Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 PC MINUTES 6-11-19 ITEM #1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2019 7:01 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Kozak Present. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Gallagher, Jha, Kozak, Mason, Thompson PUBLIC CONCERNS: Ms. Adrienne Adrienne Gladson, a representative for the Planning Directors Association Gladson of Orange County, provided brochures to the Commission inviting them to participate in an upcoming program ("Leadership on the Dias"). CONSENT CALENDAR: Thompson requested the Consent Calendar items be considered separately. Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 14, 2019 Minutes of the May 14, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the May 14, 2019, Planning Commission meeting as provided. Nixon Library forum in October. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Gallagher, to approve the Minutes of the May 14, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Jha and Thompson abstained from the vote due to their absences. Motion carried 3-0-2. Adopted 2. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION 2019-00001 Resolution No. 4386. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF ORANGE LOCATION: PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 1 of 14 ENVIRONMENTAL: General Plan Conformity determinations required by Government Code Section 65402 are not "projects" requiring environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. REQUEST: General Plan Conformity finding for the conveyance of two (2) permanent easements for existing pipeline facilities access. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4386, determining that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed conveyance for the dedication of two (2) permanent easements for access to existing pipeline facilities is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4386. Motion carried 5-0. Mason Mason suggested to the Commission that Item #6 be considered early in case there were members of the public wanting to speak on the item. Binsack Binsack informed the Commission that if they wanted to consider continuing Item #6, then the Public Comments Section would need to be opened at that time. Kozak Kozak addressed the audience to see if there were any speaker forms, 7:11 p.m. which there were none. The public comments section was open/closed. Item Continued to 3. APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S the July 9, 2019 DECISION RELATED TO PLAN CHECK CORRECTIONS RELATED Planning TO CODE CASE NO. CE-2018-0243 AND BUILDING PERMIT NO. Commission COMBR-2018-00299 meeting. APPELLANT: HELEN AND ERIK LINDGREN 525 WEST SECOND STREET TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 525 WEST SECOND STREET TUSTIN, CA 92780 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301€ of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act). Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 2 of 14 REQUEST: Removal of corrections and conditions related to Code Case No. CE-2018- 0243 and Building Division Permit No. COMBR-2018-00299. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the Community Development Director's corrections and conditions associated with Code Case No. CE-2018-0243 and Permit No. COMB R-2019-00299 by adopting Resolution No. 4387 as follows: 1) Uphold the requirements related to: a. Record the Deed Restriction prior to permit issuance; b. Provision of interior dimensions of 20 feet by 20 feet of the detached two-vehicle garage; c. Provision of screening the roof-mounted air conditioning (A/C) unit; and 2) Remove the requirement to screen the water softener. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Gallagher, to continue the item to the July 9, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted 4. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Resolution Nos. (DA) 2018-00001, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2018-00003, 4379 & 4380. CONCEPT PLAN (CP) 2018-00001, DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2018- 00023 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2018-00015 APPLICANT: SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ATTN: CHRISTINA QUINTERO 1200 EDINGER AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92780 PROPERTY SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION OWNERS: ATTN: CHRISTINA QUINTERO 1200 EDINGER AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92780 CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 15332 NEWPORT AVENUE, 15442 NEWPORT AVENUE, 15222 DEL AMO AVENUE, 1200 EDINGER AVENUE AND PARCEL 6 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2010-127 (APN 430-251-28) Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 3 of 14 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The City Council Certified Final Environmental Impact Report 90-1 (FEIR) for the PCESP on December 17, 1990, and Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90-1 for the PCESP was adopted on May 5, 2003. The FEIR is a Program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIR considered the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the PCESP. An Environmental Checklist was prepared and concluded that the proposed actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIR and Supplement #1 for FEIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIR and Supplement#1 to FEIR. REQUESTS: A request to develop of a 3-story office building, retail bank branch building, 4-level parking structure and associated improvements within planning areas 7, 9, 11 and 14 of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (PCESP). RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4379, determining that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximate 1.8-acre site within PCESP for the development of the three-story office building, parking structure and retail bank building, is in conformance with the approved General Plan. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4380, recommending that the City Council approve: a. DA 2018-00001 (Ordinance No. 1501) to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate 1.8-acre site within the boundaries of PCESP. b. LLA 2018-00003 to modify parcel lines to accommodate the proposed project. c. CP 2018-00001 for the overall concept of the office campus facility including building design, site layout and public and private improvements. d. DR 2018-00023 for the design and site layout of the 180,000 square foot office building, 5,000 square foot retail bank building, parking structure and associated site improvements. Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 4 of 14 e. CUP 2018-00015 for the establishment of joint-use parking as required by the PCESP for parcels that do not provide required parking within its boundaries. Hutter Presentation given. Gallagher Gallagher's comments/questions generally included: Resolution No. 4380— referenced two (2) different square footage amounts; the Traffic Impact Study appeared to only address the proposed development, as is, and seemed to exclude approximately 69,000 square feet for future development; and he asked if the Commission approves the developer agreement, as it stands, could the developer move ahead with the expansion without doing an additional traffic study. Hutter In response to Gallagher's question, Hutter stated that 451,000 square feet is to document the maximum square footage that would be allowed within the planning areas. Willkom Willkom added to Hutter's response stating that the entire campus consists of four (4) planning areas and for each of the planning areas, the Specific Plan identifies the development capacity. The City's Development Agreement ensures the maximum potential of development capacity with the entire campus. She added that currently, only 382,000 square feet are being utilized with the remaining square footage to be used for future development. Per Willkom, at the time of the future development, the developer would still need to return to the City with their proposal and traffic analysis. Thompson Thompson's questions/comments generally included: he asked if the City is also a part of the application process, in reference to the parcel of land being abandoned; he asked if the parcel of land is part of the conveyance or if the City would sell that land to the developer; parking surplus, parking stalls, and parking structure being reduced by one (1) foot, he asked why it would be acceptable to reduce the parking (i.e. concern with emergency vehicles getting onto the campus); parking arrangements with the shared parking — wanted to ensure it was adequately addressed; did CalTrans concur with the traffic study?; and he asked about the traffic mitigation requirements, specifically the one intersection with a level of service "E" and why no mitigation was done for that. Hutter In response to Thompson's first question, Hutter stated that Parcel 6 of the project is currently owned by the City. The City would be considered an applicant since there is an entitlement proposed for that property. Per Hutter, the parking space stalls are shorter(from 19 to 18 feet) but the drive aisles are a minimum 24 feet, which is the requirement. She added that the applicant is not requesting a reduction to the drive aisles and the shared parking is addressed within the Conditions of Approval. Hutter stated the City is working with the applicant to finalize the CC&R's regarding the parking requirements to ensure the parking is being shared within the entire cam pus. Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 5 of 14 Willkom In response to Thompson's question regarding the abandoned parcel of land, Willkom stated that the remnant parcel would be conveyed to SchoolsFirst and the real estate transaction would be considered by the City Council. The proposed project is within the development capacity of the Specific Plan. Willkom added that there are several traffic related issues which have been analyzed when the City did the EIR for the entire Specific Plan. Certain studies were required of certain intersections to ensure that the level of service is complied with, as it is identified within the General Plan and the study does indicate the developer is within the acceptable level of service with the condition of the traffic signal at the project's entrance. Binsack Binsack provided further explanation with Thompson's concern with the reduction of the parking stall standards. The difference is that it is an open area versus a closed garage. She added that typically, the City's standard dimension in a closed garage is 10x20 and is typical when you do not have additional room to