Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUPPLEMENTAL ITEM #2 ITEM #2 Public Comments Received re: Costco Gas Station Project (Last Updated 7/9/19 at 4:30pm) Tiscareno, Vera To: Tiscareno, Vera Subject: Good news about Costco Gas Plans From: Lupe Solis <IsoIis@goldenstatefoods.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 9:38 AM To:Tustin Planning<TustinPlanningCcDtListinca.org> Subject: Good news about Costco Gas Plans I am a long time resident of Tustin & want to ensure your department hears from other residents that are not opposed to the plans of installing gas pumps at Costco at the MarketPlace. I saw the plans of the different entrances & exits-- and appears to me that the traffic flow through that area will work much better than what has happened at the District. Further, the Costco at the District should be alleviated a bit with some customers now having the option to go to the MarketPlace Costco Gas Station. I also like what you're doing to provide dedicated right-hand turn lanes at EI Camino and Tustin Ranch Road. I had written you all about this a couple years back, so glad you took the time to see that this is sorely needed. Thank you. Lupe Solis Golden State Foods Pf 18301 Von Karman Avenue Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92612 949/247-8048 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is proprietary to GOLDEN STATE FOODS CORP. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail at Admin -goldenstatefoods.com and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. 1 R U TAN Hans Van Ligten + — Direct Dial: (714)662-4640 RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP P E-mail:hyanligten@rutan.com rutan.com July 9, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Tustin Planning Commission City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: July 9 Agenda Item No. 2. Proposed Costco Tustin Gas Station Project Dear Commissioners: This office represents Mr. Charlie Mazza, a local business owner who will be adversely affected by the potential impacts of the proposed Costco Gas Station Project on your agenda as Item No. 2. Mr. Mazza objects to the City's proposed use of Categorical Exemption No. 32, Infill Projects to deprive the community of the regular environmental review process that such a project deserves. First, please find attached the professional opinion of Thomas Brohard, a licensed civil engineer and traffic engineer with 50 years of experience pointing out the short-comings of the applicant's traffic report. As such, the City is unable to make the finding required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15332 (d), that approval of the project would not result in significant traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. Absent a thorough traffic study, the City cannot make this affirmative finding of no impact, for the reasons stated in Mr. Brohard's report. Second, and perhaps even more clear, is the fact that the record on its face now makes clear that Section 15332 cannot be applied to exempt this project. Section 15332 (b) requires that it only applies to projects "on a project site of no more than 5 acres . . . ." While the original Staff Report never clearly explained why Section 15332 was being relied upon, the additional materials now included in the July 9 Staff Report make it clear the exemption does not apply. Specifically, the Costco Wholesale Site Plan, dated April 15, 2019, and included in the Kittleson & Associates Memorandum, clearly identifies the "Existing Site Area" as 10.96 acres, the "Goodyear Site Area" as 1.00 acre, and the "Total Site Area" as 11.97 acres. Nowhere is there any indication of a project site "not more than 5 acres." This project is being proposed, by the applicant's own admission, on more than 10 acres. Logically, this must be true because the gas station will be utilizing all the common area parking and drive aisles. Rutan & Tucker, LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714-641-5100 1 Fax 714-546-9035 2351016052-0005 Orange County I Palo Alto I San Francisco I www.rutan.com 10991593.3a07/09/19 RUTAN RVT/.R 6 TV-ER.LLP Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Tustin Planning Commission July 9, 2019 Page 2 As you know, CEQA requires a stable, finite project description. Here the record now admits this project is far larger than 5 acres. As such reliance on Category 32, Section 1.5332, is not appropriate. Accordingly, we respectfully submit this proposal cannot be approved at this time until a fully compliant CEQA document has been prepared. Failure to do so would be an abuse of discretion subject to being overturned by a court. Sincerely, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Hans Van Ligten HVL:kfw Enclosure 235/016052-0005 10991593.3 a07109119 9 so. July 7, 2019 