkom In response to Mason's questions/comments, Willkom stated that with the adoption of the DCCSP in 2018, staff has conducted a study for potential development on the vacant lots. However, to date the City still has not seen any development moving forward and as such, the City Council has directed staff to look into reassessment of the DCCSP and the RHASP. Staff was directed to work with a consultant on strategies to incentivize development of these lots. She added that staff recently prepared a Request for Proposal, per Council direction in order to study the issues. Willkom also stated that the City Council recently approved the City's budget which included public improvements to Old Town. The Public Works Department is currently looking at potential parklets along EI Camino Real and Main Street, including provisions of removable bollards to close off streets in Old Town for special events. Mello Mello asked what exposure the City has regarding civil complaints for public properties to be used for private enterprise on a quasi-permanent basis. He also referred to page 3 of the proposed ordinance and the operational requirements - Subsection H (no advertising). Mello asked when advertising is/is not allowed on overheads and canopies. He requested clarification regarding a license agreement being required in the public right-of-way, specifically if the agreement would allow a restaurant to place their facility in the public right-of-way to provide areas where alcohol can be consumed. Mello asked if the outdoor dining fixtures are considered permanent or non-permanent improvements in the public right-of-way or if they are affixed to or floating freely. He requested clarification whether license agreements for use of the public right-of-way require a bond or other surety regarding the removal of those improvements when the business leaves or no longer exists. Kendig In response to Mello's previous questions, Kendig stated that the City takes a three- prong approach to controlling its liability for allowing the public right-of-way to be used in these ways. The first is requiring users of restaurants to have insurance and to name the City as an additional insured. The liability insurance provides indemnification and defense against the claim. The second is the indemnification if no insurance or if the insurance has been exhausted, then the restaurants, or other use, would agree to defend and indemnify the City. Finally, Kendig added, the City maintains its own insurance which covers the publicly owned public right-of-way and that is how the City controls the liability long-term. Maldonado In response to Mello's question regarding the proposed ordinance, Maldonado referred to Subsection H, which prohibits advertising for Outdoor Seating areas only. The reason for that restriction is due to the lack of a requirement for a formal submittal, review, or approval process for Outdoor Seating areas. Maldonado stated that the applicant is not going to be submitting anything to the City, so the restriction is intended to mitigate any potential excessive advertisement. Maldonado For the Outdoor Dining areas, permanent construction, such as patio covers, will be reviewed through the City's Design Review process. Maldonado stated that at that time, any proposed signage would be reviewed for compliance with the City's Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2022—Page 3 of 9 Maldonado municipal code. Maldonado stated, that for Outdoor Dining areas, there are no special provisions for signage and instead the use must follow the City's Sign Code. Maldonado stated, in the public right-of-way, there could be either an Outdoor Seating area, such as the seating area provided by American Grub in front of the Tustin Area Museum, where the seating is not enclosed, or an Outdoor Dining area that is fenced off with barriers such as the area in front of Chaak restaurant. The State Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Department might allow the provision of alcoholic beverages in enclosed outdoor dining areas, but in the case of an outdoor seating area, which is not enclosed or fenced-off and only has tables and chairs, ABC would not allow alcoholic beverages to be served since the restaurant does not have control of that space. Regarding outdoor dining areas, improvements in the public right-of-way are meant to be removable in the event the City needs to use the street or sidewalk for a special event or City activity. While the improvements need to be somewhat removable in order to facilitate those activities, outdoor dining areas must have a defined space to provide a sense of enclosure in place. Per the existing TCC, and the proposed amendments, there is no specific provision requiring a bond with regards to the improvements in the public right-of-way being removed if the business no longer exists. However, the City has the capacity to enforce these improvements be removed through the Code Enforcement Division. 