Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-ATTACHMENT OATTACHMENT O PC MEETING MINUTES DATED JUNE 11 AND JULY 91 2019 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 11, 2019 7:09 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. COMBR-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 (A1C) 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. Huffer 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, Huffer 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 campus. 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 1 1 1 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 ODLEIMG2 3333 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612 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 El 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 Costco Tire Center access would be blocked by the queue line. His concern was that there would be an impact to the Costco 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 askedl 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. IM11kom 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.•17p.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 demolished because of the current homeless issue, trash, and darkly .lit parking lot. Draft Minutes -- Planning Commission June 11, 2019 -- Page 9 of W 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. Kai 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. 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. Draft Minutes — Planning Commission June 11, 2019 — Page 10 of 14 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);; 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 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 Draft Minutes — Planning Commission June 11, 2019 — Page 11 of 14 Mason 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 withthe 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. 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 Draft Minutes — Planning Commission June 11, 2019 — Page 12 of 14 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 STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack infofined the`Commission of the following upcoming events: 6118: CPF webinar in the CDD Conference Room (12-1:30 p.m.) 6120: Mayor's Business Recognition Luncheon. • 7116: 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! Draft Minutes -- Planning Commission June 11, 2019 — Page 13 of 14 0 4/8- OCBC OC Moves Committee o 4/25: Tour of the Tustin Flight 0 4/26 Film Premiere of Chapman University's Senior Thesis Fill (filmed in Old Town Tust�in) 0 5/30: APA Awards Ceremony — Congratulations to the City an staff for the DCCSP Luncheon with the LA Union Rescue Mission Gallagher No comments, Mason Mason thanked staff for all of the work that was involved with the stam 0 reports and presentations, Congratulations, to staff for the DCCSP awa ri She requested an update on the progress with the homeiless shelter at future Planning Commiission meeiting. Kozak Kozak thanked s,tO for job well done on the agenda packet an* presentations. Congratulations to staff for the DCCS�P award! He attend,4. the following events. o 5/19BQ at the Veterans Outpost in Tustin Memorial Day Ceremony at Fairhaven Cemetary 5/31-6/1: Air Force Change of Command Ceremony at Travis, Air Force Base in Fairfield for his brother, Coilonel Ray Kozak, where he served as Commander of the 349ith Air Mobility Wing and he was promoted to Staff Director for 4 �h Air Force at March Air Force Base. Con,giratulatioins,! 9:19 P.rrr� ADJOURNMENT� The neixt regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 25, 20119, at 7:00, p.m. in the City, Council Chamber at 30iO Cent�enniial� Way. AM OZAK P rson . ..... — ------ ELIZABETH A. BIINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 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- 1 1 1 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 EI 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 EI 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. I. Minutes — Planning Commission July 9, 2019 — Page 4 of 12 1 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: 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, X00 I A 1 &10*1 to] , 12 W*1 0 Isill MEW 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 Uo co-ieriis. 0 6/18 OCTA CAC Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting 6 6/20 Mayor Puckett's Business Recognition Luncheon 0 7/4 Tustin's 4 th Of jU ly Celebration at Tustin High School In Septemlber Thompson will be stepping down as Planning Commission Chair P,ro 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 0111 V 111 HE I , M2 The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, julily 23, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Counci�l Chamber at 300 Centennial Way, -6TEAK Chairperson autb, Minutes - Plannung Cornrnissbn July 91 2019 - Page 12 of '12 E