Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 PC MINUTES 3-13-18 MINUTES ITEM #2 REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2018 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mason All present. ROLL CALL: Chairperson Smith Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Lumbard, Mason, Thompson None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: Item continued 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— FEBRUARY 13, 2018 to the next regularly RECOMMENDATION: scheduled meeting of That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the February 13, March 27, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. 2018. Thompson asked that the approval of the Minutes be deferred to the next scheduled meeting. Directed staff 2. 2017 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT (GPAR) AND ANNUAL to forward the MITIGATION MONITORING STATUS REPORT (AMMSR) FOR FEIS/EIR GPAR and the FOR MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMMSR to the City Council for consideration. California State Law requires that each city adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for its physical development and any land outside its boundaries which bears a relationship to its planning activities. In essence, the City's General Plan serves as the blueprint for future growth and development. As a blueprint for the future, the General Plan contains policies and programs designed to provide decision makers with a basis for all land use related decisions. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review and authorize staff to forward the General Plan Annual Report and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status Report to the City Council for consideration. Willkom provided an explanation of the supplemental information, provided at the dais, which was additional visual information in order for the Commission to gain a better understanding of all activities occurring at the MCAS, Tustin. Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 1 of 13 Motion. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason, to authorize staff to forward the General Plan Annual Report and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status Report to the City Council for consideration. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:08 p.m. Opened the Public Hearing Section. 3. WITHDRAWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-24 Item A request for joint-use parking in conjunction with the conversion of an withdrawn. existing laundromat to a restaurant at 1052 Walnut Avenue. Upon research, there is adequate parking to accommodate the use; therefore, a CUP is not required. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1) Remove the item from consideration. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to remove the item from consideration. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2017-26, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A Reso. No. PRIVATE, INDOOR RECREATIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL USE 4361 (SPORTS, ARTS, MUSIC, ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT) WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL OFFICE BUILDING APPLICANT: Susan Boettger Lyceum Village SPC 125 Nighthawk Irvine, CA 92604 PROPERTY Lyceum Village SPC OWNER: 125 Nighthawk Irvine, CA 92604 LOCATION: 14281 Chambers Road A request to establish a private indoor recreational and instructional use, including sports, arts, music and academic enrichment, within an existing 19,700 square feet industrial office building. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301, Class 1. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4361, approving the establishment of a private indoor recreation and instructional facility for sports, art, music and academic enrichment within an existing 19,700 Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 2 of 13 square-feet industrial building located at 14281 Chambers Road. Hutter Presentation given. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff if the project site was located in the center across Walnut Avenue from where the existing Cross Fit and gymnastics center are located. Hutter Hutter confirmed that the project site is on the north side of Walnut Avenue. 7:11 p.m. Public Hearing Item Opened. The applicant, Susan Boettger, thanked the Commission for hearing her item. She provided additional background information relating to her project. She stated that her main focus is on high-end classical music and gymnastics and does not anticipate large amounts of people, therefore, noise should not be an issue. Ms. Boettger asked the Commission if they had questions. Smith Smith's questions for the applicant generally included: shuttle service being provided through the program and the pick-up location; if vending machines and food would be provided on-site for the students; and if the business was currently operating or if the business had relocated. Ms. Boettger's response generally included: shuttle service would be provided through Zoom, a child shuttle service, and pick up would take place at the childrens' schools and drop off at the project site; Zoom could also drop the children off at their homes after the program; students bring in their own food and eventually there would be a "grab n' go" for the students; currently her three (3) children, and a few other students are enrolled in the program; there was a soft open house event in order to promote the business; she anticipates opening in the Fall; and renovations are currently taking place. Mason Mason asked Ms. Boettger if the teachers at the facility are independent