Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 07-09-19 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 9, 2019 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given. INVOCATIONIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Thompson Present. ROLL CALL: Chair Kozak Chair Pro Tem Thompson Commissioners Gallagher, Jha, Mason None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —JUNE 11, 2019 Minutes of the June 11, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the June 11, 2019, Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason, to approve the Minutes of the June 11, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Kozak With the concurrence of his fellow Commissioners, Kozak stated that Item #3 was withdrawn and if there was anyone in the audience present for Item #3, they were welcome to approach the podium, which there were none. Kozak also asked for the Commission's concurrence to move the Regular Business Item #4 out of order to manage the agenda and time, given the significant number of speaker forms received. The Commission concurred with Kozak's suggestion. Item was 2. CONTINUED ITEM- APPEAL OF CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONS withdrawn. RELATED TO CODE CASE NO, CE-2018-0243 AND PERMIT NO. COMBR-2018-00299 (ITEM #3 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA) APPELLANT: HELEN LINDGREN AND ERIK LINDGREN 525 WEST SECOND STREET TUSTIN, CA 92780 Minutes—Planning Commission July 9,2019—Page 1 of 12 LOCATION: 525 WEST SECOND STREET TUSTIN, CA 92780 REQUEST, Removal of corrections and conditions related to an illegal conversion of a two-car garage into a living unit and unpermitted addition to an existing single family dwelling. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301(E) of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission uphold the Community Development Director's corrections and conditions associated with Code Case No. CE- 2018-0243 and Permit No. COMBR-2018-00299 by adopting Resolution No. 4387 as follows: 1) Uphold the Community Development Department policy to record the Deed Restriction as shown without modifications in Attachment A of the agenda report, prior to permit issuance. 2) Uphold the Tustin City Code (TCC) requirements regarding: a. The interior dimensions of 20 feet by 20 feet of the detached two- vehicles garage; and b. Screening of the roof-mounted air conditioning (A1C) unit. REGULAR BUSINESS: Approved the 3. TUSTIN HISTORIC REGISTER NOMINATION: TOLIN HOUSE - 165 nomination of NORTH A STREET (ITEM #4 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 165 North A AGENDA) Street to the City's Historic Register Plaque Program. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the nomination of 165 North A Street to the City's Historic Register Plaque Program and select "Tolin House - 1923" as the most appropriate historical name and date of construction of the property. Dove Presentation given. Minutes—Planning Commission July 9,2019—Page 2 of 12- Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kozak, to approve the nomination of 165 North A Street to the City's Historic Register Plaque Program. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted Reso. 4. CONTINUED ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2018-00018 & No. 4385. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2018-00026 (ITEM #2 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA) APPLICANT: TERRY ODLEIMG2 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 REQUEST: A request to demolish the existing Goodyear Tire Center and adjacent Goodyear parking area at 2541 EI Camino Real and to construct a new 16 pump Costco gasoline fuel station with canopy and related equipment at 2655 El Camino Real. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15332, Class 32. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4385, approving the project. Jha Jha recused himself from this item due to a competing financial interest. Demkowicz Presentation given. Thompson Thompson stated that the Level of Service (LOS) remains the same. He referred to the Rutan & Tucker letter and asked Demkowicz to clarify the number of acres on the project site in comparison with the PowerPoint presentation (i.e. is the Costco warehouse included?). Thompson asked Nishikawa to provide clarity as to the relevancy of the traffic engineering comments within the letter from Rutan & Tucker, along with the email from Veronica Barker regarding traffic circulation and fuel truck delivery. He also Minutes--Planning Commission July 9,2019—Page 3 of 12 Thompson asked about the wait time signs ("similar to Disneyland") being added to the management plan. Demkowicz In response to Thompson's question regarding the number of acres, Demkowicz stated that the overall project area is less than three (3) acres. The warehouse building is not part of the submitted application. Nishikawa In response to Thompson's question, Nishikawa referred to a section of the Tom Brohard and Associates letter where they insinuated that there was substantial evidence that the proposed project would have adverse traffic and transportation impacts that were not properly disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated. Nishikawa did not concur with those statements. In terms of the items mentioned within the Tom Brohard and Associates letter, he responded as follows: credit on the traffic volume from the Goodyear Tire Center that no longer exists, is irrelevant as the applicant looked at the center being fully operational; with the project, the intersection still shows the LOS A or B, and that is what they are today; the TCC allows a LOS D and still would not require traffic mitigation; with the project, there will be additional traffic, but as far as the analysis and the LOS that one can expect, it is still right along the same capacity that we see today; in order to get to LOS D, for instance, 400 left turn trips from El Camino Real onto Tustin Ranch Road would need to be added than what is shown today; an additional 1,000 through trips from EI Camino Real crossing Tustin Ranch Road in order to get to LOS D at the intersection; Nishikawa again referred to the letter that a weekend analysis, during peak hours, was not conducted (Table 6 of the traffic analysis); City staff analyzed the traffic volume (on streets and intersections) in the traffic report, which is heavier on weekdays, especially during rush hour(7:00 to 9:00 a.m. or 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.); the queuing analysis is a different subject, which is why Costco analyzed weekend hours because that is when traffic is heaviest for them; right turn pockets that Costco is providing on EI Camino Real, are not a required item by the City; the project will include Costco right turn pockets to facilitate through traffic; there not being enough room for the extra twelve (12) foot lane that the City wants, is not the case; the site has no physical improvements needing to be made out and it can all be accommodated with striping on El Camino Real; the angled parking spaces near the fuel stations are for employee parking only; double stacking north of the fueling stations are also for employee parking only; if Management Plan 2 has to be implemented, it would only affect employee parking; pop-up ballards are not going to be an issue but there is an alternative (manual ballards); per the fuel delivery trucks comment from Veronica Barker email, the delivery trucks will deliver to the east side of the property, which is away from the fueling station and outside of the queue area; and in response to Thompson's comment on the wait time sign, Nishikawa mentioned the Frequency Operated Button (FOB) reader helping to speed up the process (and new technology). 7:50 p.m. Opened up the Public Comments Section. Minutes—Planning Commission July 9,2019—Page 4 of 12 Mr. Sean Sean Henderson, representing the applicant, clarified the part of the Rutan & Henderson Tucker letter that stated that the site area versus the project area (grading/drainage plans identify disturbed area which is approximately 2.5 acres and is the actual project area) coincides and supports CEQA Exemption. Ms. Diane Diana Salazar, applicant, stated the following in general: she thanked staff Salazar, for their work efforts on the project; the goal of the project is to provide fuel applicant service at this location; currently there are 535 Costco warehouses in the U.S. and 470 of those warehouses have gas stations; Tustin Ranch Costco warehouse includes members from north Tustin, Cowan Heights, Lemon Heights, Orange Park Acres and part of Santa Ana; the Costco at the District is serving the Tustin Ranch member base and 40 percent of the gas transactions are from the Tustin Ranch area; The District has circulation issues and trips would be reduced at that location with the construction of the Tustin Ranch site; the proposed project would help with the demand at the District and reduce trips, etc.; in response to the concerns at the last meeting, Ms. Salazar agrees with the revised Conditions of Approval; site congestion and parking availability—:the applicant and her team made two (2) site visits to the project site, and discovered the parking, where they are proposing to put the gas station, is underutilized (currently the parking is ten (10) percent in use); and an independent study was completed in 2014 and 2018 on existing Costco warehouses in shopping centers, which showed that 46 percent of the members shopping at Costco made purchases the same day in the same shopping center and based on that study, members currently shopping at the Tustin Ranch Costco, plus the added traffic at the gas station, will likely make additional purchases in the Tustin Market Place and nearby businesses. Thompson Thompson requested clarification regarding the parking lot sharing relationship between the businesses through the CC&Rs and the maintenance (landscaping) being specific to the property line. Salazar Per Ms. Salazar, she confirmed Thompson's statement previously made. There is a reciprocal easement, as far as use, but each parcel needs to comply with the CC&Rs parking ratio, which is five (5) per 1,000 which exceeds the City's parking ratio of 4.5 per 1,000. She added that each individual parcel has to provide the required parking, per the