Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 8-14-18 MINUTES ITEM #2 REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2018 7:10 p.m. CALLED TO ORDER. Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson Present. ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Mason and Thompson Absent. Commissioner Smith. None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: Approved the CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JUNE 26, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting as provided. 2. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS The report provides a summary of projects and activities since the last summary of projects report was presented at the April 24, 2018, Planning Commission meeting. The report focuses on the status or projects that the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or staff approved; major improvement projects; Certificates of Appropriateness; Code Enforcement activities; and, other items which may be of interest to the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive and file this item. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0-1. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2017-09 & DESIGN REVIEW Resolution No. (DR) 2017-008 4371, as amended. PROPERTY OWNER: Song Am, Inc. 1501 Nisson Road Tustin, CA 92780 Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 1 of 15 APPLICANT: Sungwun Son Song Am, Inc. 1501 Nisson Road Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1501 Nisson Road REQUEST: CUP 2017-09 and DR 2017-008 to convert an existing hand car wash to an automated express car wash, add eleven (11) self- vacuum stations, sales kiosk and trash and vacuum enclosures, and exterior modification to the existing building. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 1/Class 2) pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15302 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4371 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2017-09 and Design Review (DR) 2017-008 to convert an existing hand car wash to an automated express car wash, add eleven (11) low-profile self- vacuum stations, add sales kiosk, trash and vacuum enclosures and exterior modifications to the existing building. Dove Presentation given. Thompson Thompson asked staff to clarify the City's Noise Ordinance from evening to daytime hours. Dove Per Dove, from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. the noise levels cannot exceed 55 decibels in the residential zone and then from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the noise level cannot exceed 50 decibels in the residential zone. Thompson In response to Dove's explanation, Thompson then asked if the applicant would have to comply with those reading levels. Dove Per Dove, decibel levels are cumulative and is a complex measurement. The noise standards would be cumulative for a thirty (30) minute period. Thompson Thompson referred to the back-up material of the noise study within the staff report and the recommendation for the sound enclosure built around the units and addition of dense vegetation, and that they are required to do both. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 2 of 15 Kozak Kozak had no comments. Mason Mason had no comments. 7:24 p.m. Public Comments Opened. Mr. Alex Woo, Mr. Clayton Prezekop, from Genesis Consulting Inc., and Ms. Vanessa Villanueva, who performed the noise study, represented the applicant. Collectively, their comments included: provided letters of support at the podium, to be added to the case file; mitigating measures are appropriate; the issue with canopies associated with the vacuum pumps and the main reason for the canopies is for the health and safety of the customers; the visual aesthetics of the canopies is relevant; adjacent to the freeway and property — presented several handouts at the podium to provide the Commission with a visual of the concrete wall and freeway, street, property line, etc.; and he asked the Commission to approve the project, "as is", in terms of the proposed vacuum pumps. 7:30 p.m. Public Comments Closed. Thompson Thompson stated that the project started with a code violation and an issued complaint, then the project was brought into compliance. He appreciated what was being presented, but he was inclined to go with staff's recommendation with regards to the vacuum systems. Mason Mason concurred with Thompson's comments and she also appreciated the aesthetic aspect of the project. She was also in support of staff's recommendation and ensuring noise mitigation issues are remedied. Kozak Kozak also supported the recommended action. He commended the applicant for improving the aesthetics and the painting of the building. Kozak added that the project is consistent with development guidelines, as conditioned. Lumbard Lumbard stated that the applicant should comply with the vacuum models the City has approved in the past. He added that if there is a need for shade, then the applicant should work with staff. Lumbard was in support of everything else in the application. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4371, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. 7:33 p.m. Closed Item #3. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 3 of 15 Adopted Resolution 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2018-00007 AND DESIGN No. 4370, as REVIEW (DR) 2018-00011 amended. PROPERTY OWNER: Tustin Heights SC LP 621 B South Melrose Avenue Vista, CA 92081 APPLICANT: Michael Zislis Rock& Brews 321 12th Street, #200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 LOCATION: 1222 Irvine Boulevard REQUEST: CUP to authorize Type 47 Alcohol Beverage License for on-site consumption, live entertainment and outdoor seating in conjunction with a remodel, expansion and facade upgrade to an existing restaurant building within the Tustin Heights Shopping Center. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt (Class 1 and Class 2) pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15302 of the CEQA. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4370 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2018-00007 and Design Review (DR) 2018-00011 to authorize a Type 47 alcohol beverage license for on-site consumption, live entertainment and outdoor seating in conjunction with a remodel, expansion and facade upgrade to an existing restaurant located within the Tustin Heights Shopping Center at 1222 Irvine Boulevard. Demkowicz Presentation given. Thompson Thompson asked how the doors would be closed when the band was playing when the doors are being used for service. Demkowicz In response to Thompson's questions, Demkowicz referred to the Conditions of Approval in that the doors would need to remain closed during the live entertainment. The live entertainment area is located within the restaurant, not the patio. Mason Mason asked how close the closest residential is to the project site. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 4 of 15 Demkowicz Per Mason's question, Demkowicz stated approximately less than100 feet from the project site. Lumbard Lumbard referred to the project's alcohol license (Type 47) and he asked what type of ABC license the previous tenant had. Willkom Per Willkom, the previous tenant had the same type of ABC license as the applicant. Mr. Zislis The applicant, Mr. Michael Zislis, provided the following information: background information on the project; commented on live entertainment and that the live entertainment would not occur often; Mr. Zislis has other locations in EI Segundo, Torrance, Buena Park, LAX and so far there have been no complaints of noise; and as per the sound measure, all doors will close automatically. Kozak For clarification purposes, Kozak wanted to ensure there would only be three (3) musicians, at most, on stage. Mr. Zislis Per Mr. Zislis, it is usually one (1) or two (2) musicians, but periodically, there may be three (3) musicians on stage, but no more. Thompson Thompson referenced the Black Marlin and commended them with there being no concern with the noise level. Since the doors close automatically when there is live entertainment at the project site, he did not believe there would be a noise issue for Rock & Brews as well. Thompson encouraged the applicant to minimize the noise level. Dr. John Kendall Dr. John Kendall, resides behind the medical complex, closest to the project site and he voiced his concern with the patio and the access to the restaurant. He was also concerned with the security and the problems prior tenants have had with employees and people "partying" after the restaurant is closed. Dr. John Kendall thanked staff for answering his questions. Ms. Francine Ms. Francine Righter, a nearby resident, was concerned there would Righter be noise coming from the project site. Ms. Righter asked if there would be a cutoff point of the noise that would be enforced as well as being part of the Conditions of Approval. 7:50 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff to answer the previous speakers concerns regarding security, safety, and noise. Binsack In response to Lumbard's concerns, Binsack referred the Commission to the Conditions of Approval Nos. 3.16 and 3.17 (identifies issues related to security and refers to the Tustin Police Department) of Resolution No. 4370, which addressed the concerns previously stated. She reminded the Commission that they have the capability of re- reviewing items within the Conditions of Approval, on an annual basis Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 5 of 15 or more often, in the event the applicant violates the Conditions of Approval or create any other violations within the Tustin City Code (TCC). To date, the City has not had any issues with most of the establishments that have been issued CUPs. Thompson Thompson thanked those speakers who voiced their concerns with noise issues and Binsack for her input on the Conditions of Approval. It appears to be a good solution. Thompson suggested coordinating security with the security of the center. Kozak Kozak's comments generally included: he appreciated the public's comments on the noise complaints; welcomed the addition to the Tustin Shopping Center; patio areas will attract patronage; and Rock & Brews has worked in other communities and will work in Tustin as well. Mason Mason was in agreement with her fellow Commissioners comments. She made favorable comments towards this new concept coming to Tustin and that it will revitalize the Tustin Heights Shopping Center. Mason asked that staff ensure the review period is followed with regards to the noise ordinance and aligning the security with the Tustin Heights Shopping Center. Lumbard Lumbard made favorable comments towards the project and he was in support of the recommended action. Thompson Thompson requested language be added to Section 3.17, of the Conditions of Approval, referring to collaborating/coordinating the security with the Tustin Heights Shopping Center. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4370, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. 7:55 p.m. Closed Public Hearing Item #4. 7:56 p.m. Opened Public Hearing Item #5. Continued to the 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN September 25, (SP-13) AND ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN 2018 Planning AMENDMENT 2017-00001, ZONE CHANGE 2017-0001 AND Commission FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR meeting. THE PROJECT AREA APPLICANT: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 36 acres along a portion of Red Hill Avenue generally bounded by Bryan Avenue to the north and Walnut Avenue to the south bisected by Interstate 5 (1-5), extending one (1) parcel east and west of the Red Hill Avenue right-of-way. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 6 of 15 REQUEST: To establish new development standards and regulations for a portion of Red Hill Avenue through the approval of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13) that would allow up to 500 additional residential units and 325,000 square feet of additional nonresidential square footage and introduce new integrated mixed- use land uses within the project area. Zone Change (ZC 2017-001) would amend the City of Tustin zoning map and change the existing zoning designation from Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) to SP-13. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017-01 would amend the City of Tustin General Plan land use map and include minor text amendments to ensure consistency with the proposed specific plan. ENVIRONMENTAL: A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR SCH 2017041031) and statement of overriding considerations and findings of fact have been prepared in accordance with Article 7 of the CEQA. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission- 1. ommission:1. Adopt Resolution No. 4367, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2017041031, making required environmental findings, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4368, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2017-01 for changes to the text and Land Use Map to ensure consistency with the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan SP-13; 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4369, recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 2017-00001 to amend the City of Tustin Zoning Map changing the Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), and Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) zoning designations to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13) and adopt Ordinance No. 1498 - Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13). Binsack Binsack's comments, before the presentation, generally included: the proposed RHASP will serve as a comprehensive regulatory planning document for a fifty-two (52) acre commercial area along Red Hill Avenue (north and south of the 1-5 Freeway); of the total acreage, 36 acres are privately owned and the remaining area is within the right-of- Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 7 of 15 way; the goal for the area is to create a distinct sense of place and identity for properties along Red Hill Avenue Corridor and to revitalize the existing commercial area; there has been a desire to revitalize the Red Hill Avenue Corridor for decades in order to improve the area; the RHASP has been developed over the last two (2) years along with there being several workshops with the technical assistance from the City's consultant, Kimley-Horn & Associates; introduced Kimley-Horn staff who also participated with the presentation; per comments heard at the public workshops, if the plan is adopted then if there would be a change in use or occupancy or additional square footage built or developed to the site; not dissimilar to the existing TCC (i.e. landscape upgrades may be required, disabled access requirements, etc.); many existing commercial buildings along Red Hill Avenue are in need of regular property and landscape improvements; significant deferred maintenance issues; over the years, the City has expended significant resources through code enforcement efforts to have properties maintained satisfactorily and have had various violations and have been consistently unacceptable to the community; the shopping center's owners have benefitted from a piece-meal approach of City approvals; the City's trying to do something in the public right-of-way to improve the Red Hill Corridor and to propose incentives for the shopping center to improve private property areas; several comments were received today in writing and via social media and may not be able to respond to everyone's comments/concerns due to the lateness of the comments; and Binsack asked that the public provide their comments/concerns in advance in order to allow staff to provide in- depth responses to those comments. Mr. Dave Barquist Mr. Dave Barquist, Kimley-Horn, spoke generally on the overview of the RHASP which included the following: to improve the aesthetics to the public/private realm; the RHASP is a guidance document — an ability for a developer/applicant to have the ability to do what is wanted; discussed the boundary of the RHASP, specifically the San Juan area; removed residential area within San Juan Street vicinity after comments from Workshop #1; wanted to create a vibrant, mixed-use, pedestrian oriented place; first workshop was exploratory, second workshop project boundary and vision statements further defined; third workshop —joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop and the Final Draft Specific Plan was presented; standards similar to the DCCSP; plan goals; discussed the Specific Plan Vision along with the existing character north/south on Red Hill Avenue; listed what the RHASP would address; the evaluated threshold is "up to 500 new residential units and up to an additional 325,000 of square feet of commercial"; examples of how Standards compare with the TCC; discussed the City's current parking standard; design expectations; guidance in terms of architecture, along w/ recommended design elements and styles; and the open space. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 8 of 15 Ms. Dana Privitt Ms. Dana Privitt, Kimley-Horn, spoke on the Program EIR, the process and the involvement with the community which generally included: the City issued Notice of Preparation (4/7/17); Scoping Meeting (4/20/17); City issued Notice of Availability (2/1/18); 45-day public review period closes (3/19/18); Draft Program EIR evaluated; various topics addressed in the Program EIR along with the studies defined in the document; build out year of 2035; Program EIR findings and public comments; summary of environmental issues; collaborative effort w/ the City of Irvine to provide adequate responses regarding parking and traffic; and public outreach (notices, FaceBook, Next Door, etc.) no new issues addressed. Demkowicz Demkowicz provided further information to the Commission regarding the supplemental items received that week which would be made part of the public record. The PowerPoint included the comments and concerns raised by Commissioner Thompson and the public which generally included: Parking Standards; joint-use parking can be requested with the preparation and approval for a Parking Demand Analysis (PDA); how the past senior congregate development approval of the church site would be permitted and considered a commercial use; independent senior housing would be considered residential use and would only be permitted with mixed-use; stand-a-lone commercial projects setbacks; the massing of the high rise buildings; design review would allow staff to consider projects on a case-by-case basis; Interstate 5 freeway ramp was coordinated with Cal Trans and the City, but the City cannot control portions of Red Hill Avenue but will coordinate with Cal Trans, OCTA and other agencies to determine what improvements are adequate for the RHASP; proposed streetscape palette in the RHASP; and limited favorable comments received up until the start of the public hearing. Lumbard Lumbard questioned one (1) of the maps provided by an audience member which was handed to the Commission with no cover sheet. Thompson Thompson stated that he spoke with John Nielsen and it was apparent he was concerned with the representation of Sapetto Real Estate Solutions. He notified the Commission and audience members that his son works for Kimley-Horn's office in Denver and he had no association with staff working on the project. 8:58 p.m. Opened Public Hearing Comments Section. Mr. Craig Shucker Mr. Craig Shucker's concerns generally included: parking; too high density (high rise 5-story building would block the sun); there will be a need for additional first responders and the cost; traffic/congestion; increase in water usage with there currently being drought restrictions; mixed-use section of the RHASP, hurting low-income housing, encroaching in areas; Cal Trans improvement to the sound wall along Nisson Road could potentially change the traffic pattern; potential density; water main under Red Hill Avenue could be replaced, parking spaces to be displaced; no real benefit to the shopping center; property Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 9 of 15 owners would have challenges; need a redevelopment fund or property owners will be under funded; bike lanes should not be on the street or provide more protection; shuttle service could be a solution; and added traffic signals. Mr. Charlie Mr. Charlie Laumann's concerns generally included: density; parking Laumann concerns and overflow into residential areas; Mitigation Measure (4.2.1 and 4.2.2) are "suggestive"; added pollution; and he suggested the RHASP plan be re-evaluated. Mr. David Larson Mr. David Larson's concerns generally included: high density not being warranted; inadequate parking requirements; and the City should verify use of garages within the City. Ms. Beverly Ms. Beverly Laumann's concerns generally included: the spacing of Laumann 500 units and some areas could be overly concentrated; traffic impacts to Red Hill Avenue and Interstate Freeway intersection; and she asked where the water usage would come from since the city is already under drought restrictions. Mr. Bruce Mr. Bruce Heathcote, represented Red Hill Village and Stater Bros. Heathcote shopping centers. He stated that the bulk of the project area would not be a part of the RHASP and would only apply to three (3) shopping centers. His concerns were related to change of tenants and the need to comply with required improvements. Mr. Heathcote added that the RHASP would also create blight and loss of additional sales tax. Ms. Valerie Spear Ms. Valerie Spear's comments/concerns generally included: the neighborhood is "run down" and "needs help"; "Red Hill Avenue is not nice anymore"; maximum stories should be three (3) and no more; parking — 2.25 spaces per dwelling unit is not enough; inadequate parking; and high density belongs to New York, not