7.34 p.m. Opened the public hearing. Public in Support of Item #3: Ms. Kimberly Conroy, owner of the American Grub and the Swinging Door, generally commented on her appreciation towards staff for their support of her businesses. Robin Andrews, resident, generally made favorable comments regarding her support of the item. Dave Scott, resident, shared his support of the item. Eldy Galietle, resident, thanked the City for their support and she was in support of the item. Alfio Rossetti, Roma D'Italia, thanked the City for the support during the Pandemic and to Maldonado for his presentation. He voiced his concern that restaurants in larger shopping centers are able to use parking spaces for outdoor dining areas and restaurants in Old Town cannot. He suggested that the City consider allowing businesses in Old Town to use parking spaces for outdoor dining. He recommended that a comprehensive parking solution be considered for Old Town rather than piecemeal. Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2022—Page 4 of 9 Paul Bellum, owner of Rutabegorz, thanked the City for the open parking and outdoor patio dining during the COVID pandemic. He was in support of the item. 7.43 p.m. Closed the public hearing. Mason Mason's final comments generally included: COVID had a massive impact on local businesses and she thanked staff and the City for acting so quickly to support Tustin's businesses; she hopes the innovation continues for the businesses; there are different needs that need to be acknowledged (i.e. Alfio Rossetti's previous comments); the City needs to look for long-term solutions; and she was in support of moving the item forward to the City Council. Chu Chu's final comments generally included: she thanked the audience in attendance at the meeting; she liked the City's criteria for outdoor dining was simple to follow; glad the outdoor dining option is being looked at as a permanent solution; she was in support of the item; and Chu made favorable comments to Maldonado for the very detailed report. Mello Mello concurred with his fellow Commissioners. Great points brought up from the public. He was also in support of the item. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Chu, to adopt Resolution No. 4454, as presented. Motion carried: 3-0-2. Chair Pro Tem Kozak and Commissioner Higuchi both had excused absences. Adopted 4. DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Reso. No. (SPA) 2022-0001 4453 APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTI N, CA 92780 SITE ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNERS: 14042 NEWPORT AVE KIM MICHAEL 3701 WILSHIRE BLVD UNIT 820 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 14002 NEWPORT AVE FEAST FOODS LLC 41760 IVY ST UNIT 201 MURRIETA, CA 92562 1122 EL CAMINO REAL YOON IN SIK AND YOON ANGELA KWANG 13046 DESTINO LN CERRITOS, CA 90703 Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2022—Page 5 of 9 1142 EL CAMINO REAL JC VETERINARY SERVICES INC 1142 EL CAMINO REAL TUSTI N, CA 92780 APN: 532-064-05 AND 532-074-02 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2501 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA, CA 92705 LOCATION: Development Area 6-C (DA-6C)of the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (see site addresses above). ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2022-0001 is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"; Cal. Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs., title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. REQUEST: A request to amend the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP; SP-12) to list "live/work units" as an allowable residential use in DA-6C subarea. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4453, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1525 approving SPA 2022-0001 to amend the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP; SP-12) to list "live/work units" as an allowable residential use in Development Area 6C (DA-6C) subarea. Carver Presentation given. Chu Chu asked staff to explain the differentiation between mixed-use and the live/work uses. Carver In addition to the presentation provided, Carver provided a more detailed description of mixed-uses and live/work uses. Prospect Village is a vertical mixed-use (vertical: commercial use on the first floor and residential use on the second floor. Horizontal: Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2022—Page 6 of 9 Carver residential units on one (1) part of a parcel —commercial use on another part of the same parcel). Willkom Willkom added that currently there are no horizontal mixed-uses in Tustin. She mentioned Bella Terra in Huntington Beach as an example of horizontal mixed-use where the commercial use is located separately from the residential (along the intersections are all commercial use and behind it are residential uses). As for the vertical mixed-use, Willkom explained it can be in a setting where commercial use is on the ground floor and is completely separate from the residential use (i.e. The Hill mixed-use development on Red Hill Avenue). The difference between the vertical mixed-use and the live/work units are: live/work units do not have a separate entrance or separate parking between the commercial use and residential use (i.e. residents live within that unit and may use the ground floor for a small business or coffee shop). The live/work units would be all-in-one. Mello Mello asked if live/work use is not a subset of mixed-use and if it is considered to be a more intense or less intense land use. He thought SB 330 did not allow