Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 05-28-24 MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBER& VIDEO CONFERENCE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 28, 2024 7-00p.m. CALL TO ORDER. Given. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Pro Tern Douthit Present ROLL CALL: Chair Higuchi Chair Pro Tern Douthit Commissioners Mason and Mello Absent Commissioner Kozak PUBLIC INPUT: Mr. Todd Mr.Todd Smith, resident of Orange,voiced concerns with the upcoming development Smith the Orange Heights Master Plan (formerly Santiago Hills Phase ll) in the City of Orange, near Jamboree Road and Chapman Avenue. He expressed concern for traffic impacts to Jamboree Road. Mr. Smith spoke about his concerns to Tustin's Traffic Engineer shortly before her retirement. He suggested coordination among the City of Irvine, City of Tustin, and The Irvine Company. Approved CONSENT CALENDAR; the Consent Calendar, as presented. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public input received. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES—APRIL 23, 2024 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the April 23, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. 2. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES — OLD TOWN WALKING TOUR Minutes—Planning Commission Meeting — May 28, 2024— Page 1 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the May 14, 2024 Walking Tour of Old Town Tustin, as provided. 3. FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FINDING OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN Under Section 65401 of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission is to review the list of proposed public works projects recommended for planning, initiation or construction during the ensuing year and report to the City Council as to conformity with the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4488 finding the proposed FY 2024-2025 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the California Government Code. Higuchi Higuchi commended staff on the successful Old Town Walking Tour. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Mello, to approve the Consent Calendar, as presented. Motion carried 3-0-2. Chair Pro Tem Douthit abstained from the vote. Commissioner Kozak had an excused absence. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2023-0016 & DESIGN REVIEW (DR) Reso. No. 2023-0028 4487,, as amended APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Hannibal Petrossi VGPT, LLC Petrossi &Associates, Inc. c/o Olympia Capital Corporation 1001 Dove Street, Suite 290 William Jager Newport Beach, CA 92660 P.O. Box 1003 Garden Grove, CA 92842-1.003 LOCATION: 14982 Prospect Avenue J Minutes-Planning Commission Meeting --May 28, 2024- Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is Categorically Exempt (Class 3) pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REQUEST: A request-to demolish a vacant auto service station and construct a new 1,413 square foot drive-thru restaurant with an outdoor dining area and other site improvements at 14982 Prospect Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4487 approving CUP 2023-0016 and DR 2023-0028 to authorize a request to demolish a vacant auto service station and construct a new 1,413 square foot drive-thru restaurant with an outdoor dining area and other site improvements at 14982 Prospect Avenue. Hi quchi Higuchi asked the Commission if they wished to disclose any ex parte contacts regarding the Public Hearing item. None were disclosed. Salman Presentation given. Applicant Mr. Hannibal Petrossi addressed the Commission and commended City staff for their assistance with the project. Mason Mason's comments generally included: she is pleased the vacant lot could be filled by Popeyes;she had concerns with cars making a left turn exit; she questioned if cars in drive-thru would stack onto Prospect Avenue;and she asked if there is a possibility of removing some parking spaces to create more space for the project. Salman In response to Mason's concerns, Salman stated the project plans were previously reviewed/approved by the City's Public Works Department and Tustin Police Department, and they did not have any issues with the project plans. She stated the Condition of Approval No. 1.9 was added in the event an issue with the left turn exit. Barragan Barragan referred to Condition of Approval No. 2.6,and reiterated the amendment to Condition of Approval No. 1.9, which would require the user to place signs which state, "no Left turn" and "right turn only". Additional conversations were had with Public Works regarding the left turn exit, which is a permitted movement in the project area. Barragan stated that staff would monitor the project site over time to ensure the turn movements are not a hazard; but if the Commission preferred, staff could modify the proposed condition to limit the exit driveway to "right turn only". Minutes—Planning Commission Meeting---May 28, 2024— Page 3 Eastman Eastman added,the reason Public Works did not have an issue with a left turn exit is because the drive way is pushed back approximately 45 feet from First Street; the intersection has a split-phase signal so that there is not cross traffic both ways on Prospect Avenue; Prospect Avenue traffic volume is not particularly high; and the proposed building is set back from Prospect, providing a line of sight at the intersection. He stated that Engineering (PW) did not have concerns with the left turn, but if an issue arises, the