maneuver. Nishikawa In response to Thompson's question regarding "Level of Service E", Nishikawa stated that, within the traffic study, Level Service E had to do with the entry into the project off of Newport Boulevard. There will be a traffic signal which will mitigate the level of Service E. Nishikawa added that costs will also be shared with the applicant since the City owns the property across the street as well. Gallagher Gallagher also mentioned Parcel 6 (Newport and Del Amo Avenues) and a Master Sign Plan going forward. He stated that it would be an ideal place to have a "Welcome to Tustin" sign and would it need to be considered at that meeting before the parcel is sold. Willkom Willkom stated that staff did take a look at a "Welcome to Tustin" sign, and similar monumentation. Staff will be working with the applicant since the City has the ability to negotiate with the applicant to have them consider some of the signage for the City. Willkom added that signage will be included with the negotiation of the parcel. 7:38 p.m. Opened the Public Comments Section. Mr. Ryan Davis Mr. Ryan Davis, SchoolsFirst representative, introduced himself to the Commission and audience members, and asked if there were any further questions. 7:40 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Thompson Thompson had favorable comments and was in favor of the project. Jha Jha had favorable comments for the project. Kozak Kozak had favorable comments for the project. Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 6 of 14 Mason Mason requested further background information from the applicant regarding SchoolsFirst. She asked if SchoolsFirst anticipated having a Phase 2 (headquarters) in the same area. Mason was in favor of the project. She did request that the applicant work closely with the City with the CC&R's and traffic issues. She, too, suggested the Welcome sign. Ms. Christina Ms. Christina Quintero, SchoolsFirst representative, came forward and Quintero provided further background regarding SchoolsFirst. She stated that the project will add an additional 750 team members. Ms. Quintero added that SchoolsFirst leased another property off of Red Hill Avenue, where the consumer lending offices are currently located, and that they would relocate those offices to the new project site, along with the Santa Ana office. She added that they would still keep their Santa Ana leased building. Gallagher Gallagher thanked the applicant for bringing in the model and he welcomed them to the City. He made favorable comments towards staff and he was in support of the project. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Jha, to adopt Resolution Nos. 4379 and 4380. Motion carried 5-0. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2018-00018 & DESIGN REVIEW 2018- 00026 APPLICANT: TERRY ODLE/MG2 3333 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612 PROPERTY OWNER: DIANA SALAZAR COSTCO DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 9 CORPORATE PARK, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92606 LOCATION: 2541 AND 2655 EL CAMINO REAL ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15332, Class 32. REQUEST: A request to demolish the existing Goodyear Tire Center and adjacent parking area at 2541 EI Camino Real and replace with 56 new parking stalls and construct a new 16 pump Costco gasoline fuel station with canopy and related equipment at 2655 EI Camino Real. Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 7 of 14 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4385, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2018-00018 and Design Review (DR) 2018-00026 to demolish the existing Goodyear Tire Center and adjacent Goodyear parking area at 2541 EI Camino Real and replace with 56 new parking stalls and to construct a new 16 pump Costco Gasoline fuel station with canopy, related equipment and landscaping at 2655 EI Camino Real. Jha Jha recused himself from this item due to a competing financial interest. Demkowicz Presentation given. Gallagher Gallagher referred to the traffic analysis and the comment in the Summary Findings related to the need for adjusting the signal timing and if it was a requirement for the City or the applicant. Nishikawa In response to Gallagher's question, Nishikawa referred to the applicant's traffic study (Bryan Avenue & Market Way) and one of the requirements for the applicant is that they include a dedicated right turn on EI Camino Real, and is part of the project. Per Nishikawa, there is also a separate project proposal at the intersection of EI Camino Real (ECR) and Tustin Ranch Road (TRR) and is part of the City's Capital Improvement Program and the Notice to Proceed is scheduled for June 17, 2019. He added that right turn pockets, on all four (4) directions at ECR and TRR. In addition, there will be two (2) left turn lanes from ECR onto TRR because currently there is congestion in that area; with these improvements, the City will take a look at the impacts and whether the timing changes will be necessary on Bryan Avenue. If it is, City staff can control the timing since but wanted to see if the improvements will alleviate the concern of any back up traffic. Thompson Thompson asked if the Goodyear Tire Center access would be blocked by the queue line. His concern was that there would be an impact to the Goodyear Tire Center parking