the City to use a less intense use and if so, asked if the City would be in violation of SB 330. Mello referred to the RHNA allocations and asked how SB 330 would apply to RHNA and if SB 330 would impact the number of moderate units in the DCCSP. Willkom In response to Mello's questions, Willkom stated that live/work use is a subset of mixed-use and it is a less intense land use compared to the vertical mixed-use. As she stated previously, live/work use operates as a single unit where vertical mixed- use operates as separate commercial from the residential units. Vertical mixed-use would typically be restaurants, gym, dry cleaner, etc. and these would be completely separate from the residential units above it. With the live/work use, a person lives in the unit and operates a business as well.Willkom explained that SB 330 identifies that the City should not re-zone the property to allow lesser density. The SPA does not change the density. The live/work use may be a less intense use, but the density remains the same. With regards to the site, it is irregular in shape, adjacent to the freeway and is a difficult site to design and develop. The purpose of the SPA is to create another layer of flexibility by allowing live/work units and the City is hoping with this amendment, the site can be designed with many of the flexibilities that the SPA would offer. 8:10 p.m. Opened/Closed the public hearing. Mason Mason's final comments generally included: favorable comments regarding the due diligence staff has done with the SPA; she thanked Carver for the presentation; the City is in line with SB 330; another unique opportunity to place housing on a blighted piece of land; can potentially bring life to the land and bring in developers; and she was in support of the item. Chu Chu's final comments generally included: very creative idea to attract more developers to this vacant lot for possible housing and small businesses. She was also in support of the item. Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2022—Page 7 of 9 Mello Mello stated that this is the type of change Tustin needs. Great way to facilitate and capture development dollars. He was also in support the recommendation to the City Council. Chu It was moved by Chu, seconded by Mello, to adopt Resolution No. 4453, as presented. Motion carried 3-0-2. REGULAR BUSINESS: Received & 5. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS filed. The Summary of Projects provides a high-level overview of projects and activities processed through the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The report focuses on the status of projects that the Planning Commission, City Council, Zoning Administrator, or staff approved; historic preservation projects; Code Enforcement activities; major construction and improvement projects; and, other items of interest. Maldonado Presentation given. Chu Chu's questions/comments generally included: graffiti issue — she recommended the City install a solar power stand-alone security camera system, which is widely used in the construction industry; she suggested spending City funds in security cameras versus graffiti removal; and she thanked Maldonado for his presentation. Mello Mello's questions/comments generally included: he was happy to see the renovated Jack-In-The-Box on Newport Avenue; Housing Element (HE) -the State's possible extension to 2025; and if the City can get the HE approved by October 15, 2022. Huitron In response to Mello's previous question, Huitron stated that the City is on track for review of the HE and hoping that it will be certified by October 15, 2022. Staff is tentatively planning to bring the revised HE to the Commission on September 13, 2022 with a potential City Council date of October 4, 2022. Staff has completed live editing sessions with the State's HCD (Housing and Community Development) staff where staff demonstrated the edits made in response to HCD's findings. Tentatively, HCD has provided positive feedback; however, their formal review is not conducted until they actually receive the document. There is an assembly bill that requires staff to post the revisions to the HE for seven (7) days on the City's dedicated HE website, which will be posted on July 13, 2022. The notice of the revisions will be sent, via email, to all interested parties and will then be available for review. Formal documents will be submitted to HCD the following week. Motion: Received and filed. Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2022—Page 8 of 9 STAFF CONCERNS: Willkom Willkom informed the Commission of Barragan's permanent position with the City as Principal Planner. Congratulations Raymond! COMMISSION CONCERNS: Chu Chu thanked the City for the goodie bag received with the new City branding items. Mason Mason commended Maldonado for his thorough presentation and the level of detail he provided was very helpful. She also made a shout out to the new Tustin Costco gas station. Reminder to everyone to attend Wednesdays Concerts in the Park. Mello Mello commended staff on the Commission packet. He is seeing traction in the City, thanks to everyone's effort! Congratulations to Barragan! 8:36 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, July 26, 2022. Minutes—Planning Commission July 12, 2022—Page 9 of 9