Tom. Broh.: rd., and As -c Mr. Hans Van Ligten Rutan & Tucker LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626 SUBJECT: Review of Urban Infill Exemption to Demolish the Existing Goodyear Tire Center at 2541 El Camino Real and Construct a Costco Gasoline Fuel Station with 32 Fueling Dispensers at 2655 EI Camino Real in the City of Tustin — Traffic and Transportation Issues Dear Mr. Van Ligten: As requested, I, Tom Brohard, P.E., have reviewed the traffic and transportation portions of various documents regarding the Proposed Project to demolish the existing Goodyear Tire Center at 2541 EI Camino Real and to construct a Costco Gasoline Fuel Station with 32 fueling dispensers at 2655 EI Camino Real in the City of Tustin. The documents I reviewed included: June 11, 2019 Agenda Report to the Planning Commission ➢ April 15, 2019 Site Plans Prepared by MG2 y April 17, 2019 Traffic Analysis for the Tustin Ranch Costco Fuel Station Addition prepared by Kittelson & Associates Proposed operating hours for the proposed Fuel Station are from 5 AM to 10 PM while operating hours at the Costco Fuel Stations in Temecula (the largest with 30 pumps) and at the other Costco in Tustin (22 pumps) are from 5:30 AM to 9:30 PM. Most Costco Fuel Stations operate from 6 AM to 9 PM. Until the various issues and concerns raised in this letter are addressed, there is substantial evidence that the Proposed Project with 32 fueling dispensers will have adverse traffic and transportation impacts that have not been properly disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated. Trip credits for the 5,200 SF existing Goodyear Tire Center facility to be demolished on the site may be overstated. The April 17, 2019 Traffic Analysis does not properly calculate, evaluate, or analyze the substantial increase in vehicle trips that will be created by the Proposed Project during weekdays and does not analyze weekend conditions when project trips will be even higher. Additionally, there are significant traffic issues associated with the traffic queueing plans onsite that must be addressed and resolved as pointed out in this letter. Education and Experience Since receiving a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina in 1969, 1 have gained 50 years of professional 8190511lmnlaitl View L wie,La.Quitrda, California 92253-7611 Phone(760)398-8885 Entail 1brohardCUearthbik.tied Mr. Hans Van Ligten Tustin Ranch Costco Fuel Station Addition — Traffic/Transportation Issues July 7, 2019 engineering experience. I am licensed as a Professional Civil Engineer both in California and Hawaii and as a Professional Traffic Engineer in California. I formed Tom Brohard and Associates in 2000 and have served as the City Traffic Engineer for the City of Indio for the last 14 years and as Consulting Transportation Engineer for the City of San Fernando since 2003. i have extensive experience in traffic engineering and transportation planning. During my career in both the public and private sectors, I have reviewed numerous environmental documents and traffic studies for various projects as indicated on the enclosed resume. Traffic and Transportation -- External Issues Based on my review of various documents, there is at least a "fair argument" that the Proposed Project to add a Fuel Station with 32 fueling dispensers will have significant traffic and transportation impacts external to the site as follows: 1) Credit _Volumes from Existing Goodyear Tire Center Are Overstated — The existing Goodyear Tire Center attached to the closed K-Mart building contains about 5,200 square feet. Costco itself sells tires in an attached structure on the south side of their main building just east of the main pedestrian entrance/exit to the store and then installs these tires in one of four bays in an area of about 6,500 square feet. With two facilities selling tires within about 500 linear feet, it is doubtful that the existing Goodyear Tire Store will continue as a viable operation. To determine the credit traffic volumes to be given for the closure of the existing Goodyear Tire Store, actual counts must be made during peak hours on typical weekdays and weekends. Without actual counts, the credit values in the traffic analysis are merely speculation and likely are overstated. When the existing Goodyear Tire Center is removed by redevelopment of the site, the most appropriate method to determine the existing trip generation is to actually count peak hour and daily trips to and from the site with the existing Tire Center operating. It appears that the Traffic Analysis instead relied on national trip generation averages which can significantly overstate the volume of trips generated by the existing use. In turn this faulty methodology then underestimates the net number of new trips, and decreases the number of potentially significant traffic impacts that would otherwise result. A higher number of net new trips may result in additional significant traffic impacts that must be identified and analyzed. Feasible and enforceable mitigation measures must be imposed. 