CC&Rs (5 per 1,000). Mason Mason had additional questions regarding the queueing, specifically the employee parking stalls and the access to and from the proposed gas station. She also asked that if the applicant had to restrict the parking due to a"special circumstance", the applicant could potentially close off the parking, as a queuing area, and not be outside of the required parking spaces. Minutes—Planning Commission July 9, 2019—Page 5 of 12 Ms. Neelam Ms. Neelam Dolan, Kittleson and Associates Traffic Engineer with Costco, Dolan, Kittleson responded as follows; the parking north of the proposed gas station would be and Associates employee only parking 2417; employee parking spots will be filled before Costco warehouse opens and will not interfere with members arriving after Costco warehouse opens; there will be no designated parking to the stalls on the opposite side of the employee parking; Queue Management Plan 2 i not an expected or needed condition; looking at both transactions and data at the Costco at the District, and the number of gas pumps, the applicant anticipates that operation at the proposed project site would be 45 percent more efficient; in Kittleson and Associates study and the Temecula Costco location, which is the biggest Costco in the region with 30 gas pumps, queues much less than the queuing capacity within the fuel area; Queue Management Plan 1 is the worst-case scenario; the goal of restricting the employee parking spaces to employees only is to ensure adequate circulation around the gas station; and there is adequate parking to address Costco member needs if additional employee parking is designated; Ms. Neelam's response to Mason's question regarding "restricted parking'; she stated they do have the capacity to accommodate parking on-site if the employee spaces were unavailable. In favor. Mr. Scott Couchman, Tustin resident, commented on the following in general: need for additional gas stations in north- Tustin area; Costco is burdening other local gas stations with free water and air (Resolution No. 4385, Condition No. 2.5 of the Conditions of Approval - pages 166 and 182 of the agenda report) and asked that Costco provide these same services; and Mr. Couchman was in favor of the project. In favor. Mr. John Takasha, resident and business owner in Tustin Ranch, commented on the following, in general: Costco contributes to the economy; fears Costco may close this location if gas station not provided; limited amount of commercial property to generate tax revenue; El Camino property is a blight to the community and will further impact the neighborhood; staff answered all of his questions and he had no concerns; he liked the proposed design and, traffic flow; and Mr. Takasha was in favor of the project. Opposed. Mr. Aaron Peters, Tustin resident and former specialist in the queueing at Disneyland commented on the following, in general: Queue Management Plan 2 will be needed since there is only one (1) exit; there are already traffic related concerns to Tustin Ranch Road and Bryan Avenue and El Camino Real without the addition of a high traffic gas station; there are several accidents near project location due to traffic, poor visibility and driver neglect; the traffic study was completed after a holiday and a rainy day; there are potential conflicts with the school nearby; impacts to neighboring gas stations/small businesses; and Mr. Peters opposed the item. Opposed. Ms. Suzanne Lowenthal, Tustin resident, commented on the following, in general: concern with traffic volume data and the date it was collected; impact to traffic; queues would exceed the one (1) exit; left turn lane off of Bryan Avenue into shopping center is already short; concern with cars entering and exiting the proposed gas station; and Ms. Lowenthal opposed the item. Minutes—Planning Commission July 9,2019—Page 6 of 12 In favor. Mr. Tim Woolsey, North Tustin resident, spoke in favor of the project; the queueing problem at the District will not be repeated at the proposed project site being that there is an adequate circulation area. In favor. Mrs. Wendy Woolsey, North Tustin resident, spoke in favor of the project — local gas station at an existing Costco is a great idea; and the proposed project will increase sales tax revenue and will benefit the City of Tustin. Opposed. Ms. Jacqueline Hibbs, Tustin resident, commented on the following, in general: concern with the future sale of her home as FHA loans are not an option if you live within 400 meters of a gas station; more transparency needed with public notification (Le. City website, Facebook, not just newspaper); an accident study is needed; gas vapors not good for human element; and Ms. Hibbs opposed the project. In favor. Mr. Steve McArthur, Irvine resident, commented on the following, in general: queuing will not be problematic; the proposed project will lessen the traffic at the District; tax revenue will increase in the City of Tustin; and Mr. McArthur spoke in favor of the item: In favor. Mr. Sean Painter, Tustin resident and Costco employee, commented on the following, in general: the proposed project would bring more jobs to Tustin; reduce traffic at the