Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 10-22-24 MINUTES ITEM #1 COUNCIL CHAMBER& VIDEO CONFERENCE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2024 7:00 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Given. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Mello Present. ROLL CALL: Chair Higuchi Commissioners Kozak, Mason, Mello Absent Chair Pro Tern Douthit PUBLIC INPUT: Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public comments received. Approved the CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of the October 8, 2024 meeting. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public comments received for the Consent Calendar. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 8, 2024 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the October 8, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Mello, to approve the Minutes of the October 8, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Motion Carried: 4- 0-1. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted Reso. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2024-0008 No. 4506, as amended. APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Monika & Nikhil Mather Ayala Capital Group, LLC Apex Health Providers Attn: Dean Azzeh 106 Pixel 535 E. Main Street, Suite A Irvine, CA 92618 Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 535 E. Main Street ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act. REQUEST: A CUP to authorize establishment of an urgent care clinic within a 3,458 square foot commercial tenant space addition to the existing building. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4506 approving CUP 2024-0008 to authorize the establishment of an urgent care clinic within a multi-tenant commercial building. Wengert Presentation given. Mason Mason asked Wengert for more details on the off-street parking plan for the proposed project, specifically regarding where patrons would park. Wengert Wengert referenced a PowerPoint slide to provide more details on the proposed project's parking, including a prior parking study that shows adequate public off-site parking. The applicant will be paying into the Parking Exemption Program. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 2 Eastman Eastman clarified that the patrons would park on public streets or in a nearby City lot. The City has already granted a waiver for five parking spaces for retail use, but the proposed change in use requires an additional waiver. Staff is confident there is sufficient parking, considering adjacent on-street options. Mello Mello asked about the in-lieu fee for parking as well as what the City is doing with the in-lieu fee. Willkom Willkom explained to the Commission the in-lieu fee is eighty dollars ($80) per space, per year (used for maintenance of on and off-street parking, streets, street sweeping, etc.). This would allow nine additional parking spaces. Higuchi Higuchi inquired about the building's current status and the Master Sign Program. He referenced Condition of Approval No. 1.3, questioning the defined term of use established. He also asked whether the approval date should be extended to accommodate construction that may take more than 12 months. Wengert In response to Higuchi's questions, Wengert stated building permits have been issued as of November 2023 and construction is slated to begin early 2025. Willkom Willkom explained that the timeline aligns with the City's standard condition for a new use going into an existing building, which is not the case here. She noted that the addition's construction will take at least one year; as such, she suggested modifying Condition of Approval No. 1.3 noting the 12-month period starts upon the addition's completion. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public comments received. Kozak Kozak made favorable comments regarding the project. Mello Due to there being less public parking spaces and lack of a comprehensive parking plan for the City, Mello was not in favor of the project. Mason Mason concurred with Mello regarding the City needing a comprehensive parking plan, but she was in favor of the project. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 3 Higuchi Higuchi supported the off-site parking approach and encouraged development in the DCCSP area. He advised sensitivity in the color choice for urgent care building signage. He also reiterated the need to revise Condition of Approval No. 1.3, stating that approval should expire 12 months after the building's final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi seconded by Kozak to adopt Resolution No. 4506, as amended. Motion Carried: 3-1-1. Mello dissented. Adopted Reso. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2024-0015, MOMENTOUS No. 4507. SPORTS CENTER APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: Michael J. Rangel Mike Long Momentous Sports Center LP 2741 Walnut LP 14522 and 14524 Myford Road 2741 Walnut Avenue Irvine, CA 92606 Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 2741 Walnut Avenue (APN: 432-473-46) ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301 (Class 1). REQUEST: To establish a joint-use parking area at the property located at 2741 Walnut Avenue, Tustin, for employees of the Momentous Sports Center, located in the City of Irvine's jurisdictional boundaries (14522 and 14524 Myford Road) during weekday evening and weekend tournaments. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4507 approving CUP 2024-0015 to establish a joint-use parking at the property located at 2741 Walnut Avenue, Tustin, for employees of the Momentous Sports Center (MSC), located in the City of Irvine's jurisdictional boundaries at 14522 and 14524 Myford Road during weekday evening and weekend tournaments. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 4 Carver Presentation given. Mello Mello mentioned a "golden event" where nearby office parking lots display signs about parking fees, asking if this request aims to address that issue or if those signs had already been considered in the planning. Carver Carver explained that City staff has been working with the applicant for several years, and this request is solely for employee and staff parking. Momentous will not charge for parking at this site, as TCC prohibits it. The site will have signage, attendants, and a parking management strategy, with paid parking directed to lots in the City of Irvine. Eastman Building on Carver's remarks, itwas noted thatthe current business lacks sufficient on-site parking for its operations. The City of Irvine has tentatively approved off-site parking for Momentous to address this shortage. One off-site parking location is on Momentous property in Irvine, while the proposed site in the City of Tustin would be designated for employees only, aiming to prevent overflow issues. Higuchi Higuchi asked if the City of Tustin was pursuing the shared parking agreement and if there was any history of code enforcement issues. Carver The City of Irvine Planning Commission conditioned the applicant to obtain a joint-use parking in the City of Tustin. Willkom Willkom's response to Higuchi's questions generally included: Momentous' success over the years resulted with more tournaments/events;there have been some traffic issues (i.e.jaywalking, cross traffic, etc.) in the past;the City of Irvine and Momentous have been working on an amendment to the CUP to allow evening events and weekend tournaments, provided they can supply the required parking spaces; Momentous has worked with the City of Irvine in finding a Location to satisfy a portion of the additional parking spaces required for tournaments; while Momentous was able to find additional parking in Irvine, some spaces to be dedicated for employees only are located in Tustin;the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine agree the site in Tustin will only be utilized for employee parking which will minimize the number of jaywalkers; and will be safer for customers and participants to park. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 5 Mason Mason asked if Momentous is compensating the property owner for the parking spaces. Her concerns included: lack of parking in the area;Tustin needs to be more creative; and the employee parking will end up being used by "everyone". Willkom Momentous entered into a parking agreement, but staff is uncertain of the compensation to the property owner. Applicant David Kim, Director of Finance for Momentous, spoke on the following, in general: the facility in question serves not only Irvine, and half of their clientele are from Tustin; Momentous is a youth sports center used for all children regionally including from Irvine and Tustin areas; Momentous was able to use Rivian parking lot in Irvine that is across the street. This site is used for overflow parking and it has a legal cross-walk; rarely do Momentous and Rivian run out of available parking spaces; Momentous is only asking to use spaces that are currently empty in the evening hours and weekend on the Tustin side; and the parking spaces in question were already approved to be used by the existing building owner when they are not being used. LSA/Applicant Ken Wilhelm, LSA, stated the following, in general: LSA worked with Momentous on the traffic study; the parking demand for the Momentous event has been satisfied with the 333 parking spaces on the Momentous site (M-F); Momentous is seeking parking for approximately 17 weekday tournaments throughout the year; to satisfy the total demand, Momentous needs approximately 115 additional parking spaces; previously had several agreements to share parking with surrounding business owners; Momentous implemented a Parking Management Plan for every tournament to ensure only their participants are parking on-site or at Rivian and the employees can access the Largo site, which is currently not being used on weekends. Kozak Kozak asked if there are legally binding parking agreements with other business owners adjacent to the project site, and if Momentous participants are aware of the parking situation. Mr. Wilhelm Mr. Wilhelm stated there are currently onlytwo parking agreements with the Largo and Rivian sites. Higuchi Higuchi asked the applicant when Momentous' opened and why the applicant is seeking shared parking now. If the Commission denies the project, is there any negative effect on Tustin? Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 6 Carver/ Carver added that Momentous requested a CUP modification with the Applicant City of Irvine. Their Planning Commission considered the item two years prior and the item was continued so the applicant could work with the City of Tustin on joint-use parking. Recently, the City of Irvine Planning Commission considered the item and approved the CUP modification, which allowed for some modifications to the existing CUP. Any tournament operator is given a parking agreement, and parking information is shared with the teams, with regard to parking only being allowed in Irvine, not Tustin. Participants are also encouraged to carpool. Daudt Daudt re-emphasized to the Commission that the City of Irvine requires the applicant to obtain the additional spaces. Absent the approval from the City of Tustin, the applicant will need to return to City of Irvine with other alternatives. Hurtado Hurtado confirmed no public comments received. Commission The Commission voiced their final comments regarding the item. Motion: It was moved by Mello, seconded by Higuchi, to adopt Resolution No. 4507. Motion carried: 4-0-1. Adopted Reso. 4. MODIFICATIONS TO THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Nos. 4502, PARKING & PRIVATE STORAGE STANDARDS CITYWIDE (CA 4503, 4504 2024-0006) AND IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL CORE (SPA 2024-0005) AND RED HILL AVENUE (SPA 2024-0006) SPECIFIC PLANS REQUEST: Amendments to the Tustin City Code, Downtown Core Commercial Specific Plan and Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan to implement a scalable parking requirement for multi-family residential development based on the number of bedrooms per unit, allow tandem parking for resident spaces, remove the requirement for private storage areas and private storage Located within carports. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 7 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt PC Resolution No. 4502, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1555, amending the multi- family residential parking and carport storage requirements as specified (CA 2024-0006). 2. Adopt PC Resolution No. 4503, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1553, modifying the multi- family residential parking and private storage requirements in the DCCSP as specified (SPA 2024-0005). 3. Adopt PC Resolution No. 4504, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1554, modifying the multi- family residential parking and private storage requirements in the RHASP as specified (SPA 2024-0006). Maldonado Presentation given. Mello Mello asked if a moratorium for storage was active. He inquired on the reduced storage requirements and what the basis was for the need for the reduced storage space. He mentioned tandem parking being used for storage due to the logistics of moving cars in and out. Willkom Willkom confirmed the moratorium for self-storage business is still active. Maldonado In response to Mello's questions, Maldonado stated the intent of the EPS study was to look at both the DCCSP and RHASP and identify any requirements that might constrain residential development. Private storage is required in the two specific plans, in addition to private open space (i.e. balcony). That requirement was identified as potentially causing a barrier to the residential development. Eastman Eastman noted that, under current plans, developers can count private storage areas towards private open space, which reduces actual open space. EPS suggested either removing the storage requirement or adjusting it to attract more developers. Additionally, he mentioned that neighboring cities generally allow or have provisions for tandem parking, as outlined in the staff report. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 8 Kozak Kozak voiced his concern of storage being removed, then what other storage accommodations would be provided to the residents? Eastman In response to Kozak's concern, Eastman stated the intent of the private secured outdoor storage is to store items people would typically put on their balcony or front porch (i.e. bicycle). Higuchi Higuchi inquired if adopting these ordinances would prevent developers from using density bonus law to access lower parking ratios under State Law. He also asked about the maximum parking requirements if a developer opted for density bonus law and whether they could request a waiver or concession to allow tandem parking under this law. Maldonado In response to Higuchi, Maldonado clarified that adopting the proposed ordinances would not prevent a developer from using density bonus parking requirements, provided the project includes sufficient affordable units to qualify. He referred to the "Affordable Housing Parking"table in the PowerPoint, which addressed Higuchi's question on density bonus Law. Daudt Daudt added,through the density bonus law, not only are you entitled to the reduced parking ratios, but you can satisfy required parking through tandem parking, which is not a waiver or concession. If you are using density bonus law parking standards, that is one means of achieving the parking ratios. Public Michael Golden noted that tandem parking works only when two spaces Comments. are assigned to one unit. Without careful planning, it can reduce effective parking, eliminate carports, and shift costs from developers to the public. He highlighted that it could add more cars to public streets, decreasing available parking by at least 200 spaces, as seen at Enderle Center. Gabriel Groen supported the item, favoring permit parking, flexible pricing for metered spaces, and noted that public city lots and private Land are underutilized. Angela B. (via Zoom) emphasized that parking is a crucial resource, especially for residents in multi-use areas, and expressed concern that the benefits would primarily go to developers. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 9 Mello Mello was in support of the item. His final comments included: parking is an on-going issue the City has been dealing with and must be addressed; single and multi-family residential areas being impacted which is part of the housing policy crisis; private parking is heavily underutilized; and the City needs to look for creative solutions to increase parking spots. Mason Mason concurred with Mello and spoke on the following, in general; thanks to the public for their input; City of Orange has built several parking lots/garages to support businesses in Old Town; Tustin needs a comprehensive plan; Santa Clara and 171" Street parking issue; and this issue has to be addressed in the next 12-18 months. Higuchi Higuchi's final comments generally included: if there is a requirement in the City's Ordinance referencing tandem parking, can both parking stalls and the tandem parking be assigned to one unit?; consider a parking program; residents need to reach out to the State legislature for policies; State housing laws are powerful tools for developers; and is there a requirement for 90 cubic feet of walkable storage space? Maldonado Per Maldonado, presently, as written, there is no such requirement that both parking spaces in a tandem parking configuration be reserved for one unit. The requirement for 90 cubic feet of lockable storage space is for carports (not garages), but the other aspects of the ordinance (i.e. private storage requirements) could be provided in a garage. The proposed amendments would leave storage up to the developer rather than the City requiring the developer to provide the storage. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Mason , to adopt Resolution No. 4502. Motion carried: 4-0-1. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Mason, to adopt Resolution No. 4503. Motion carried: 4-0-1. Motion: It was moved by Higuchi, seconded by Mason, to adopt Resolution No. 4504. Motion carried: 4-0-1. 8:48 p.m. Recessed the meeting. 8:54 p.m. Meeting reconvened. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 10 REGULAR BUSINESS: Received & 5. OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, WORKSHOP #2 fi led. This second workshop will focus on providing an overview of the draft ODS and receiving recommendations from the Planning Commission and stakeholders. Comments received at the Planning Commission meeting will be considered and incorporated into a final ODS document. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive and file this staff report. Alan Loomis Presentation given. He asked the Commission to provide feedback, if any. Eastman Eastman further explained the purpose of the workshop: intended to avoid bad architecture, bad design; the City currently does not have ODS; a City-wide document for multi-family residential; and once the ODS are adopted, identifies what the intent will be. Commission The Commission's questions/comments generally included: numbers feedback. should be spelled out throughout the document; why is there no detail on setbacks?; creating a document that reflects neighboring cities; concern with adding new codes and the new language; Mello was not in favor of the ODS document, but appreciated the open-endedness of the document; he is glad the City is looking at different areas in Tustin; Commission be careful with the garages (can be functional, not cost prohibitive);the feedback. difference between "standards" and "guidelines"; leaving leeway for development; setbacks are already included within the municipal code; trying to address design voids since not listed in the municipal code; developers have provided feedback regarding the ODS; and ODS needs to include definition if not defined in the municipal code. The item was received and filed. OTHER BUSINESS: Willkom Willkom was proud to announce the City would be receiving an award regarding Historic Preservation Week on Thursday, October 241n Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REPORTS: Kozak Kozak attended the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting on October 151n Mello Mello thanked City staff for the meeting items and great discussions with his fellow Commissioners. Mason Congratulations to City staff on the APA award for Historic Preservation Week! Mason asked if there are any updates with regards to the Enderle Center. Willkom Willkom stated that the Enderle Center Rezone project is being scheduled tentatively for the November 19, 2024 City Council meeting. A potential buyer has reached out to the City and the buyer would like to meet with the community to discuss potential vision for the Enderle Center. City staff has reached out to the community members who have shown interest with the project to give them the opportunity to meet with the potential buyer. Higuchi Higuchi also commended City staff for the APA award for Historic Preservation. 9:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, November 12, 2024. Minutes— Planning Commission Meeting —October 22, 2024— Page 12