spaces. Thompson asked staff to explain further the 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. business hours and how it works with the approvals that already exist for the project site and what the business hours for surrounding businesses. Demkowicz Demkowicz referred the Commission to the stacking plan within the PowerPoint presentation that Costco is proposing. She explained that the queuing would take place in the middle aisle where there are rows of trees, not the same drive aisle as the Costco tire center. Demkowicz stated that Costco was requesting the 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. business hours. Typical hours for other Costco stores in Orange County are 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. The other hours for businesses within the shopping center are 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m, with the exception of McDonald's which is open 24 hours. Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 8 of 14 Mason Mason voiced her concern with the queuing causing congestion to the parking lot, referencing the Costco at the District. She asked if the queue set up would cause back up in the parking lot. Mason requested more assurances that the queuing issue is going to be addressed so as not to be similar to the Costco at the District. Mason asked about Costco's current operating hours and wanted to ensure staff can re-address the hours of operation if there are issues with exceeding noise limits, and impacts of traffic patterns during rush hour. She also asked if there would be any audio or marketing monitors at the gas pumps. Willkom In response to Mason's concern, Willkom stated that staff has worked extensively with the Costco Traffic Engineer to ensure no impacts. Willkom invited the traffic engineer to the podium to explain further on the queuing program they are proposing. Ms. Neelam Dorman, Traffic Engineer with Kittelson and Associates local traffic engineering firm in Orange, responded to Mason's concern with the queuing. Her response generally included: the proposed project has 32 pumps versus the District, which has 22 which will move people a lot quicker through the queue's (i.e. the red light/green light system and the Costco pay system); more queue space than at the District; she provided further explanation of the added right turn lane onto ECR so as not to interfere with street traffic; trying to create as much space on/off site to not interfere with any other movements that are not intending to come to the shopping center; the queue management plan does take into account closing out the north access to allow more space to allow an additional eight (8) cars of stacking; will have additional attendants directing traffic; should anything go wrong and there be any additional monitoring needed, Costco would provide it after site opening; Costco has a significant site in Temecula (30 pumps) which is a similar location next to their mall and is not as close to a freeway on-ramp as the proposed location and queues decreased to 26 cars waiting at the Temecula location. Demkowicz Per Demkowicz, the current Costco store hours are 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. The applicant is requesting the hours of operation, for the gas station only, to be 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. In response to Mason's question on the audio/marketing monitors at the pumps, Demkowicz stated it was not indicated on the applicant's plan. Willkom Willkom explained to Mason and the Commission that the City can revisit any concerns with hours of operation and traffic, which are within the Conditions of Approval. 8:17 p.m. Opened the Public Comments. Ms. Veronica Ms. Veronica Barker, Tustin Ranch resident, spoke in opposition of the item Barker and her concerns generally included: impact on the humanistic side of the plan; traffic impacts; not in favor of the Good Year store being demolished to add more parking; and she would prefer the old Kmart building be Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 9 of 14 Ms. Veronica demolished because of the current homeless issue, trash, and darkly lit Barker parking lot. Mr. Stephen Mr. Stephen McNamara spoke in opposition of the item and his McNamara comments/concerns generally included: referred to a Google photo of a parking lot for the Commission to point out traffic concerns currently at the Costco at the District; negative impacts to the right turn lane onto ECR; noise concern from multiple cars idling; and poor air quality which will be CEQA concern. Mr. Aaron Peters Mr. Aaron Peters, Tustin resident, spoke in opposition of the item and his comments/concerns generally included: "traffic consuming fueling station"; no traffic control; students heading to school could be in danger of traffic; the Temecula gas station previously mentioned is 3.2 miles away from Interstate 215 freeway and the proposed project is less than 2 miles from the Interstate 5 freeway; the addition of a gas station will hurt local gas stations; and the proposed gas station will be exclusive to Costco members only. Mr. Kal Patel Mr. Kal Patel, resident, spoke in opposition of the item and his concerns generally included: gas lines; also referred to the Costco at the District; hours of operation; proximity of the project to the freeway; and the Costco gas station will take away