District; will help the community; and Mr. Painter was in favor of the item. In favor. Ms. Renee Krause, commented on the following, in general: two (2) completely different situations with the District's Costco and the proposed project; different traffic circulation; more vehicles will use Jamboree Road; convenient location at Tustin Ranch Road since Ms. Krause lives near the project site location; cheaper gas; and Ms. Krause was in favor of the project. In favor. Mr. Jon Goetz, Tustin Ranch resident and Costco member, commented on the following, in general: in favor of cheaper, high-quality gas; the proposed gas station location would cut his commute when buying gas by three (3) miles; did not agree with those who opposed; and Mr. Goetz was in favor of the project. Opposed. Mr. Andrew Krenz, Sycamore Community, commented on the following, in general: Tesla car sales and electric vehicle use; and he asked for the Commission to consider long-term consequences when there are less people with gas vehicles. In favor. Mr. Tom Key, Tustin resident, commented on the following, in general: Americans love cars and traveling; Costco sells high-quality gas at reduced prices; Costco is a good company; and Mr. Key was in favor of the item. In favor. Ms. Patricia Davis, Santa Ana resident, commented on the following, in general: she frequents the District and hopes this proposed project will alleviate the queuing problem at the District; would increase revenue for the City of Tustin; would improve the shopping center's security; staff is attempting to avoid the same issues at the District with the proposed project; Minutes—Planning Commission July 9,2019—Page 7 of 12 level the business load between the two (2) sites; take lessons learned from the District's Costco and apply to the proposed project site; concern with the left turn lane; local traffic will improve; and Ms. Davis was in favor of the item. In favor. Ms. Rebecca Burton, Tustin Meadows resident, Costco member, would like to see a gas station and store combined for a more rational shopping experience. Ms. Burton was in favor of the item. Opposed. Mr. Matt Molkara, Irvine resident, stated "how many more Costco warehouses does Tustin need?" He was concerned with impact to traffic and stated that the project was not the answer to the homelessness situation. Mr. Molkara was opposed to the item. Opposed. Mr. Charlie Mazza, Shell gas station owner near the project site, who hired Rutan & Tucker, spoke on the following, in general: traffic study was not adequate; queueing entrance/exit issue; concern with delivery trucks access; and Mr. Mazza was opposed to the item. Opposed. Ms. Lisa McMains, Irvine resident, commented on the following, in general: she urged the Commission to not adopt the project and reminded the Commissioners their role and balance between commercial and residents; asked the Commission to not make a decision to change Tustin with the proposed project; would affect residents duality of life with increase in accidents; concern with the left hand turn; and Ms. McMains was opposed to the item. Opposed. Ms. Anna GarFias, Santa Ana resident, commented on the following, in general: increase in traffic; no need for two (2) Costco warehouses within three (3) miles apart; taxpayers money will go to street widening; LOS grades and actual impacts; roads are not an existing LOS A or B; and Ms. Garfias was opposed to the item. In favor. Mr. Marvin Watson, Tustin resident and Costco employee, stated that the City of Tustin is growing and that the proposed project would help the Tustin Legacy. Mr. Watson was in favor of the item. In favor. Mr. Michael Okuma, Santa Ana resident, commented on the following, in general: proposed project would alleviate pressure at the District; project site is more convenient; kudos to staff for the analysis; site has been vacant and this project would help; tax revenue for the City of Tustin; and Mr. Okuma was in favor of the item. In favor. Mr. Leonard Sirmopoulos, Tustin resident, stated that"we" need to accept our share of gas stations and that the proposed project is the most efficient way to get gas at Costco. Mr. Sirmopoulos was in favor of the item. In favor. Vasanthi Okuma, Santa Ana resident, stated that traffic is already an issue at the project site and she was in favor of the item. Minutes—Planning Commission July 9,2019—Page 8 of 12 Opposed Ms. Linda Lewotsky, Tustin resident, commented on the following, in general: she shops for gasoline at all Costco locations throughout the state; supports -other gas stations in Los Angeles and San Diego; suggested the applicant reduce the number of pumps to keep within small community of Tustin (keep quaintness); more homework needed; and Ms. Lewotsky was opposed to the item. Opposed. Mr. John Forbes, Tustin resident, commented on the following, in general: queueing will add to the traffic congestion; increase in air pollution; two (2) Costco gas stations in Tustin is too many; will decrease the quality of life; compared the project to the John Wayne Airport; will decrease the value of the homes in the neighborhood; and Mr.Forbes opposed the item. 8:58 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Thompson