Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-25-94HINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: 7:01 p.m., City Council Chambers ROLL Ci%LL: Present: Absent: Weil, Butler, Baker, Kasalek, Lunn and Mitzman None Stracker, PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Stracker moved, Baker seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded, to place the revised minutes of the June 13, 1994 Planning Commission meeting on the current agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Stracker moved, Baker seconded, to approve the revised minutes of the June 13, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioners Kasalek and Butler abstained. 2. Seating of Commissioners Lunn and Mitzman. Commissioners Butler and Stracker stepped down. The Director administered the oath of office swearing in the two new Planning Commissioners, Howard Mitzman and Nanette Lunn. PUBLIC HEARINGS: IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS AGENDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. I I Wi .... ] .... I P'~anning Comm£ssion Minutes ,Jul>' 25, ~994 Page 2 3. Variance 94-004 and Desiqn Review 94-003 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. JAN BRINDLE GOLF ENTERPRISES INC. 1448 FIFTEENTH STREET, SUITE 205 SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 SANYO FOODS CORP. OF AMERICA 11955 MONARCH STREET GARDEN GROVE, CA 92641 12442 TUSTIN RANCH ROAD PLANNED COMMUNITY-RESIDENTIAL (ETSP) VARIANCE 94-001 - CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 4) SECTION 15301 DESIGN REVIEW 94-003 - CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) SECTION 15303 1. TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE TWENTY FOOT (20') HIGH SCREEN FENCE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DRIVING RANGE ON THE TUSTIN RANCH GOLF COURSE TO FIFTY FEET (50') IN HEIGHT FOR SAFETY PURPOSES; AND 2. TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DRIVING RANGE BUILDING FOR THE TUSTIN RANCH GOLF COURSE. Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item until the August 8, 1994 meeting to allow the applicant and the work study session participants to continue to negotiate a consensus on outstanding items regarding the variance request. Presentation: Becky C. Stone, Assistant Planner The Public Hearing opened at 7:10 p.m. The Public Hearing closed at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded, to continue this item until the August 8, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-O. Conditional Use Permit 93-038 and Sign Code Exception 93-003 APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ALL STAR SERVICE PLUS CORPORATION ATTN: AL SWEARINGEN, PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 17135 IRVINE, CA 92713 EDGAR E. PANKEY 320 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 13922 RED HILL AVENUE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FREESTANDING OFF-PREMISES MULTIPLE BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN. 2. APPROVAL OF A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A FREESTANDING OFF-PREMISES MULTIPLE BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT WHICH DOES NOT OFFER Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 3 GASOLINE FOR SALE, LOCATED WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET OF THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE, AT A HEIGHT OF SIXTY-EIGHT (65) FEET AND SIZE OF 237.5 SQUARE FEET. Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission table this item pending the receipt of additional information from the applicant. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner The Public Hearing opened at 7:12 p.m. The Public Hearing closed at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded, to table this item pending receipt of additional information from the applicant. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Large-Family Day Care Home (lfd 94-002) APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CLEATUS ANN POTTS 1612 DARSY CIRCLE TUSTIN, CA 92680 PARUL DOSHI P.O. BOX 6545 ORANGE, CA 92613 1612 DARSY CIRCLE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PC-R) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE-FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve LFD 94-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3285, as submitted or revised, if no formal protest is made by a notified property owner within 100 feet of the proposed large-family day care home based on adverse impacts. If a protest is received, based on specific factual adverse impacts as defined by State law, it is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on this item and instruct staff to return on August 8, 1994 with responses to the issues or conditions to mitigate the issues raised by the valid protest. Presentation: Joann S. Lehmer, Associate Planner The Public Hearing opened at 7:18 p.m. Cleatus Ann Potts, the applicant, stated she would be glad to answer any questions. Commissioner Kasalek asked if she had ever had any problems with noise or parking complaints. Cleatus Ann Potts stated, "no" . Commissioner Weil asked the ages of the children. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 4 Cleatus Ann Potts stated that the ages were 0-7, mainly pre- schoolers. Dave Lyddon, 14562 Emerywood Road, Tustin, stated that he lived right behind the place and had a large swimming pool. He said he was worried about kids climbing over the fence and falling into his pool and asked if the City would allow him to build a higher fence. Staff stated that 6 feet 8 inches was the limit without a variance or a conditional use permit. Commissioner Weil stated that under the circumstances Mr. Lyddon would have to take the matter of the fence to the Tustin Meadows Association. The Public Hearing closed at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Weil stated that she had spoken to Colonel Hintz whose property is sandwiched between the two day care centers and who was concerned about the number of children at the center and wanted to make sure it was a small day care center. Staff stated that they also met with Colonel Hintz and had also contacted the State Health Department to inquire if the day care center was licensed and inspected and it was, and if there were any complaints or citations issued and there were not. Furthert there had been no complaints levied against the applicant at all. The Public Hearing opened at 7:22 p.m. Sandy Lyddon, 14562 Emerywood Road, stated she did not want to go to the expense of raising the fence and asked who was liable for these children if they did get over the fence and happened to drown in her pool. Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney, stated that as a general matter a homeowner is responsible for protecting his or her own property. The Director noted that large family day care facilities were one of only a few discretionary items where action by the Commission was limited by the criteria in state law under which the Commission has the ability to deny or impose conditions. There were only 4 areas to establish impact and they are, spacing and concentration of other large family facilities, traffic control, parking and noise control and if there were not significant findings or impacts identified which relate to any of these four findings, then under state law the Commission has the obligation to approve the application. Sandy Lyddon asked then if the trees on the day care side could be removed so that the children would not climb up and over. Lois Bobak stated that under these circumstances state law does not give the Commission the authority to condition the approval or to deny it. Cleatus Ann Potts stated that she is always out there with the kids and that the trees were not that close to the fence. Sandy Lyddon asked if the land owner knew the home was to be used for a day care facility and asked if it was in the lease. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 5 The Director stated that Section 1597, of the state code prohibits any restriction or prohibition in the way of covenant conditions or use restrictions or occupancies on title of property including lease agreements which restrict or prohibit directly the occupancy or standards applied to a large family day care center by an owner. Lois Bobak stated that there was a history of discrimination against large family day care centers and that is why the state has imposed these strict mandates. Sam W. Hendrickson, 14542 Emerywood Road, stated that he lives two doors down from the proposed day care center and his concern is that Darsy Circle was so small that the neighbors would necessarily be involved with the children and asked what would happen if one of them got out. He stated he has lived in Tustin Meadows for twenty five years and there was never any problem with children but asked how many children would be at the facility. Commissioner Weil stated that the limit was twelve. She stated that she sympathized but the state was tying the hands of the Commission in this instance. The Public Hearing closed at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Mitzman asked how the City would be able to enforce the condition which holds the City harmless from claims or liabilities arising out of the approval of this item. Lois Bobak stated that there was no specific enforcement mechanism and not a workable way requiring someone to do it. If enforcement was needed the signed declaration of acceptance of conditions would be presented as an exhibit along with a cross complaint and the property owner would be asked to indemnify the City. Commissioner Mitzman wanted clarification on the Commissions ability to consider that there was a small day care. The Director stated that small family day care facilities are not regulated other than by state licensing and they are permitted in any family residential neighborhood in any number and amount. The only stipulation is that they have to go through social services for licensing. Commissioner Weil asked what recourse the neighbors had within the criteria parameters such as noise complaints etc. The Director stated that they may contact the Community Development Department and code enforcement action would be pursued. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she hoped that the neighbors would first contact the applicant and try to work any problems through. Commissioner Weil asked that the applicant keep the trees trimmed so that the children could not get over the fence. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded, to approve LFD 94-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3285 revised as follows: Page 2, Section II, add item E to read, "The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement process for this large family day care site." Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 6 Zone Chanqe 94-003, Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 14934, Conditional Use Permit 94-007 and Desiqn Review 94-013 APPLICANT OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: D&D DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 711 E. IMPERIAL HWY, SUITE 200 BREA, CA 92621 ATTN: CAMILLE COURTNEY RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION 4000 MacARTHUR BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2516 ATTN: DANIEL ISENBERG 14882 - 14942 NEWPORT AVENUE R-3 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM R-3 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO PC (PLANNED COMMUNITY- RESIDENTIAL) TO ACCOMMODATE 145 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS; 2. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE AN APPROXIMATE 11.85 ACRE SITE INTO 145 NUMBERED LOTS AND 33 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 145 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS AND RESULTING IN THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 296 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX; AND AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD SPECIFY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER WHICH THE PROJECT WOULD BE GOVERNED PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 9244. Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3288; Approve Conditional Use Permit 94-007 and Design Review 94-013 by adopting Resolution No. 3289, as submitted or revised; Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14934 by adopting Resolution No. 3290, as submitted or revised; and Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 94- 003 by adopting Resolution No· 3291, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Weil asked if the new cul-de-sac on Newport Avenue was a public street. Staff stated "yes" with entry gate located on the easterly end of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Mitzman asked since the applicant states that they are to the greatest extent possible trying to meet the minimum standards for similar product of Tustin Ranch, what minimum standards have not been met. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 7 Staff stated the number of units on a motor court. Related to parking, that Plan 3 has an optional fourth bedroom and 4 bedroom units in East Tustin would require an additional half parking space which this project cannot provide, due to the physical site constraints. The applicant has indicated that they expect 50% of owners would take option for the 4th bedroom and they believe that there is adequate parking and have kept a half space across the board for that. Commissioner Mitzman asked that if 50% of the buyers opted for the fourth bedroom would there be adequate parking for the site. Staff stated that the Commission has the ability with district regulation to create any development standards. Based on this particular development plan they have provided at minimum an one- half guest parking space for all units. The Director stated that as mitigation to that, as has been applied in East Tustin, there are CC&R restrictions which limit future property owners to two vehicles. The Public Hearing opened at 7:56 p.m. Camille Courtney,D & D Development, stated that they had reviewed the staff report and worked with staff and have no concerns with the report and she stated that they had met with the residents last Thursday. Jamie T. Brown, 14842 Carfax Drive, stated she represented the neighbors of Tract 4664 and presented the Commission with a petition signed by all ( but two of the neighbors who were out of town at this time) in opposition to vehicle traffic on Carfax Drive and the opening of the cul-de-sac. She wished to thank Camille Courtney for coming to the neighborhood and believes that this is an improvement over the previous apartments. She asked for a clarification of an emergency gate. Wanted to know if there were any guarantees that their street would stay shut. Wants a closed, locked gate for use only by Fire and Police Departments. Concerned that this project needs two accesses. She suggested that units 84, 85 and 86 could be eliminated to give a secondary access off of Newport. Asked where the people from the 150 units were going to park since they are not meeting the same code as Tustin East. Concerned about all the traffic coming through the tract when construction starts. The intersection of Carfax and Sycamore gets slowed down because of a stop sign. Does not want to see a pedestrian gate in their tract at all. Concerned about the added noise. Concerned how close the units will be to their back yards. Asked if the wall would be torn down. Staff stated that an emergency gate is one that would have a knox box for access by Fire and Police or in the event of some other critical emergency. In regards to the 2 or 3 units being suggested to be eliminated as an alternate, those units are at the south west border and are immediately adjacent to a 10-15 foot high slope and not possible to provide added access due to the anticipated design of Newport Avenue. For this number of units there must be a secondary access for emergency proposes. The development plan shows a 10 foot setback from the northerly property adjacent to the single family homes as well as the condominiums to the north. The wall will remain to the greatest extent possible and receive a stucco finish to make it compatible with the surrounding area. Commissioner Kasalek asked for clarification and if what Ms. Brown was asking for was no pedestrian access at all. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 8 Jamie T. Brown stated that the neighbors were being very open minded hoping the project would bring in a different type of people and they would not have to deal with the pedestrian access question. What they were looking for was no vehicle traffic. They want to see the children have a way to school and there is an opening by the parking lot (school bus depot) that used to be a pedestrian walkway to the school and she would like to see that opened again. She asked if the school district could be contacted to see if that parking lot could be made into an alternate route access. Commissioner Baker asked if staff would like to direct any further discussion to the time when construction would begin on Newport. The Director stated that recognizing the particular grade variations and those grading activities that will be necessary, and that fact that all major utilities will be have to be reconstructed, the City will not be able to guarantee access on Newport Avenue to this particular development during the period of construction of Newport Avenue. Staff suggests that in restricting vehicular access for emergencies at the Carfax location during construction of the Newport Avenue