2) Existing Baseline Traffic Volumes and Level of Service — The Traffic Analysis for the Proposed Project gathered traffic volumes on the Wednesday after Thanksgiving in 2018. This was not a typical traffic day in that it was raining 2 Mr. Hans Van Ligten Tustin Ranch Costco Fuel Station Addition -- Traffic/Transportation Issues July 7, 2019 and traffic volumes during the week after Thanksgiving in commercial areas are typically less than those measured during most other days during the Holiday Shopping Season. The lower than normal traffic volumes counted on a day with inclement weather during a lull in the Holiday Shopping Season artificially reduce baseline traffic volumes, significantly reducing the number of potentially significant traffic impacts that would otherwise require mitigation. 3) No Analysis of Weekend Peak Hour Conditions Has Been Conducted — Erroneously, the Traffic Analysis did not count or evaluate weekend traffic volumes_ Table 6 on Page 7 of the Traffic Analysis shows the results of five Costco Gasoline Stacking Observations for weekday PM peak queues and for weekend Midday peak queues. These observations, while mostly made in 2016 or 2017, show the vehicles in the queues for the weekend midday peak hour were greater than the number of vehicles in the queues for the weekday PM peak hour. This indicates that the worst case with higher traffic volumes during weekend traffic conditions must also be studied for the Proposed Project as well. 4) Auto Center Drive Must Be Widened North of EI Camino Real -- In the area just to the west of the proposed Fuel Station, Auto Center Drive north of El Camino Real varies in width north of EI Camino Real from about 48' to about 60'. Drawings in the Traffic Analysis show the restriping of Auto Center Drive but the roadway must also be widened to provide two 12' wide northbound lanes for access to the Fuel Station as depicted on this drawing. Without widening and restriping, the second northbound lane that turns into the Fuel Station cannot be provided. 5) El Camino Real East of Auto Center Drive Must be Widened By At Least 12' — From 2' —From Google Earth, EI Camino Real provides 5 lanes, each about 12' wide, in the short block between Auto Center Drive and Myford Road. Queue Management Plan 1 (Figure 3) shows a very short westbound taper that shifts lanes to the south on EI Camino Real to install a westbound right turn lane to enter Auto Center Drive. The existing 60' width however does not provide sufficient space to add a sixth lane without widening the bridge on EI Camino Real over the flood control channel adjacent to Myford Road. Dropping one of the westbound lanes on El Camino Real will adversely impact the capacity of the Auto Center Drive/El Camino Real intersection and will cause significant traffic impacts. According to Table 5, constructing a 155' long westbound right tum lane in the existing parkway (without widening the bridge) will not accommodate the industry standard methodology design queue (951h percentile) for existing plus project volumes. Additional study of the intersection of EI Camino Real and Auto Center Drive is required to install an adequately long westbound right turn lane for traffic entering the Fuel Station queue. 3 Mr. Hans Van Ligten Tustin Ranch Costco Fuel Station Addition — Traffic/Transportation Issues July 7, 2019 Traffic and `transportation — Internal Issues Based on my review of various documents, there is at least a "fair argument" that the Proposed Project to add a Fuel Station with 32 fueling dispensers will have significant internal traffic and transportation impacts as follows: 1) Angled Parking Spaces East of the Fuel Station Cannot Be Accessed — Queue Management Plan 1 reorients the existing perpendicular parking spaces east of the Fuel Station to angled parking spaces oriented to the southeast. This will then require motorists to back out of the stalls to the northwest and then head south into an area where they can only join the queue for gasoline. This will make these 13 parking spaces largely ineffective and unusable. 2) North-South Aisle West of Fuel Station Encourages Exiting Double Stacking -- The north-south aisle west of the Fuel Station is shown as 45' wide, much too wide for only one--way northbound traffic in a single lane. Anything over 12' wide will encourage a second northbound exiting lane into the "KEEP CLEAR" area where all exiting traffic will be required to turn left and will be immediately faced with northbound traffic turning right to enter the queue to get gas. This geometry is extremely confusing and potentially unsafe. Requiring the queue to cross itself twice before exiting the Costco parking area is poor practice and that creates additional conflicts and confusion. 