Tustin. Mr. Toby Moore Mr. Toby Moore, lives adjacent to the plan area, and he was supportive of "most aspects" of the RHASP. His concerns generally included: Interstate 5 freeway widening; traffic and parking impacts to Nisson Road and loss of approximately 180 parking spaces; encroachment to the low-income households; suggested building a parking structure; and movement of the sound wall along Nisson Road between Browning and Newport Avenues could potentially change traffic patterns. Mr. Mike Abel Mr. Mike Abel, represented owners of Red Hill Plaza and investors of Big Lots, voiced his concerns, which generally included: RHASP will not be a benefit to the shopping center; challenges with lease terms with option to expand; prospective tenants would not want to conform with the nuisance of the RHASP; and he was in support of a specific plan that could potentially work for everybody, but not the RHASP. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 10 of 15 Mr. Robert Mr. Robert Machado was concerned with the proposed four (4) to five Machado (5) story building and it would not be compatible with the surrounding residential area. He also voiced his concern of the potential traffic impacts along Red Hill Avenue (San Juan and EI Camino Real). Mr. John Nielsen Mr. John Nielsen discussed the following, in general: the dilapidated structures along Red Hill Avenue, built in the 1960s, and the area needing to be invigorated; landowners need to be given the opportunity to build; incentives need to be given to developers and builders; and there is also misconception regarding the RHASP. Ms. Pamela Ms. Pamela Sapetto, 13751 Red Hill Avenue, was in support of staff's Sapetto recommendation, but voiced her concern as follows: current homelessness issue; parkland mitigation fees should be fixed and imposed on a per unit basis rather than by a project basis (she submitted letter the day of meeting); and parkland fees collected should only be used for the additional or improvements to existing parks in a reasonable proximity to projects being approved and also within the RHASP area. Mr. Bob Imondi Mr. Bob Imondi commented on the following in general: parking issue on San Juan Street; against proposed five (5) story building; cost will be affected by public services (police, fire, etc.); and overcrowding in schools. Mr. Michael Mr. Michael Hubman stated that the proposed high rise building would Hubman block the sun. Mr. Robert Mr. Robert Kirchaessner voiced his concern with how parking would be Kirchaessner affected along San Juan Street. Ms. Michelle Ms. Michelle Terpstra excited to see the landowners improve their Terpstra property and she was in favor of mixed-use. She also encouraged the audience to take advantage of current technology to see what the projection could look like, as per the proposed high rise building. Ms. Kristin Rhodes Ms. Kristin Rhodes would like Red Hill Avenue to be improved. She would also like to see more bike lanes. Ms. Rhodes stated that the project is not feasible to add 500 units. Ms. Elizabeth Ms. Elizabeth Calleros was not in favor of the high density, but she Calleros would like to see Red Hill Avenue improvements. She voiced her concern regarding the dangers of walking along Red Hill Avenue. 9:38 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Mason Mason's follow up questions/comments generally included: how did the the RHASP come about; are the plans for a 500 unit building currently under review by the City; explain how parking requirements would be reduced without further affecting the parking area; she asked if the senior housing would be impacted with the number of units in the Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 11 of 15 RHASP and if not, would that number be included with the 500 units being proposed; she asked what Vintage paid with regards to parkland mitigation fees and how it impacted development; and what does the City do with the fees collected? Binsack Binsack's response to Mason's questions generally included: over the years the City was approached by the development community that was interested in possible residential development within the plan area; as previously stated, workshops were held to discuss density with the City Council and the Planning Commission; there was a desire to enhance the public right-of-way as well as the adjacent private properties and incentivize those private properties to allow for the opportunity to have mixed-used/residential; the City is currently not reviewing the plans for a 500 unit building; the specific plan analyzes 500 dwelling units for the overall area; the City has been reviewing a plan that has been submitted for the old church site but it has not been deemed complete, and would be brought to the Planning Commission and the City Council for review; the RHASP does require compliance with what the City's current standards are (the commercial aspect); with mixed-use, the RHASP would allow for shared parking so when the demand for commercial use is lower, then the residential demand takes over and vice versa; shared parking could work if managed well; with regards to the senior project, which was approved years ago, the entitlement has since expired (congregate care facility) and was considered a commercial use; unsure of the exact amount Vintage paid for the parkland mitigation fees (calculation was done at the time of the appraisal) but they paid full parkland mitigation fees for the project; and the fees are used to offset impacts on the City's parkland