right-of-way, full vehicular and pedestrian access be permitted during that term and period of construction recognizing that there are not other mechanisms to provide access to this project without significantly inhibiting activity along Newport Avenue. Commissioner Baker asked how long the construction would take. The Director stated that until the means and methods of construction were known it would be difficult to say. The project is complex since it also includes construction of an alternate line for the railroad and Metrolink system. There will be similar impacts as at the construction of the underpass as Culver and until the project gets further along in relocation of utilities and the actual final grades time could not be estimated. Jamie T. Brown stated that they are not happy, they have worked hard to maintain their area and asked that the Commission consider their plea. Samuel Spiegel, Vice President of Sycamore Gardens Homeowners Association, stated that no one had contacted them to date on this project. Staff stated that all property owners within the condominium complex were notified by mail using the June 1994 tax rolls. Commissioner Weil asked for a show of hands of people who were home owners in Sycamore Gardens. She stated that notices do not go to renters. She asked staff to look into this. Staff stated that according to their records they did notify the Sycamore Gardens Homeowners Association as well as all the property owners within that project. If there are people who have not received this notice they are asked to leave their names and addresses with the secretary so that they can be checked against the list to make sure of the current mailing address. Law requires the use of the latest tax assessor information. About six of the mailing have been returned marked undeliverable or with no forwarding address which is not unusual for a mailing of this size. Staff would be happy to update the records and add any ones name for the future Council meeting noticing in mid-August. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 9 Lois Bobak, noted for the record that it was her understanding that staff actually exceeded the legal requirements in this case. State law requires that property owners within 300 feet of the property boundary area be given notice but staff sent notice to all of the property owners within Sycamore Gardens. Roger Geery, 14841 Del Amo Avenue, stated he was one of eight property owners that will share a common boundary with this new development and thinks the project is a great deal and that the area is going to be cleaned up. Asked that if two story residences are to be erected how will their back yard privacy be protected from the windows of these homes. Also when the apartments were active, school children used their yard as a short cut and he felt that this could be mitigated through use of an extra passageway near the east end where the school buses now park. Commissioner Weil asked staff if there would be landscaping up to the wall to provide privacy. Staff stated that these particular floor plans which abut the north property line only have a small bathroom window, with no windows directly looking down into the rear yards on that side and there is also landscaping proposed on the end of each of the motor courts to provide privacy and there would be a ten foot separation from the north property line to the units. Leonard Markwitz, 14761 Del Amo Avenue, stated he has lived in his home for 32 years and did not get a notice of this project. He expressed objection to traffic from Carfax stating he has already had two near misses with school children at the corner of Carfax and Sycamore. He wants the road by the end of the tennis courts to be used since it is the most direct route. He stated that there is a sidewalk right next to the school play field and feels this area should be used. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there were two emergency accesses in place now and was he talking about a direct access from the fire station. Leonard Markwitz stated that the road at the end of the tennis courts could be used. He cited his example from Exhibit A of the staff report. Lois Bobak stated that after reviewing the notices and maps with staff in determining the 300 foot radius she has seen that there are several properties on Del Amo outside of the 300 foot radius. In checking the 300 foot radius against the names she noted that the last speakers name was not listed within the 300 foot radius. She also noted for the record that this is why legal notices are posted in the local papers. Louis Flores, 14791 Del Amo Avenue, stated that he was also opposed to the traffic coming through Carfax. He feels that School Lane could be used. Ray Pili, 1192 Drayton Way, stated that he was opposed to the opening of Carfax for vehicular traffic but does support the development of single family homes. Many children now play in the cul-de-sac and all the neighborhood watches out for the children. He feels that the 10% statistic for traffic as stated in the staff report is too low . He feels that if Carfax were opened more people would take it rather than going around and that more congestion will occur at the stop sign. Since his property backs up to this Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 10 project he wishes to see more room between the properties than ten feet to reduce the impact. He also feels that School Lane can be used as an alternative since it is a straight line to the 5 Fwy and the 55 South. E.J. Kulhanek, 1152 Mear Lane, feels that now there is security and privacy in their neighborhood since each person is known and recognized but to double the access to Carfax will mean loss of control over that aspect which was his number one reason to purchase his home. He feels that even a pedestrian access is to invite excess or overflow parking. If a true emergency access is