3) Pop Up Bollards Extending the Inbound Queue Are Not Safe — The entering queue is planned to be extended as shown in Queue Management Plan 2 in Figure 4 with the use of pop-up bollards that are intended to force traffic into the second east-west aisle north of the Fuel Station. When the bollards are activated and are popping up, traffic must be held back from crossing the bollards so the rising bollards do not impale the underside of vehicles passing over the bollards. Additional pop-up bollards or other devices will be required to prevent northbound traffic on Auto Center Drive from continuing to reach the second east-west aisle rather than making a right turn into the first aisle. Without continuous monitoring, it will also be very difficult to maintain cones and delineators in place during high traffic volumes. 4) Only Employees Park on the South Side of the First East-West Aisle -- Parking along this aisle just north of the Fuel Station is closer to the front door of the store than the majority of other spaces in the parking lot. It will be very difficult to identify employee cars and then to keep customer cars from parking in these 36 spaces. This proposed measure is not practical or feasible. 4 Mr. Hans Van Ligten Tustin Ranch Costco Fuel Station Addition — Traffic/Transportation Issues July 7, 2019 As discussed in this letter, there is substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will have adverse environmental impacts that have not been properly disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated. The Traffic Analysis must be revised to address the issues in this letter. Feasible and effective mitigation measures for the significant traffic impacts that will occur in peak hour at the intersections, particularly at Auto Center Drive and EI Camino Real where traffic lanes are proposed to be eliminated, must be proposed. Internal queuing issues and conflicts must also be addressed and resolved. If you have questions regarding these comments, please call me at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, �aFESS/p Torn Brohard and Associates �0� '�''�� 4P�IBRQe�i�,� fi �q, l �+ M 024577 CaUJ � � � Tom Brohard, PE TR724 Principal `��.� civ+, Enclosure - Resume 5 Tom Brohard, PE Licenses: 1975 / Professional Engineer/ California — Civil, No. 24577 1977 / Professional Engineer/ California —Traffic, No. 724 2006 / Professional Engineer/ Hawaii — Civil, No. 12321 Education: 1969 / BSE I Civil Engineering / Duke University Experience: 50 Years Memberships: 1977 / Institute of Transportation Engineers — Fellow, Life 1978 / Orange County Traffic Engineers Council - Chair 1982-1983 1981 / American Public Works Association — Life Member Tom is a recognized expert in the field of traffic engineering and transportation planning. His background also includes responsibility for leading and managing the delivery of various contract services to numerous cities in Southern California. Tom has extensive experience in providing transportation planning and traffic engineering services to public agencies. From May 2005 through June 2019, he served as Consulting City Traffic Engineer for the City of Indio. He also currently provides "on call' Traffic and Transportation Engineer service to the City of San Fernando. In addition to conducting traffic engineering investigations for Los Angeles County from 1972 to 1978, he has previously served as City Traffic Engineer in the following communities: o Bellflower..................................................... 1997 - 1998 o Bell Gardens._....................................... .... 1982 - 1995 o Big Bear Lake........................................2006 - 2015 o Huntington Beach........................................ 1998 - 2004 o Lawndale..................................................... 1973 - 1978 o Los Alamitos................................................ 1981 - 1982 o Oceanside ................................................... 1981 - 1982 o Paramount................................................... 1982 - 1988 o Rancho Palos Verdes.................................. 1973 - 1978 o Rolling Hills.................................................. 1973 - 1978, 1985 - 1993 o Rolling Hills Estates..................................... 1973 - 1978, 1984 - 1991 a San Marcos ................................................. 1981 o Santa Ana.................................................... 1978 - 1981 o Westlake Village.......................................... 