fee dedications. Lumbard Lumbard asked how many number of units were approved at the senior congregate facility. Binsack In response to Lumbard's question, a 201-unit congregate care facility was approved. Thompson Thompson requested more information regarding the following in order to gain a better understanding and he did not want to rush into any decisions: • What does the 5-story structure look like in relation to the existing homes and apartments that are going to remain? • Parking — will there be enough or does the mixed-use really benefit the area? • Traffic — what does the traffic look like today and when all of these uses are added, what is the increased percentage? • Transition — how do the shopping center owners transition to this new order being defined in the RHASP? • Cal Trans — if the sound wall takes away parking, how will that affect the area? Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 12 of 15 • Would like to get a summary of all comments (emails, letters, Thompson blogs) staff has received and how responses are being addressed. Kozak Kozak commended the public's participation. Staff needs to address the following concerns which were: • Density/concentration • Traffic impacts • Parking or lack thereof • Building height • Cal Trans widening and potential impacts Kozak's final comment was that the Commission is not in a position to make a decision until the Commission can give further consideration to the list of concerns and possible resolutions before the Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council. Lumbard Lumbard also commended the public for their participation in the process. He stated, as a community, we want what is in the best interest of the RHASP. Lumbard was also not in a hurry to make a decision. He was also in agreement to have staff return to the Commission with an analysis of the letters and comments received from the public which have not been responded to as of yet. Mason Per Mason, "a specific plan does not build anything, it is a framework". She added that the plan is introducing mixed-use, improving walkability, adding 500 dwelling units to the area, etc. Motion: Thompson moved to continue the item in order to address the items previously mentioned, seconded by Kozak, to a date certain. Motion carried 4-0-1. Binsack Outreach will be complete (no re-noticing). Staff could be done with responding by September 25, 2018. Asked the audience and viewers to provide any additional comments received in two (2) weeks and staff will respond to all comments. Kozak Kozak would like to make sure staff and the consultants have sufficient time to address letters, emails, etc. to respond. Binsack Per Binsack, the Commission would need to continue the Public Hearing item to a date certain, without having to do a re-notification. Staff will still conduct outreach (i.e. add to City's website). It was a significant cost to send notices out to 3,500 individuals. Per Binsack, staff will need to respond to the Commission's request and they could be ready by September 11, 2018, but would prefer bringing all responses to the Commission at the September 25, 2018 meeting. If anyone in the viewing public and who was present at the meeting, if there are additional comments, and if they would like to be submitted before the next Planning Commission meeting, to please provide to Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 13 of 15 City staff within the next two (2) weeks. This would avoid the public hearing item be continued yet again. Binsack wanted to make sure staff is responsive to everybody's comments adequately. Motion: It was moved to continue the Public Hearing item, in order to address the topics previously stated, to the September 25, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 4-0-1. 10.10 P.M. Recess. 10.19 P.M. Meeting reconvened. None. REGULAR BUSINESS. Binsack STAFF CONCERNS: None. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason Mason had no comments or concerns. Thompson Thompson attended the following events: • 6/28: Participated in the USC Marshal's School of Business • 6/29: Services for Steve Nordic, business pioneer in the City of San Juan Capistrano • 7/12: OCTA Environmental Clean Up Allocation Committee • 7/17: Thompson was reappointed to the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee • 7/17: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting • 8/1: ULI Tour of the Spectrum in Irvine Kozak Kozak attended the following events: • 7/17: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting • 7/19: California Preservation Foundation webinar with the Community Development Department • 7/21: Tustin Hoe-Down fundraiser for Veterans sponsored by the Tustin Exchange Club • 8/7: Annual Community Night Out sponsored by the Tustin Police Department • 8/11: Broadway in the Park"Little Mermaid" On August 22, 2018 the Tustin Library grand re-opening. Kudos to Adrianne DiLeva-Johnson for the Summary of Projects! Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 14 of 15 Lumbard Lumbard attended the following events: • 7/17: OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting • 7/21: Tustin Hoe-Down fundraiser for Veterans sponsored by the Tustin Exchange Club • 8/11: In Seattle with his Bride celebrating their wedding anniversary. Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Lumbard! 10:24 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 28, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes—Planning Commission August 14, 2018—Page 15 of 15