The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC MINUTES 12-22-2020 DocuSign Envelope ID: 10EE7E12-BFEC-4ADF-853B-154084ED1ABF MINUTES VIDEO CONFERENCING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 22, 2020 Mason "During the Statewide COVID-19 Emergency, the public is not permitted to convene in person for this public meeting. However, the public may still view and comment on the meeting as follows.": Mason To watch the meeting, the public may observe the meeting via the City's ranicus service at Ir s:// .tus�liirlca.oirg/2,8„2/O�,ca�;fl s A eirldas or on local Cox Channel 851. Mason To comment on one or more items, you may send your comments to ............................... .........'...........................................::::..::::.iipl ustlinca.oir or by accessing the City's "SpeakUp„ I....Ilairlirlliirl „� olrrnlrrn ... ... comment system as follows: 6:02 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. Given. INVOCATION: Chu All present. ROLL CALL: Chair Mason Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Chu, Jha None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — DECEMBER 08, 2020 Minutes of the December 8, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the December 08, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Chu, seconded by Jha, to approve the Minutes of the December 08, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Minutes—Planning Commission January 26, 2021 —Page 1 of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 10EE7E12-BFEC-4ADF-853B-154084ED1ABF PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted Reso. 2. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2019-00016, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 4414, as (CUP) 2019-00017, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2019-00018, amended& Reso. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2020-0017, AND LOT LINE No. 4415. ADJUSTMENT (LLA) 2020-0001 APPLICANT: Peter Gonzalez 7-Eleven, Inc. 330 East Lambert Road Brea, CA 91403 PROPERTY OWNERS: Erik S. Gulfin Josh Golcheh 7-Eleven, Inc. Golcheh Development and Investments, LLC 1722 Routh Street 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1719 Dallas, TX 75201 Los Angeles, CA 90024 LOCATION: 16791 McFadden Avenue & 16801 McFadden Avenue REQUEST: 1. DR 2019-00016 & CUP 2019-00017: demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of a convenience store with a six (6) island/twelve (12) pump service station. 2. CUP 2019-00018: to authorize the sale of off-site alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a convenience store. 3. CUP 2020-00017: to authorize shared parking between lots through joint-use parking. 4. LLA 2020-0001: to consolidate four(4) parcels into one (1) parcel. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 15332, Class 32. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4414, approving DR 2019-00016, CUP 2019-00017, CUP 2020-0017, and LLA 2020-0001 to consolidate Minutes—Planning Commission January 26, 2021 —Page 2 of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 10EE7E12-BFEC-4ADF-853B-154084ED1ABF four (4) parcels into one (1) parcel to establish a convenience store with a six (6) island/twelve (12) pump service station and authorize shared parking between lots through joint-use parking. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4415, approving CUP 2019-00018 to authorize the sale of off-site alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a convenience store. Aguilar Presentation given. Willkom Willkom discussed the revisions staff recommended to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4414 with the Commission prior to the meeting. Specifically, with Condition No. 1.7, which staff proposed removing any items related to noise since this proposed use is not a noise generated type of use. Also, Condition No. 4.6 related to the conflict between fueling trucks and vehicle queuing. Staff asked the Commission to remove that condition completely due to staff's conversation with the City's traffic engineer who did not foresee any conflict. Jha Jha commented on the safety cameras due to the high crime area, which was already addressed by staff. Chu Chu asked about the previous company at the project site,which she thought may have been a 76 Gas station. She also asked staff for the number of islands and service stations the 76 Gas station had as well as why they ceased operation (i.e. land contamination?). Aguilar In response to Chu's previous questions, Aguilar was unsure of the name of the previous gas station, but she confirmed there was a gas station there for many years; however, the property has been vacant since 1994. There are currently two (2) existing gas stations on the northeast corner of McFadden and Tustin Village Way, as well as the west corner. Per Aguilar, this would be the third gas station at the intersection. The site was contaminated due to the previous gas station. The contamination was resolved following the removal of the underground tanks. Staff cannot confirm the reason why that gas station may have ceased operation Jha Jha added, since he is also a gas