Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 DRAFT PC MINUTES 10-24-23 DRAFT MINUTES ITEM #1 COUNCIL CHAMBER& VIDEO CONFERENCE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2023 7-00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Given. INVOCATION: Kenneth J. Perine, Major—The Salvation Army Tustin Ranch Given. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Mello Present. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Douthit, Higuchi, Kozak, Mason, Mello None. PUBLIC INPUT: Approved CONSENT CALENDAR: the October 10, 2023 Meeting Minutes 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 10, 2023 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the October 10, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed there was no public input. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Higuchi,to approve the Minutes of the October 10, 2023 meeting, as presented. Motion carried: 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2023-0008 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2023-0001 PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting—October 24, 2023— Page 1 APPLICANT: DAVID RYAN OUTFRONT MEDIA LLC 1731 WORKMAN STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90031 LOCATION: 1021 EDINGER AVENUE (APN:430-252-05) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs., Title 14, Section 15162). REQUEST: A request to replace an existing static billboard with a new freeway adjacent digital billboard with an overall height of ninety (90) feet and two (2) sign faces measuring twenty (20) feet by sixty (60) feet each. RECOMMENDATION: Thatthe Planning Commission adopt Resolution No.4480 recommending the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2023-0008 and Development Agreement (DA) 2023-0001 to replace an existing static billboard with a new,freeway adjacent digital billboard with an overall height of ninety (90) feet and two (2) sign faces measuring twenty (20) feet by sixty (60) feet each and removal of three (3) other off-site static billboards. Maldonado Presentation given. Higuchi Higuchi's questions/comments generally included: noticing requirements; if there were residents living within 300 feet of the billboard; if any public comments were received; land use designation under the Pacific Center East Specific Plan; and if the project location is a permitted land use. Maldonado In response to Higuchi's questions, Maldonado stated that the noticing was standard and the mailers were sent to property owners and residents located 300 feet from the project site, including posting on the newspaper, City library, Senior Center and City e-board;the closest residential property was approximately 400 feet away from the proposed billboard; notices were mailed to residential properties to the north of the project site,which was a condominium complex;there were no public comments received referencing the notice; the land designation being commercial center; and per Ordinance 1505, billboards have to be located on commercial properties, which includes the project location. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting—October 24, 2023— Page 2 Douthit Douthit asked if the land is owned by the City of Tustin. He also asked how the lease agreement is drafted regarding the leased space and if the entire lot is leased. Craig In responseto Douthit's questions,Craig stated thatthe lease space is a 10x10 square foot area with the balance of the property belonging to the City. The idea was to bring the billboard close to the property line so that the remaining property, at such time,could be developed. Currently the property is set aside for the Newport Avenue extension. Mello Mello asked when the Newport Avenue extension is scheduled to occur. Willkom In response to Mello's question,the Newport Avenue extension was included as part of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (PCESP); however,the community and the City Council determined that there is a higher need to complete Tustin Ranch Road in advance of the Newport Avenue extension,which was completed and as a result,the Newport Avenue extension may or may not be necessary. City staff will need to conduct further studies of the PCESP to see if the Newport Avenue extension will need to occur and the City would need to look at the PCESP since it is outdated. Kozak Kozak asked Willkom if the studies have been scheduled and if so when would they occu r. Willkom In response to Kozak's question,Willkom stated that currently a date has not yet been scheduled for a study. Mason Mason asked if the City would benefit financially from this project and if there would be any revenue from the billboard advertising or if the City would lose revenue. Craig Per Craig, there is a lease agreement that was approved by the City Council in November 2022 which was conditional upon the applicant receiving the entitlements which means no executed lease agreement. Upon the effective date of the DA,then that lease agreement would be executed. The City would receive a portion of the revenue generated from the billboard advertising. (approximately 90 days from the effective date of the DA). Douthit Douthit asked about the lease of the entire property and when the signs would be installed/removed, etc. He asked about the State legislation regarding city-owned properties (vacant lots) and affordable housing. He also asked about the 90 days to remove the static billboards and if that timeline relative to the DA being approved and signed or when the billboard is erected. Douthit also asked if there was any intention to replace the static billboards with digital billboards of the three sites Craig Per Craig, a portion surrounding the billboard belongs to the City. The City currently has a lease with one of Tustin's car dealers on a portion of the property. The City has approximately four (4) acres (with 1 acre leased out) and the idea is to move the billboard to the front of the site (Newport Avenue) and whether or not the City does Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting—October 24, 2023— Page 3 or does not move forward with Newport Avenue extension, a small portion of the property would be used to allow development. The surplus land act does not apply to this case since it is a lease and the City confirmed that anything under 5,000 square feet is not subject to the surplus land act. Craig further explained the Billboard Ordinance to the Commission. Craig stated removal of the static billboards would occur 90 days from the effective date of the DA. Craig confirmed there was no intention of replacing the three offsite static billboards with digital billboards. He thanked Willkom for working with him on getting the ordinance complete. The purpose of the Billboard ordinance is to remove as many static billboards as possible in Tustin. Kozak Kozak asked if the vacant lot is zoned commercial and if there are any development proposals. Maldonado Maldonado confirmed the vacant lot is zoned commercial center and currently there are no development proposals. Craig Craig further discussed the Surplus Land Act and whether or notthe Newport Avenue extension would occur. Mello Mello asked about the brightness of the signs (standard city street lighting in comparison to the billboard) as well as the frequency in change of the signs. He asked Maldonado to provide a comparison between a city street light and the billboard Lighting. Mello also asked what the frequency in messaging on the billboard. Maldonado In response to Mello's question regarding sign brightness, Maldonado referred to the MND, mitigation measure for brightness impacts. What is being proposed is well below the requirement. For comparison, the City's security ordinance requires Lighting in walkways, parking lots, etc. at nighttime be illuminated with one (1) foot candlelight, which is half of what the billboard brightness would be. The digital billboard would display still images for a minimum of eight (8) seconds / display transition maximum of one (1) second (per CaLTrans requirements — less distraction for drivers of constant image change). Higuchi Higuchi asked what the noticing requirement was for this item. He also asked if the ordinance codifies the reimbursement for the MND cost. Maldonado Maldonado explained the noticing requirements (300 feet radius from the project site) to Higuchi. As far as the reimbursement, that is one of the public benefits being identified as part of the DA. Mello Mello's final comments: in favor of removing the three (3) offsite signs; seems the Light mitigation will not be an issue for the nearby residents; concern with the 8 seconds for sign change (i.e. concern the billboards will be another distraction for freeway traffic). Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting—October 24, 2023— Page 4 Higuchi Favorable comments to staff for creating a solution to the aesthetic issues.Shared his experience with driving past billboards and the lighting not being that bright. Higuchi voiced his concern with the outdated Pacific Center East Specific Plan. He suggested noticing be 1,000-foot radius and that additional noticing occur before the item goes before the City Council. Maldonado Maldonado briefly explained the CEQA review process when the MND was first being drafted for the ordinance,there would have been an extensive public outreach. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Douthit to approve Resolution No. 4480. Motion passes 4-1. Ayes: Douthit, Higuchi, Kozak and Mason. Noes: Mello. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Willkom No concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commission The Commission, collectively, had no concerns. Kozak Kozak thanked Higuchi for covering him at the last meeting when he was ill. 736 ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, November 14, 2023. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting—October 24, 2023— Page 5