from surrounding small gas stations. Mr. Charlie Mazza Mr. Charlie Mazza, resident in Irvine, owner of Shell station in Tustin Ranch, spoke in opposition of the project and his concerns generally included: the plan does not include the number of gallons Costco will sell; future traffic congestion on ECR and Bryan Avenue; also referred to the District's Costco; and will harm surrounding business owners. Ms. Anayeli Garfias Anayeli Garfias, Santa Ana resident, spoke in opposition of the item and her concerns generally included: increase in traffic on Market Street and Tustin Ranch Road; no need for another Costco since there is already one at the District; and the Costco gas station will take away from small businesses. Ms. Diana Salazar Ms. Diana Salazar, Real Estate Development Manager for Costco, spoke in response to the comments previously made which generally included: thanked City staff for working with Costco during the application process; she provided background information regarding Costco at the District (2007); areas of the current parking site are underutilized; 40 percent of the customers at the District are from the Tustin Ranch Road zip code area which means traffic will be taken away from the streets by reducing the distance that the drivers are driving to pump gas; hours of operation — most Costco locations are open 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. however, they would like the flexibility to serve Costco customers before regular business hours and after closing hours which will hopefully balance out the heavy traffic during store hours. Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 10 of 14 Ms. Valerie Ms. Valerie McNamara, resident, spoke in opposition of the item and her McNamara concerns generally included: traffic impacts at the site; early morning traffic to Beckman High School and after school; traffic impacts from the gas station near Bryan Avenue and ECR. Mr. Daniel Sushel Mr. Daniel Sushel, resident, spoke in opposition of the item and his concerns generally included: traffic impacts; what will determine the amount of traffic is people's tolerance for traffic jams; air pollution from cars in line at the gas pumps; and the project will affect current Costco members who live in the area, negatively and will affect their quality of life. Mr. Barry Mr. Barry Harbayan, lives across from Costco near Bryan Avenue, spoke in Harbayan opposition of the item and voiced his concern with regard to traffic, noise and exhaust fumes affecting Bryan Avenue. 8:48 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Thompson Thompson's final comments after public input generally included: he thanked the public for their input and echoed the same concerns; there are some concerns within the purview of the Commission that need to be addressed (the District and ongoing challenges - what has the City learned?) and there are some concerns outside the Commission's purview (i.e. the impact on other gas stations); lines should not impact other businesses or the traffic; how does this proposal differ/corrects and improves what is being done at the District's Costco; operating hours — is this operating model consistent with the other businesses and within the land use regulations; start off with shorter amount of operating hours to see how it works and ensure it is working responsibly, and if it is, revisit at a later date; parking — when the queue is in full operation, it appears to take out three (3) aisles of parking, not just one (1) — how does it calculate into the code requirements for Costco?; unfair to use McDonald's parking spaces as surplus; need a better explanation of the shared parking and what happens when the businesses are in full operation (i.e. how many parking spaces are lost, what happens to traffic?); if there is a shared parking arrangement, both parties need to be responsible for the cleanup of the parking lot and homeless issue; and if not shared parking, do not count as part of the inventory. Gallagher Gallagher's final comments after public input generally included: he agreed with a lot of the public's concerns, including the District's Costco; traffic to/from the 1-5 Freeway to Costco; the reason Costco is busy is because it is providing a service to the Tustin residents; if and when the Kmart building is in full service, was the parking considered?; safety concern with the deliveries — was that considered?; did not see a reduction in the levels of service in the traffic study, but there is concern there will be (what percentage in increase is expected and does it reflect what is being projected?; in favor of shorter operating hours to start off with; and having a stronger back stop — if everything the City was told by the applicant goes wrong, and the proposed Costco gas station ends up like the District's Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 11 of 14 Gallagher Costco, there should not be any question as to what the resolution is and what can be done to address it. Mason Mason thanked the community for their input and her final comments generally included: the Commission needs to judge this item's merit of what was presented to the Commission; the City is replacing a business with another; the Costco gas station will help thrive the shopping center; need to consider the hours of operation; look at this project from the perspective