contractors and if instructors could sign up and bring their own students. Ms. Boettger's response to Mason's question consisted of: her facility welcomes educators and teachers with existing programs; instructors with good programs and credentials have the opportunity to lease part of the facility for a few hours at a time to teach their courses; her facility is a shell for existing programs; and her desire is to work with existing programs in Tustin and Irvine. Kozak Kozak made favorable comments and asked the applicant if the facility is currently being built. He also asked if the various vendors, teachers, instructors would begin instruction in the Summer and Fall. Ms. Boettger confirmed instruction would begin in the Summer (i.e. Summer Camp). After the public comment period closed, neighboring business owners, Debbie Hartunian, owner of 14242 Chambers building and Pat Simonium owner of 14192 Chambers Road, owners of the industrial building across from the proposed project site, approached the Commission and voiced their concerns which generally included: did not understand the concept of the project; the Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 3 of 13 building was sold recently and it appears to have been subdivided into five (5) or six (6) tenant spaces and is no longer a single-occupant tenant; hours of operation; trucks coming in and out every day; concern with children roaming the streets; and they asked if one (1) person was occupying the building. Smith Smith informed the speakers that the public comment period closed and that the Commission does not engage in questions and answers from the dais, and referred the ladies to the staff report copies which were located at the Council Chamber entrance. He also referred their questions to the applicant, who was sitting in the audience. Hutter Hutter confirmed that one (1) single provider would be occupying the proposed project site and there will be different types of enrichment and sports activities within the building. 7:20 p.m. Public Hearing Item Closed. Thompson Thompson mentioned the trend for these types of facilities and that it is conducive to warehouse settings. He made favorable comments and was in favor of the item. Lumbard Lumbard mentioned the tension between industrial and recreational uses. He stated that each time the Commission approves this type of application, the tone and use of the area changes even though the use is allowed under the Tustin City Code (TCC)which does change the industrial uses and impacts the surrounding areas. He stated that the applicant would benefit from communicating with her neighbors with regards to the use and he made favorable comments. Mason Mason's comments generally included: desire to keep children behind closed doors during operational hours; made favorable comments including proactive, meaningful destination for children to go after school; childrens' safety going in and out of the facility (i.e. install security cameras outside the building) to ensure the children's safety, particularly due to the extended hours of operation. Kozak Kozak made favorable comments for the applicant which included: the business model; use of property appropriately; drop-off will help with traffic flow and prevent backups; and he also advised the speakers to pick up a copy of the staff report in hopes of answering their questions. Smith Smith echoed similar favorable comments with regards to the report and staff. He did voice his concern with regards to the intersection between industrial use, recreational use, and parking. Smith emphasized to staff and the applicant that this type of use should be in a contained environment for the safety of the children when they cross or walk along the street. Motion: It was moved by Smith, seconded by Mason, to adopt Resolution No. 4361. Motion carried 5-0. Binsack Binsack noted that this is an appealable item and the appeal period is ten (10) calendar days. Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 4 of 13 7:27 p.m. Public Hearing Item Opened. 5. CODE AMENDMENT 2017-003 (ORDINANCE NO. 1493) — ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES ESTABLISHMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES A proposal to amend Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to update the standards and guidelines related to new alcoholic beverage sales establishments. ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed Code Amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15060 (c) (2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4360, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1493, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code, and amending the Planning Commission's Guidelines for Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishment Guidelines. Aguilar Presentation given. Binsack Binsack explained to the Commission the reason for the supplemental provided at the dais relating to the guidelines and the approval/denial process of a request. She further explained that staff is proposing that an additional Finding be included stating that either Planning staff or the Tustin Police Department would review the application on a case-by-case basis (i.e. applications pending, the proposed establishment is not located within an over concentrated area, high crime area and/or an area that is not conducive to the sale of alcoholic beverages) as determined by the City (i.e. may be included but not limited to areas that cater to schools, places of worship, pre-schools, etc.). Binsack further explained that it is difficult to evaluate each use at this time, since staff is proposing some relaxation of certain standards, what types of applications the City sees in the future of a proposed application where staff may want to make a finding where City staff may not be supportive and make a recommendation for denial. If there are over concentration of sensitive uses (i.e. schools and parks), it may be less appropriate for there to be an over concentration of alcoholic beverage sales which is why staff thought it would be appropriate to add one (1) additional finding for the Commission's consideration. Smith With regards to the supplemental, Smith asked if this were to be used as criteria for denial, if the applicant could still choose to appeal. Binsack Binsack confirmed Smith's statement. Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 5 of 13 Mason Mason's questions/concerns generally included: loosening up the current rules; if the City is being more explicit about school premises; adjacent cities process; if this proposed ordinance would be open to any on-site restaurant/bar staying open until 2:00 a.m. where there might be an 11:00 p.m. or midnight closing time; and if the applicants would have to re-apply for their CUP. Binsack Binsack explained the included radius map illustrated that staff included private and public schools which virtually zones out the capability of allowing for an off-premise alcohol sales establishment. Per Binsack, if the Commission wanted to proceed, staff also provided the enclosed guidelines in order to address any secondary impacts. She added that every individual or applicant that is desirous of selling alcohol in the City would be required to obtain an additional CUP, but they could request and receive approval for the 2:00 a.m. closing time. Lumbard Lumbard referred to the supplemental item and suggested editing the second paragraph of the guidelines — "an area that is not conducive to the sale of alcoholic beverages may but not "be" limited to "an" area(s) that caters to.....". Lumbard's questions/concerns generally included: referred to the Zoning Administrator being the authority for CUPs, unless the application was denied or appealed, and asked staff to clarify as far as the Planning Commission and City Council's approval/denial process; the Standard Conditions of Approval - 1) Where it comes from? 2) What does "available" mean? 3) What other cities are following? 4) Include a requirement that food be made available; make sure Tustin PD is involved; and this is relaxation of the current TCC for economic activity especially in the Old Town area. Binsack Binsack's response to Lumbard's questions generally included: the only true establishments currently permitted for on-site consumption would be a bona fide eating establishment (i.e. restaurant) and it has to be fifty-one (51) percent sale of food and the maximum amount of alcohol to be sold is forty-nine (49) percent; individuals would not have an option other than to provide food; referred to the prior workshop with regards to the Commission and City Council's direction, that if there was going to be alcohol sold for onsite consumption there would be food available (i.e. food trucks, food made available, etc.); and if the Commission wanted that item removed from the Guidelines, then staff would remove the food provisions. Lumbard Lumbard recalls from the workshop, that the Commission was generally in favor of some requirements and was not sure how workable availability is as a standard and hopefully it does not become an issue. In general, when referencing the Conditions of Approval and Tustin PD's involvement, he made favorable comments as far as keeping the City safe and to ensure there are no problems with the establishments. Lumbard also asked if staff could enforce the TCC if an establishment becomes a nuisance or noise becomes an issue, but overall it is a step in the right direction. Thompson As a point of clarification, Thompson's interpretation of the 1,000 foot radius map, specifically the Downtown Commercial Core area, Tustin Market Place and the District, were all listed as being non-affected areas. His additional Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 6 of 13 comments generally included: the Red Hill Corridor being an affected area by the 1,000 foot distancing requirement; he referred to Los Angeles' regression analysis to understand the correlation of density of alcohol establishments with crime rates and the correlation of high crime rates with high density of alcohol establishments (off-site sales); he understands that the City wants to relax the standards but the City also wants to maintain a healthy community; over concentration areas (on/off-site sales); location of the concentration of high crime rates occurs in Tustin; on-site vs. off-site consumption — microbrewery concept (i.e. Centro Winery) which fits well along with the City's guidelines and ordinance; 7-Eleven stores not being the type of economic vibrancy our City is looking for, and he was inclined to separate the on-site and off-site alcohol sales, but he liked the vibrancy of what staff presented. Binsack In response to Thompson's interpretation with regards to the Los Angeles "regression analysis", Binsack stated that the analysis was the conclusion Los Angeles came to, but there might be other factors at play that were not considered in their analysis. She indicated the over concentration areas in Tustin would be along Newport Avenue and First Street. Binsack referred to the proposed finding within the staff report. Staff might determine something differently than the Alcohol Beverage Control does which is determined by a census tract area whereas the City can make a determination on a specific parcel being a high crime rate area. Per the 7-Eleven example