Thompson's questions/comments generally included: he asked Nishikawa to comment on the time that data was acquired for the traffic study; and to clarify the right turn lane going into the Costco parking lot; he asked if the parking attendants would be required to manage the traffic within the gas station; if consistent with the General Plan and zoning, what are the other factors that can be considered (i.e. traffic — biggest issue 1 quality of life); if issues are bundled —traffic and LOS has been checked and re-checked and it is good; spoke on emissions from queuing vehicles, which staff has analyzed; concerned about hours of operation and in-line gas station hours with other tenants; concern with the shared parking agreement and maintenance of the property; Costco should provide security to the entire shopping center and everyone should pick up trash within the parking area; need clarification with regards to queuing and impacts to employee parking; Quality Management Plan — posting of vehicle wait times for drivers waiting for gas to help reduce traffic impacts; and modify the Conditions of Approval with regards to the posting of vehicle wait times. Nishikawa In response to Thompson's questions, Nishikawa stated, in general: the weekday analysis would approximate the worst conditions; weather does play a factor in the analysis; data taken during the holiday season means there should have been more traffic; the exiting concern from the gas station at the District is that there is only one way out, which is onto Park Avenue and at the proposed location, the concern is the left turn movement leaving the gas station and returning to EI Camino Real and the proposed project has a few exits (3 access points for major roadways); turning movements —the City is in the process of doing improvements at El Camino Real and Tustin Ranch Road, which has nothing to do with the proposed project and had to do with monies available when the Market Place was built long ago (adding right turn pockets in all four(4) intersections and increasing left turn pockets and adding a second left turn lane from EI Camino Real onto Tustin Ranch Road in order to get to the freeway because that has been a problem area; and Costco funds the right turn lane going into Costco. Demkowicz Per Thompson's question regarding the parking attendants, Demkowicz stated that the plan is to help facilitate the queueing and stacking. Minutes—Planning Commission July 9,2019--Page 9 of 12 Kozak Kozak also asked about the left hand tura pocket off of El Camino Real into the shopping center and if there is space to accommodate the left hand turn pocket, which Nishikawa stated previously that there would be a dedicated left hand turn pocket. Thompson Thompson's final comments generally included: the Commission is not here toconsider the finances of the City of Tustin and it is not motivation for the Commission and their deliberation; if it affects other businesses and it is consistent with the general land use designation of the property, the property owner has the right to develop within the context of what that general plan zoning has been established and if there is consistency,then otherfacts have to be considered (some may not work-- i.e. quality of life); it is not within the Commission's purview with regard to gas station competition; the operating hours -- start out with hours more consistent with the shopping center; the shared parking arrangement and Costco should expand beyond the security line (anybody can pick up trash); should not count employee parking as part of the surplus; employee parking and surplus parking need to be clarified; there should be signs post showing what the wait times are in order to reduce traffic impacts; and lastly, Thompson suggested some modifications to the appropriate conditions within the Conditions of Approval. Gallagher Gallagher's final comment was that the Commission should focus on the following issues in general: traffic and queueing --deferred to the experts on the adequacy of the traffic study; referenced the Costco on Alton Parkway and not seeing any impacts, there are two (2) gas stations off of Red Hill Avenue near Tustin High School and did not see any issues there; human element and home values — FHA loan — there already is a gas station near the speaker who mentioned this; the size of the proposed gas station — it is not the largest gas station the applicant is trying to build, it is the best and by adding more pumps, traffic will flow quicker; limiting hours of operation could have an adverse effect (leave the hours of operation restriction to a future meeting if there are adverse impacts); security limitation (agreed with Thompson's comments); document the concepts previously stated by Thompson to use in the future; spoke of public comments and opposition argument; concurs with Thompson on added security; and save the Thompson's suggested concepts for consideration at a later date, should it not be as anticipated (i.e. queueing signs). Mason Mason thanked the residents for coming out and speaking. Her comments generally included: modification of the hours -- can be changed and altered by the