1983 - 1994 During these assignments, Tom has supervised City staff and directed other consultants including traffic engineers and transportation planners, traffic signal and street lighting personnel, and signing, striping, and marking crews. He has secured over$10 million in grant funding for various improvements. He has managed and directed many traffic and transportation studies and projects. While serving these communities, he has personally conducted investigations of hundreds of citizen requests for various traffic control devices. Tom has also successfully presented numerous engineering reports at City Council, Planning Commission, and Traffic Commission meetings in these and other municipalities. Tom Brohard and Associates Tom Brohard, PE, Page 2 In his service to the City of Indio since May 2005, Tom has accomplished the following: •3 Oversaw preparation and adoption of the 2008 Circulation Element Update of the General Plan including development of Year 2035 buildout traffic volumes, revised and simplified arterial roadway cross sections, and reduction in acceptable Level of Service criteria under certain conditions. ❖ Oversaw preparation of fact sheets/design exceptions to reduce shoulder widths on Jackson Street and on Monroe Street over 1-10 as well as justifications for protected- permissive left turn phasing at 1-10 on-ramps, the first such installations in Caltrans District 8 in Riverside County; reviewed plans and provided assistance during construction of both $2 million projects to install traffic signals and widen three of four ramps at these two interchanges under Caltrans encroachment permits. ❖ Reviewed traffic signal, signing, striping, and work area traffic control plans for the County's $45 million 1-10 Interchange Improvement Project at Jefferson Street. • Reviewed traffic impact analyses for Project Study Reports evaluating different alternatives for buildout improvements of the 1-10 Interchanges at Jefferson Street, Monroe Street, Jackson Street and Golf Center Parkway. ❖ Oversaw preparation of plans, specifications, and contract documents and provided construction assistance for over 70 traffic signal installations and modifications. •:• Reviewed and approved over 2,000 work area traffic control plans as well as signing and striping plans for all City and developer funded roadway improvement projects. Oversaw preparation of a City-wide traffic safety study of conditions at all schools. ❖ Obtained $47,000 grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety and implemented the City's Traffic Collision Database System. Annually reviews "Top 25" collision locations and provides traffic engineering recommendations to reduce collisions. ❖ Prepared over 1,500 work orders directing City forces to install, modify, and/or remove traffic signs, pavement and curb markings, and roadway striping. 4 Oversaw preparation of engineering and traffic surveys to establish enforceable speed limits on over 500 street segments. •:• Reviewed and approved traffic impact studies for more than 35 major projects and special events including the annual Coachella and Stagecoach Music f=estivals. Developed and implemented the City's Golf Cart Transportation Program. Since forming Tom Brohard and Associates in 2000, Tom has reviewed many traffic impact reports and environmental documents for various development projects. He has provided expert witness services and also prepared traffic studies for public agencies and private sector clients. Torn Brohard and Associates Tiscareno, Vera To: Tiscareno, Vera Subject: COSTCO From: Goetz Family<goetz.slo@grnail.com> Sent: Monday,July 8, 2019 3:29 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowlczPtustinca.or > Subject: Hi Erica, We spoke a few weeks ago about the proposed Costco gas station. I am in favor of it and greatly distressed about the signs that have been appearing along Jamboree and Tustin Ranch Road. I am hoping to attend the meeting July 9, but wanted to give you my approval in writing. The misconception that it will add traffic to the area is misguided as many of us drive past the Tustin Ranch Costco to go to the district Costco and if anything it will alleviate traffic. Thank you. Leslie Goetz 1 Tiscareno, Vera To: Tiscareno, Vera Subject: Costco Gas Station From: Dominica Kristedja <dominicakris2gmail.corn> Sent: Monday,July S, 2019 3:26 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org> Subject: Costco Gas Station Just want to express my opinion in favor of the Costco gas station considered forthe location on EI Camino Real in Tustin. This would be a welcome and much utilized service to our neighborhood. Thank you so much for your consideration. Dominica Kristedja 1 Tiscareno, Vera To: Tiscareno, Vera Subject: Costco Gas Station in Tustin From: Beth Waltrnire <bwaltmire@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,July 8, 2019 2:55 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca,org> Subject: Costco Gas