that Thompson used previously, Binsack's response was that differentiating establishments is difficult. From a land use perception, if everyone follows the rules when selling alcohol, they are all the same from a sales perspective. Binsack advised the Commission that if they just wanted to address reducing the standards for on- site sales and leave the distancing requirements for off-site sales for now, they could choose to do that temporarily and then deal with the other issue at a later date. She told the Commission to keep in mind that off-site alcohol sales would probably get equally, if not more desires to provide those services. Lt. Green Lt. Bryan Green's, South Area Commander of Tustin PD, response to previous comments generally included: a formal study regarding alcohol sales has never been conducted in correlation between crime rates and alcohol sales., crime rates tend to focus on high density areas (residential); there are not really any facts to support the over concentrated areas; Tustin PD informed the Commission of their process when reviewing CUPs with alcohol sales, to ensure all concerns are addressed; Tustin PD has a great working relationship with the Community Development Department, as well as with a variety of establishments to ensure they understand the City's rules and regulations; Tustin PD also works with the crime analysis on a weekly basis in order to identify crime trends; Tustin PD's bi-weekly "Neighborhood Improvement Task Force" meetings to discuss any areas of concern; with the guidelines in place, it gives Tustin PD the ability, along with staff, additional conditions can be imposed, if there are any concerns with imposed restrictions additional restrictions. Based on the ordinance and guidelines, Lt. Green felt there was enough input to address Tustin PD's concerns and if approved, they would continue to monitor/address those concerns at that time; and any time there are major corridors with concentrations of businesses and population, such as Newport Avenue, Irvine Boulevard, Jamboree there is generally an increase in crime rate. Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 7 of 13 Kozak Kozak thanked Aguilar for the staff report. He noted this meeting was a culmination of multiple public meetings with the City Council and the Commission, staff research and presentations. He stated that while the Commission is considering relaxing existing standards, the thoroughness of the presentation is reflected in summarizing that the City will have standard Conditions of Approval, at a minimum, a CUP is required for both on/off-site sales, and the alcoholic beverage guidelines which are good controls and mitigated some of Kozak's concerns. Both staff and Tustin PD worked on the recommendations and they support the recommendations to the Commission. Kozak was in support of the item. He requested Tustin PD and staff return with an update to the Commission. 8:01 p.m. Opened/Closed the Public Hearing Item. Smith Smith asked staff about prior public notifications and the process, as well as if other communication channels were used (i.e. Next Door, Facebook, Tustin Unified School District). Aguilar Per Aguilar, noticing was done through the Tustin News, and notices were sent to stakeholders who specified specific interest in the proposed ordinance. Willkom Willkom added that Next Door, Facebook, and TUSD were not noticed but staff did inform the Chamber of Commerce and asked that they notify their members. Final Comments from the Commission Lumbard Lumbard's final comments included: the ordinance and guidelines are a step in the right direction of where our City Council and City Manager wants us to go; referred to and read from the required findings of the Zoning Administrator Conditions of Approval/Guidelines; noted the consistency with the General Plan and the Zoning Code; and this gives an opportunity for the public to appeal to the City Council, if need be. Smith Smith asked if there are any trends or uncooperative institutions that sell alcohol, whether off-site or on-site in the City that Tustin PD and the City do not have leverage over. He also asked Lt. Green's opinion as to whether or not he thinks the City will lose control with this proposed ordinance. Smith asked City Manager, Jeff Parker, if this proposed ordinance would give any economic stimulus to fulfill the City of Tustin's "Vision" for the community and the City Council. Green In response to Smith's question, Lt. Green stated that currently, there are no trends or uncooperative institutions that sell alcohol within the City of Tustin and he did not feel like the City would lose control with the proposed ordinance either. Parker To answer Smith's question, Parker stated that over the years, City staff has been approached by businesses (i.e. microbreweries) that have shown interest in moving into Tustin but were deterred because of the many City restrictions. Staff, City Council, and the Planning Commission looked at some regulations that could be loosened up. The City still wants to have control (i.e. Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 8 of 13 surveillance, rules and regulations) and having the ability to implement if the City chooses to do so. City Manager Parker mentioned the off-site sales versus restaurant and on-site sales from an economic development point of view. The City was more focused on microbreweries, microwineries, and restaurants and less concerned with off-site sales. Staff would feel open in dialog with the City Council and the Planning Commission in looking at the size and requirements of these types of establishments, as well as off-site sales. Smith Smith's additional questions were related to on-site versus off-site alcohol sales and mentioned a microbrewery, as an example. He asked if a microbrewery, that also sells alcohol off-site at the same time, if that microbrewery would be considered off-site versus on-site, or both. Binsack Per Smith's question on differentiating between off-site and on-site alcohol sales, Binsack stated that it may be considered both off-site and on-site, but it would depend on the percentage of off-site alcohol sales if it is an ancillary use which is addressed in the proposed ordinance and the guidelines. She stated that it would be addressed in the CUP. Mason Mason made favorable comments regarding the proposed ordinance. She also voiced her concerns which generally included: referred to No. 4 of the guidelines (and that it is important for the City to be judicious of new establishments); due to the partnership between staff and Tustin PD, she felt confident that the City will conduct adequate reviews; benefit of on-site alcohol sales; still had reservations about off-site alcohol sales; she asked her fellow Commissioners if additional language could be put into the proposed ordinance; if there would be an update in six (6) months on the number of applications received; and supportive of how the resolution is written. Lumbard Lumbard suggested that since his fellow Commissioners have voiced their concern with off-site versus on-site proliferation, that as a Commission, they support a stricter scrutiny of off-site establishments than on-site establishments, rather than re-draft the ordinance and take a look at adding off-site establishments where the Commission is more in support of on-site establishments. Smith Smith did not voice the same concern and was in favor of what was presented. Thompson Thompson was in favor of the guidelines. Again he reminded his fellow Commissioners that staff, City Council, and the Planning Commission, started out with on-site establishments. He suggested to the Commission that they stick to the original vision, original principles and relax the standards and implement the guidelines, related to the on-site establishments. He suggested keeping the standards stricter, or the old standards for off-site sales. Should move ahead and go with what staff has recommended. Kozak Kozak added to his previous comments which generally included: the process was well thought out; the Commission should look more closely at the off-site sales of alcohol within the context of this process; thanked Lt. Green and City Manager Parker for being present; confident with the information staff provided; the ordinance will be good for the community; and he would love to see more on-site businesses (i.e. restaurants). Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 9 of 13 Lumbard Lumbard had an additional question with regards to the staff report and the revocation process and procedure and how it would apply because it seemed to be a quicker acting mechanism which was not in the TCC before. Lumbard also mentioned the businesses recently revoked and the importance of having certain language in the CUP to avoid problem businesses. Lumbard was not in favor of removing off-site sales, but emphasized the Commission's concern with off-site sales of alcohol. Binsack Per Binsack, what is proposed was approved by the City Attorney's office. The process being that the Zoning Administrator would consider a minor CUP, to expedite the process and anything that would be revoked, there would be a recommendation to the Planning Commission, so individuals receive due process, and the Commission's determination would be final. Normally, any revocation goes to the City Council and their determination is final. In the event an ABC CUP is revoked by the Commission, the next step for an individual would be to go to Superior Court. Thompson Thompson requested clarification that if the only change on off-site sales is maintaining the 1,000 square foot separation and the 15,000 square foot requirement, he suggested giving it a range of separation. Parker City Manager Parker reiterated when he previously spoke on the potential redevelopment of the Downtown (i.e. EI Camino Plaza or the vacant lot on Sixth Street), currently under the TCC, it is not just distance from schools, it is also distance from residential uses. If the Commission is only concerned about schools, it may be something that does not impact economic development because there are no schools in the Downtown Core, Market Place, the District, or the Tustin Legacy. Thompson Thompson then mentioned the residential component being removed. Parker In response to Thompson, City Manager Parker could not speak to the land use point of view, but from an economic point of view, which would be easier. Binsack Binsack suggested if the Commission wants the ordinance modified, then it should be returned to the Commission in a public hearing setting, with direction from the Commission. Binsack was unsure as to the consensus of the Commission. Smith Smith asked his fellow Commissioner's to add their final comments for the benefit of staff and for the Commission to consider. Thompson Thompson wanted to see additional regulations on the off-site sales of alcohol. Maybe retain some of what was restricted in the past, but was open to what City Manager Parker stated regarding the residential not "fitting well" with mixed-use was his concern. Lumbard Lumbard was attempting to regain the Commission's focus and he asked staff for direction on where the 1,000 foot rule is within the TCC. He stated that the map provided did not reflect the current TCC. Lumbard added that the Code Amendment is envisioning removing all of the distancing requirements