Community Development Director, if need be; Plan 2 mitigation of the queueing — make sure it does not impact the parking requirements by the business; she trusts that what has been addressed by City staff has demonstrated that there is no material impact to traffic, noise and pollution, and that the addition of a gas station will make it better; stated Thompson's concerns were valid but they need to be addressed in the future, if need be; important to consider the worst case scenario — mitigation included is good; spoke of modifications suggested by Thompson, but did not feel the need to implement now, but acknowledge for future additional mitigation; she asked if the item was appealable; and she was in support of staffs recommendation, as is, with the modifications. Minutes--Planning Commission July 9,2019—Page 10 of 12 Binsack Per Mason's comment on-the item being appealable, Binsack confirmed that it is an appealable item and if not appealed, the Commission's determination is final. Kozak Kozak thanked the audience for coming out and sharing their comments and concerns. His final comments generally included: visited both sides of the entrance to the shopping center— right hand turn lane is a viable use of the property; his focus was the ability to focus on approving or disapproving the plan and is consistent with the General Plan and East Tustin Specific Plan; the proposed use does work in the site location; with regard to the LOS analysis, they have received and reviewed the LOS with a minor exception of A and B, with A being the highest most free traffic flow; the applicant comes up with two (2) management plans to mitigate queuing on-site and in-place in case needed; there is a dedicated left and right turn entrance from El Camino Real onto project site; staff has modified the recommendations to be consistent with other Costco warehouse service stations; he agreed with his fellow commissioners; and was also in support of the project. Binsack Reminded the Commission of the recommended action which was to adopt Resolution No. 4385, approving the item. Thompson Thompson moved to approve the item, with the following modifications: 1) Security condition and the maintenance issue (trash pick-up and homelessness) is addressed and include the shared parking area. 2) The City still retains the ability to change the operating hours and that the proposed operating hours remain the same for now. 3) The traffic management plan be considerate of parking spaces that are blocked and signage to help patrons understand if the wait time is lengthy. Mason Mason was concerned with the respective property owner not maintaining the property which is their responsibility and it should not be the City's responsibility and Costco's. Kozak Kozak added that there are multiple property owners within the shopping center and they need to do a better job of cleaning and maintaining their property. Gallagher Gallagher added that he was concerned with adding a condition that could be a liability to one owner as to the condition of another owner's property. STAFF CONCERNS: A Binsack Per Galla_gher's last comment, Binsack stated that City staff shares the liability concern as well as Thompson's concern. She added that Condition 2.7 and 2.8 will take care of some of the issues addressed (i.e. trash, homeless issue) which requires patrol of the premises. Cannot hold Costco responsible for those issues, but can hold the property owners responsible, as well going forward. Minutes—Planning Commission July 9,2019—Page 11 of 12 Motion. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Gallagher, to adopt Resolution No. 4385. Motion carried 4-0-1, COMIMISSlON CONCERNS: Gallagher No concerns, Mason Mason had no concerns. She attended Tustin's Concerts in the Park (8,0's band) on July 3, 2019. Jha No concerns. Thompson Thompson attended the following events: 0 6/18 OCTA CAC Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting * 6/20 Mayor Puckett's Business Recognition Luncheon! 0 7/4 Tustin's 4th of July Celebration at Tustin High School In September Thompson will be stepping down as Planning Commission Chair Pro Tem. Thompson has served on the Planning Commission for 12 years as well as serving 8 years on the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee. Kozak Kozak congratulated staff for their hard work on making the meeting run smoothly. He attended the following events: o 6/12, 6/19, 6/26 Tustin's Concerts in the Park 0 6/14 City's Flagi Day Ceremony in the Library Courtyard 0 6,115 Tustin Police Department's Open House 0 6/18 California Preservation Foundation Webinar 0 6/20 Mayor Puckett's Business Recognition Lunch * 6/26 ACC-OC Seminar hosted by the City of Tustin at the Tustin Library 0 7/4 Tustin Meadows Parade 0 7/4 Tustin's 4th of July Celebration at Tustin High School a 7/6 Celebrated their 34th: Wedding Anniversary 9.44 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning, Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, July 23, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way, -6TE AK Chairperson JOE BETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes- Plannung Cornrnissbn July 91 2019-Page 12 of,12