City will address it by prohibiting left turn (right turn only exits). in response to Commissioner Mason's question, he stated that it is potentially possible to remove some of the parking if there was a need to create more stacking for the drive-thru. He also clarified that the amount of queuing provided is significantly more than what the Code requires. Mello Mello inquired about the pedestrian circulation path from the parking spaces to the walk-up window. He also asked if there is a dedicated sidewalk from Space 1 through 6 to the ADA area, and asked if one could be created. He also had concerns regarding Left turns from the exit, but felt staff addressed his concerns well. Salman Salman described the site plan to answer Mello's previous questions. Eastman Eastman confirmed there is not a dedicated walkway path for pedestrians from parking spaces 1 through 6. In response to the added walkway,he indicated that City staff would need to work with the applicant to ensure the project would meet Landscaping requirements. Salman Salman confirmed she will Look into the walkway and Landscaping requirements. Applicant Mr. Petrossi stated there is a possibility of adding a walkway, but that they would have to take away from the landscape. Currently,the required Landscape guidelines are at a minimum. Eastman Eastman stated staff could work with the applicant on some design solutions. Douthit Douthit inquired as to the Location of the nearest street parking near the project site; he had concerns with Lack of walkability and bike-ability, as he did not think the walkabiLity and visibility from the sidewalk coincides with the DCCSP; he expressed his desire to maintain safe streets; and he thinks the intersection will be busy due to Popeyes popularity. Douthit thanked the applicant for investing in Tustin. Salman In response to Douthit's question, Salman mentioned possible public parking options on First Street, but was not sure if there were more options. Higuchi Higuchi asked the applicant when Popeyes intends to open. Minutes--Planning Commission Meeting —May 28, 2024-- Page 4 Applicant Per the applicant, if the Commission approved the project they would be submitting to the Building Division next. He said there is no phasing. Once permits are issued, demolition and grading would begin in approximately four months. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public input received. Mason Mason stated her support of the project as long as Condition of Approval No. 1.9 shows more specificity and there is an alternate plan if the exit is right turn only. Higuchi Higuchi supported the project. He stated he is in favor of doubting the Length of the stacking; he thinks that exceeding the parking requirements is good; Liked that the curb cut on First Street would be removed; and he liked that Popeyes fronts onto First Street; he shared the same traffic concerns as his fellow Commissioners. Higuchi suggested that staff should start accounting for DoorDash or food delivery/pick up in the future. Motion.- It was moved by Melto, seconded by Douthit, to adopt Resolution No. 4487, as amended by staffs revisions to Condition 1.9. Motion carried 4-0-1. Adopted 5. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2023-0009 Reso. Nos 4489& 4490, as provided. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Centurion Plaza LLC Attn: Mike Moshayedi 1 Rim Ridge Newport Coast, CA 92657 LOCATION: 15621, 15641 and 15661 Red Hill Avenue (APN: 430-233-19) REQUEST: A request to demolish three existing office buildings and one parking structure to construct two new industrial buildings including a 49,552 square foot building (Building 1) and a 93,372 square foot building (Building 2) on approximately 6.17 acres located at 15621, 15641, and 15661 Red HILL Avenue. Minutes-- Planning Commission Meeting— May 28, 2024— Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Article 6 of California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Chapter 5. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4489 finding the MND adequate for DR 2022-0009 for the proposed project at 15621, 15641, and 15661 Red Hill Avenue. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4490 approving DR 2022-0009 for site layout and building design of two new industrial warehouse buildings on approximately 6.17 acres located at 15621, 15641, and 15661 Red Hill Avenue. Carver Presentation given. Eastman Eastman notified the Commission that this item was originally listed as a "Public Hearing" item on the agenda, when it should have been listed under "Regular Business". The project was correctly noticed. The corrected agenda was added to . J the public record. Applicant Mr. Kevin Moshayedi, representative of the item, shared background information regarding the item to the Commission. Masan In response to Mr. Moshayedi's presentation, Mason asked if the building would be Leased, and to which tech companies would it be leased to, specifically Amazon and heavy trucking companies. Commissioner Mason expressed concern with traffic; she asked about the zoning of the undeveloped land across the street; and what would be constructed on that undeveloped land. Carver The undeveloped land,across the street from the project is in the Tustin Legacy, and it is designated as the Advanced Technology Education Park (ATEP),which will have institutional uses along Red Hill Avenue. Carver stated that the properties around the project are zoned Planned Community Industrial. Barragan Barragan added that one building is under construction, immediately