of the students/residents in the area; and she asked who owns the parcel at the shopping center because it is a big, empty space and it is becoming a blight. Kozak Kozak thanked the public for their input. Kozak's concerns generally included: hours of operation; impacts to level of service may be impacting the surface streets; the shared parking impacts; and the project has merit but the issues previously mentioned need to be addressed before the Commission can make an action and viable recommendation for the community to the City Council. Thompson Per Thompson, collectively, the Commission would like to continue the item to get some additional information that could also affect additional conditions for approval to move forward. Again, the issues the Commission collectively touched on were: parking during operations; operating hours; deliveries and how they play into the operating hours; learnings from the District and how the City will apply those to the proposed project; corresponding local level of service in traffic; and the quality of life issue dealing with the parking lot and who has responsibility. Binsack Per Binsack, if it is the consensus of the Commission to continue the item, staff will summarize the issues both from the public and the Commission, and return to the Commission with concise responses to those comments and concerns. Staff will meet with Costco as well. If the consensus is to continue the item, she recommended continuing to the July 9, 2019 Planning Commission meeting to ensure the Commission is continuing to a date certain in order to provide enough time to respond to those comments and concerns. If staff does not feel that is sufficient amount of time, the item can always be continued from the July 9, 2019 meeting as well. Kozak Kozak added that when staff goes through the areas of concern, if in the analysis, there are some alternatives, than staff would mitigate these impacts that were discussed which would be helpful in the Commission's deliberations. Mason Mason also added, that the Commission and staff are trying to be thoughtful of the concerns previously stated. Motion: It was moved by Mason, seconded by Thompson, to continue the item to the July 9, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 12 of 14 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2019-00006 APPLICANT/ BRETT HAMARA PROPERTY OWNER: LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 15131 ALTON PARKWAY, SUITE 365 IRVINE, CA 92618 LOCATION: LOT 1 AND 6 OF TRACT 18125 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15304(e) (Class 4) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REQUEST: A request to establish a temporary home sales center including a 2,100 square foot sales office trailer, parking lot and landscaping for new home sales activities at the Levity at Tustin Legacy subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4388, approving CUP 2019-00006, a request to establish a temporary home sales center including sales office trailer, parking lot and landscaping, for new home sales activities in the Levity at Tustin Legacy community until December 2022. Hutter Presentation given. 9:12 pm Opened/Closed the Public Comments Section. Gallagher Gallagher had no concerns and he was in support of the item. Mason Mason had favorable comments regarding the item and was in support of the item. Kozak Kozak also had favorable comments regarding the item and he, too, was in support of the item. Thompson Thompson was in favor of the item. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Jha, to adopt Resolution No. 4388. Motion carried 5-0. None. REGULAR BUSINESS Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 13 of 14 STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission of the following upcoming events: • 6/18: CPF webinar in the CDD Conference Room (12-1:30 p.m.) • 6/20: Mayor's Business Recognition Luncheon. • 7/16: CPF webinar—"Part Two" in the CDD Conference Room (12- 1:30 p.m.) COMMISSION CONCERNS: Jha Jha participated in an FBI program. Welcome back! Go US Women's Soccer for the World Cup! Thompson Thompson attended the following events: • 4/8: OCBC OC Moves Committee • 4/25: Tour of the Tustin Flight • 4/26: Film Premiere of Chapman University's Senior Thesis Films (filmed in Old Town Tustin) • 5/30: APA Awards Ceremony — Congratulations to the City and staff for the DCCSP • 5/31: Luncheon with the LA Union Rescue Mission Gallagher No comments. Mason Mason thanked staff for all of the work that was involved with the staff reports and presentations. Congratulations to staff for the DCCSP award! She requested an update on the progress with the homeless shelter at a future Planning Commission meeting. Kozak Kozak thanked staff for job well done on the agenda packet and presentations. Congratulations to staff for the DCCSP award! He attended the following events: • 5/19: BBQ at the Veterans Outpost in Tustin • 5/27: Memorial Day Ceremony at Fairhaven Cemetary • 5/31-6/1: Airforce Change of Command Ceremony at Travis Airforce Space in Fairfield for his brother, Colonel Ray Kozak, where he served as Commander of the 349th Air Mobility Wing and he was promoted to Staff Director for 4th Airforce at March Airforce Space. Congratulations! 9:19 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Draft Minutes—Planning Commission June 11, 2019—Page 14 of 14