but then having these findings of appropriate use for the neighborhood. He stated the Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 10 of 13 findings were sufficient but understands Thompson's concerns with schools, which he was willing to discuss further. Binsack Binsack stated that there is a distancing requirement from other existing off- site alcohol sales establishments as well. Willkom Willkom referred to Page 321 of the agenda packet for further clarification in regards to off-site sales establishments. There are three (3) categories for "distance and separation" which are three-hundred (300) feet from any residential zone, six-hundred (600) feet from other sensitive uses (i.e. schools, parks, playgrounds) and five-hundred (500) feet away from any other off-site sales establishments. This was based upon the direction staff received that they were to remove all distance separation, with the exception of schools. Mason Mason was in favor of what was being recommended, but her concern was off- site alcohol sales near schools. She asked the Commission if the change they were asking for is off-site related to schools and leaving a distancing requirement. Kozak Kozak added to Mason and Thompson's comments with regards to the three- hundred (300), six-hundred (600) and five-hundred (500) foot minimum distance regulations if 1,000 feet away from schools could be added. Thompson Per Kozak's question, Thompson thought adding a fourth number would make the ordinance more restricted. He stated that the Commission, collectively, was all in agreement with on-site sales applications. It appears it is only the off-site sales that they did not agree with. Binsack Binsack suggested to the Commission two (2) options: that the Commission make a recommendation of the ordinance as presented to the City Council, and provide a report to the City Council which explains the Commission's concerns with off-site alcohol sales or continue the item and staff can bring back to the Commission the distancing implications if the Commission left the minimum distances related to sensitive uses (i.e. schools) which would be very restrictive. The majority of the Commission's concern was with the off-site alcohol sales. The Commission would like to separate the on-site and off-site alcohol sales. For on-site, the Commission accepts the recommendation by staff with the draft ordinance and recommendations, but there is reservation with off-site sales due to the potential of negative impacts and that it should be treated with more sensitivity. If the Commission and the City Council had a map to look to show what the concentration and sensitive uses are, then it might clarify some concerns. Binsack Binsack further explained that if the City Council identifies similar concerns, they can send that portion of the ordinance back to the Commission for their consideration and further deliberation. Thompson Thompson's final opinion from the Commission's comments/concerns previously stated were as follows: Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 11 of 13 • For on-site alcohol sales, the Planning Commission accepts the recommendation by staff with the draft ordinance and the guidelines; and • There is reservation about off-site alcohol sales, in particular, the residentially zoned sensitive uses the Commission would like to retain. Per Binsack, she wanted to ensure she communicated the Commission's desires to the City Council, so she captured the following from the Commission's collective concerns: • The Commission would adopt the recommendation that is before them with the concerns that the City Council understands the Commission's concern related to off-site consumption of alcohol and the relationship to overconcentration related to residential uses, other on-site alcohol sales as well as other sensitive uses. • Removing the residential five-hundred (500) foot separation from off- site establishments. • That staff provide supplemental information to the City Council of what keeping those distancing requirements would look like for off-site establishments (via a map). Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, as amended, with a report to the City Council that the Commission had serious concerns about over proliferation of off-site alcohol sales establishments and distancing requirements from sensitive uses for off-site alcohol sales establishments, not including residentially zoned use properties. Seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 5-0. None. REGULAR BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack None. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Thompson Thompson completed the City's Email Policy Training on March 12, 2018. Mason No concerns. Lumbard Lumbard attended the following: • 2/17 Lumbard was a judge for the Miss Tustin Pageant — Congratulations to Reina Ramirez! • 2/20 Red Hill Specific Plan Joint Workshop • 2/22 Duck and Tucks Gala at the Honda Center for underprivileged children • 2/25 Tustin's Sip and Swirl • 3/7 Ribbon cutting for the Orange County Animal Care Facility • 3/11 Ran the Tustin Hangar Half Lumbard wished everyone a Happy Saint Patrick's Day! Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 12 of 13 Lumbard requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Master Sergeant Del Pickney. Kozak Kozak attended the following: • 2/20 Red Hill Specific Plan Joint Workshop • 2/22 Citizens Participation Committee • 2/25 Tustin's Sip and Stroll Happy Saint Patrick's Day! Smith No concerns. 8:52 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, March 27, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes—Planning Commission March 13,2018—Page 13 of 13