adjacent to the project site, and another building was just completed as a warehouse building. L_..J Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting — May 28, 2024—Page 6 Applicant Mr. Moshayedi shared different types of companies that could lease the proposed project site, and gave an example of Rivian, an automotive company pushing technological development, and Al companies. Douthit Douthit asked staff if it is standard for the Commission to review MNDs within a Design Review. Eastman In response to Douthit's question, Eastman stated that whenever there is a discretionary project under California law, staff reviews it against CEQA. An MND is an indication that there are potential impacts, but the impacts can be mitigated to where there is no possibility of significant impacts. Higuchi Higuchi asked if a traffic study had been completed forthe project site and if the traffic volume would be lower, higher or equal. Barragan 5arragan confirmed a traffic study was conducted and the traffic count would be Lower on daily trips. This is because the previous use was office, which generated approximately 1,510 daily trips. This project was analyzed as a high-cube industrial use. The proposed project, as a high intensity project,would generate approximately 746 net daily trips. Mason Mason asked if, per the parking study, the study was based on office space, and expected people walking in and out of the office space, not product transportation. Eastman Eastman responded to Mason's question by clarifying that the traffic study is based on vehicle trips. When there is an office use there are more cars coming and going; when there is an industrial use,there may be more trucks frequenting the warehouse, but less vehicles coming and going at peak hours and throughoutthe day. He clarified that the traffic study converted truck trips to "passenger vehicle equivalents", in that the study considers that trucks are bigger, take up more space, and drive slower. Therefore, the traffic study did evaluate the difference between passengers and trucks as it relates to the impact on the streets. Douthit Douthit asked if there is a City ordinance stating hours semi-trucks or large tractor trailers are allowed on Red Hill Avenue. Eastman Eastman was not aware of any City ordinance establishing a truck route program. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public input received. Douthit Douthit commended the applicant for his investment in the City of Tustin. He questioned if the highest and best use for the Red Hill Corridor is light industrial, clarifying that properties to the south are larger footprint residential opportunity. He Minutes--Planning Commission Meeting—May 28, 2024— Page 7 Douthit suggested the City take a took at the zoning along the Red Hill Corridor for opportunity to bring in other potential uses other than light industrial or office. Higuchi Higuchi agreed with Commissioner Douthit's comments about highest and best use and thinks the City should take another look at the Pacific Center East Specific Ptan and the Red Hill Corridor. He was in favor of eliminating the additional curb cut on Red Hill Avenue and liked the proposed architecture. He thought the warehouse would complement the potential high tech uses going into ATEP. He expressed concern that the MND process was applied to this project, as it is just another cost and hurdle for the developer. He thought the City could have done a negative declaration or an exemption. Motion. It was moved by Douthit, seconded by Mason, to adopt Resolution Nos. 4489 and 4490, as provided. Motion carried 4--0-1. None REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Eastman Eastman did not have any concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mello Mello did not have any concerns. He made favorable comments regarding the Old J Town Watking Tour on May 14, 2024, Mello recognized the fallen veterans and Memorial Day. He also mentioned Fleet Week in Los Angeles. Mason Mason received a flyer in the mail regarding the re-zoning of Enderle Center. She asked staff to describe the rezoning effortto clear up any confusion or misinformation. Eastman Eastman stated that the City has a webpage dedicated to the Housing Element re- zoning program, where the public can get accurate information regarding the three housing sites undergoing rezoning. He clarified that there is no proposed development project,and thatthe proposal is just a re-zoning to implementthe City's Housing Element. He described State housing laws, how the law is implemented through the adoption of the Housing Element and State mandated rezoning and provided a status of the City's rezoning efforts. Douthit Douthit mentioned Tustin's upcoming Chili Cook-off on Sunday, June 2, 2024, He also made favorable comments regarding the Old Town Watking Tour. Minutes--Planning Commission Meeting--May 28, 2024— Page 8 Higuchi Higuchi also mentioned Tusti n's Chili Cook-off. He shared with the Commission that an ENA with The Irvine Company was approved for a parcel. of Land on, the former MCAS for a multi-family project. He added that the City is currently under a budget review process. Higuchi suggested staff provide updates during Staff Concerns on any Land use issues related to Tustin, especially pertaining to the Tustin Legacy. R-09 P.n7. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 11, 2024, 44 d- ERIC HIGUCHI(-/ Chairperson JUST L. WILLKOM Planning Commission Secretary Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —May 28, 2024 — Page 9