Station in Tustin We live in West Irvine Pointe and are very much in favor of the Costco gas station. Thank you, Mr. & Mrs. Waltmire Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 1 Tiscareno, Vera To: Tiscareno, Vera Subject: Proposal for Costco Traffic Flow Study From: missvbark@netzero.net<missvbark@netzero.net> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 2:43 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.orp Subject: Proposal for Costco Traffic Flow Study Good day Erica, As you are aware, many residents of Tustin are in opposition of Costco adding their largest ever gas station into an area that many consider too small for the anticipated traffic. I do understand the millions of dollars that city officials are envisioning, but it appears that the income is overshadowing logic in this location. In my industry, whenever a decision is being made with major consequences, or that's in dispute, an independent expert third party evaluation is required. If Costco is confident in their plans, they should support funding the evaluation to be done by an expert organization of the City of Tustin's choice. I proposed the Traffic Flow Study be conducted focusing on the following areas of concern: 1. Identify the impact of the current infrastructure of roads in the surrounding area and the ability to accommodate the increase traffic demands. (will adding right hand turn lanes truly ease the flow?What about left hand turns?) 2. Identify how many tanker refueling trucks will be impacting city streets, and the estimated resulting damage from the weight/volume/safety on street hardscape. 3. It was identified that tankers will enter for refueling the station via Bryan -the effect/flow of the tankers entering the parking area, driving through the passenger vehicle traffic/parking lot to the far side (where pumps/tanks will be located), create undue hazard? Is this an efficient traffic flow? 4. Examine the proposed traffic flow for entering the Fuel Station. Evaluate the "peak flow" proposal, This traffic will be re-routed through a parking zone. How will cars parked for shopping be able to get in and out of their parking spots with back up traffic from the waiting line of the fuel station? 5. How does the proposed fuel high traffic flow impact the tire center, and other daily deliveries to the Costco store? The Costco proposal does not include the Tire Centerflow, nor their regular deliveries. b. The current design has ALL vehicles exiting the fuel center by breaching through all of the incoming and outgoing traffic in close proximity to the EI Camino entrance. This design would create a major back up into the fuel station by vehicles not being able merge/cut through to exit. The flow in this particular area is guaranteed to create major traffic and safety issues. 7. The currently vacant retail pad (previously Kmart, Sears, International Market) within this center is actually larger than the Costco pad. It cannot be ignored that should a major retailer fill the vacancy, which it is zoned to accommodate, their anticipated traffic flow/volume/parking MUST be considered, and included in the design/flow for the entire center. City of Tustin, my plea to you is to evaluate the full impact the Costco proposal (not just the financial income) will have to our city. Costco is proposing their largest EVER fueling station, in an area that is the smallest! The corner they propose isn't large enough to smoothly accommodate their plans. Costco has previously shown us their traffic design and estimates are insufficient.The District is still suffering, even with their restructuring (and resultant decreasing number of fuel pumps) Please do not proceed based on the current plan without major considerations and expert evaluation. 1 Sincerely, Veronica Barker z Tiscareno, Vera To: Tiscareno, Vera Subject: Costco Gas Station From:Vipul Bhaysar<vi_u130 mail.com> Sent: Monday, July S, 2019 11:04 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org> Subject: Costco Gas Station Hi Erica, On behalf of myself and many of my neighbors; I'd like to voice our support for the Costco gas station proposed on EI Camino/Tustin Ranch Rd. We believe this is a good thing for the community and for local businesses in the area. We understand it's your job as the Planning Commission to evaluate traffic congestion, however please take into consideration that this will reduce traffic at the Costco gas station at the District because many residents from Tustin Ranch drive there to fill up gas. We would also like you to take into account that many people are for this, but aren't as vocal as some of the people opposing it. It's not fair to have our voices be drown out by some people who just choose to be louder. Thank you for your time and consideration. Vipul Bhaysar Tustin Ranch Resident i