station owner, that the reason the previous gas station shut down could have been due to the ground contamination. In the 1980's and 1990's, several gas stations had single wall tanks and the tanks would leak. The owners would have to excavate the tanks and provide soil remediation on the property. Jha further explained that if the gas station was owned by a private party, the company would not be able to afford to remove the tanks, remediate the contaminated soil, and build a new gas station, which led to several gas stations closing in the 1980's and 1990's. Minutes—Planning Commission January 26, 2021 —Page 3 of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 10EE7E12-BFEC-4ADF-853B-154084ED1ABF Mason Mason added that the comments previously mentioned were speculation, not factual. Chu Chu asked for the number of notices mailed out to the neighboring businesses and residents. She referenced the opposition letters/emails received the day of the meeting. Aguilar Aguilar confirmed any property owner within the 300-foot radius of the exterior boundary lines of the parcels received a notice with regards to this project site. Willkom Willkom stated that the City received a total of seven (7) emails and/or e- Comments which came from five (5) individuals. Three (3) of the individuals commented that the City of Tustin does not need an additional gas station since there are many in the area. Willkom reminded the Commission that their purview is related to land use, not the economic feasibility. She stated that one of the individuals works for Cal Trans and his concern was related to site distance visibility. Staff consulted with the City's Traffic Engineer and was informed that the on-site circulation, along with traffic flow on adjacent streets, have been fully analyzed, and no site distance issues are anticipated. Willkom added that another one of the e-Comments came from the applicant of the project. Daudt Daudt touched on the consideration points for the Commission's deliberations. The Tustin City Code (TCC) does enumerate certain criteria that the Commission must evaluate and make findings in favor of "if" the Commission is moving towards approval of the project. He further explained that these consideration points are generally focused on the physical impacts and compatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood, etc., but it does not address the economic impact or the desirability of a particular use or business in relation to other established businesses within the area. Through the TCC, the analysis is looking at the land use components of a project, and whether or not a project, as conditioned, can be deemed to be a project that would not have a negative or adverse impact physically, in the surrounding neighborhood or incompatibility issues in a physical sense, or based on zoning conditions. Chu Chu asked who would be operating the proposed business (i.e. 7-Eleven Corporation or franchisee). Aguilar Per Aguilar, an existing franchisee will be operating the project location. Kozak Kozak commented on the adjacent freeway and the desire to place a gas station on the proposed site,which was previously occupied by a gas station. He preferred an alternative use but understood that the proposed use was probably best suited for the project site. Kozak was in support of the project. Minutes—Planning Commission January 26, 2021 —Page 4 of 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 10EE7E12-BFEC-4ADF-853B-154084ED1ABF Mason Mason stated she understood why the project location was selected, given the adjacency of the freeway, and she also knew that the site has been "abandoned" and has been an "eye sore" in a high-density area. The proposed project would revitalize and bring new life to the area. Mason commended the applicant for taking the time to be thoughtful about the project. She was in favor of the item. Motion: It was moved by Chu, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4414, as amended and Resolution No. 4415. Motion carried 4-0. Willkom Willkom reiterated that the item is appealable to the City Council and anyone can file an appeal within ten (10) days of this action. None. REGULAR BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: Willkom Willkom thanked the Commission and staff for their hard work and support this past year. Happy holidays and see you in 2021! COMMISSION CONCERNS: Chu Chu had no concerns. She thanked everyone for their hard work and she is looking forward to 2021. Stay safe and healthy! Jha Jha thanked staff for pushing through COVID and 2020. Happy holidays and happy New Year! Kozak Kozak wished everyone happy holidays and a happy 2021! Mason Mason voiced her gratitude for her fellow Commissioners and staff. She also commended Willkom and the great work she and staff continue to do. She wished everyone a happy and safe holiday season! 6:42 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, January 12, 2021. DocuSign/e�dvq/by:� _11t D3273B6D898A43D... DocuSby: tE d 00& AMY MASON 45DA2623B54A5_._ Chairperson JUSTINA L. WILLKOM Planning Commission Secretary Minutes—Planning Commission January 26, 2021 —Page 5 of 5