really needed he also feels that School Lane would be an alternative and a conjunctive pedestrian access would take the excess traffic away from their neighborhood and actually be safer. William F. Jordan, 14852 Carfax Drive, stated that he lives right next to the vacant lot which is next to the tennis court. He stated that he feels that in the future, use of an emergency gate could change. He stated that statistics can be used for or against anything depending on who is in charge and stated that he feels there is a discrepancy in the traffic count since speed is noted at 35 mph (Attachment A & B) but actual school zone speed is 25 mph. Since there was no mention of children and schools in the traffic report he feels that the 10% traffic figure increase is incorrect. Kalinda Smith, 1161 Drayton Avenue, stated that she has two children who will now no longer be able to play on the street and this is one reason she purchased her home in this area, because there was little or no traffic. No one has mentioned that during the school year the traffic going down Sycamore is tremendous and there is not enough room on the street for the traffic now. Use of School Lane would allow cars to access Red Hill without going through Sycamore. She hopes that the School District would work with the City so that Carfax can remain closed. Shane Darlinqton, 1212 Drayton, stated he lived at the corner of Carfax and Drayton which is right by where the traffic would go through and is opposed to the extra traffic. He was also concerned with the houses being built right next to his back wall. He wishes the developer to move the houses farther back from the wall. William Stracker, 13062 Cortina, feels that there will be significant conflicts and gridlock at the entrance way of the new project because the grade separation will be five feet above the bottom of the cul de sac near Newport; vehicles coming down the cul-de-sac will zoom into the entrance way creating significant conflict and gridlock at the signal. Wishes the Traffic Engineer to address how this will work. Doug Anderson, City Traffic Engineer, stated that the traffic issues which Mr. Stracker has raised were looked at but one thing that Mr. Stracker had not mentioned was that the throat is sufficiently long to provide not only a turn around stacking distance for the traffic that would be accessing through the gates but also if anyone were stacked up, there are two exit lanes on the north of the center line stripe to hold sufficient traffic. A queuing problem was not foreseen at the gates. The Director also pointed out that as it relates to the Sycamore Gardens project a future access which the Association might want to provide to the cul-de-sac would be up to them depending on the improvement on Newport Avenue and the design of those improvements. There would be separate negotiations with those property owners. What the applicant has done with the design of the cul-de-sac is to Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 11 reserve an opportunity if anyone wishes to access what would be a public street. It is not designed as part of this proposal but is just shown as an option. Any property owner that fronts that public street would have the ability to access it. Richard Ebel, 1141 Mear Lane, opposes any opening at all on Carfax due to inadequate parking and feels the gate opening will invite crime. Jay H. Witherby, 1211 Mear Lane, stated that his bedroom faces on Carfax and is concerned about the giant earthmovers which will be on the street. He stated that he purchased the home because of the security it provided, and agrees with all his neighbors on all the issues raised. Camille Courtney, answered the questions posed by the previous speakers. She stated that the construction entrance would be off of Newport Avenue not Carfax. She stated that she had spoken to the homeowners and have agreed not to open Carfax. The emergency gate entrance was for emergencies only. As to access to School Lane, she had contacted the School District facilities administrator and was told there was no interest in selling property there nor would they allow access to the School District property. The second story windows facing existing homes have only small bathroom windows above the tubs and D & D has taken the privacy issue into consideration by directing the development focus inward. As for more space between the units they are willing to provide more space but feel that to increase the depth would really provide nothing extra but could create an area for people to hide in which could become a security problem. Commissioner Lunn asked if it were necessary for the pedestrian gate to be on Carfax. Camille Courtney, feels it is an advantage. There is a vacant lot currently used for access. For the school children to have to walk all the way around when there is already an access to the school which is open to the public seems illogical and may in fact cause more traffic on Sycamore with mothers driving the children to school. As for the perceived parking problem on Carfax, there are requirements in the CC&Rs for parking activity to be regulated through the homeowners association. Commissioner Lunn stated she lives across the street from the project and feels that in the five years she has lived there she saw no problem with children in her complex walking all the way around but what she believes the problem to be is people with guests or those with extra cars who would use the pedestrian gate to get in and who are impossible to regulate. Camille Courtney, stated that the pedestrian gate would be locked and that only the residents would have keys. Commissioner Lunn, stated that a solution might be to eliminate the pedestrian gate. Shane Darlinqton, stated that there was no cross walk across School Lane or Service Road for children to go across the street safely. Jamie T. Brown, stated that now she has an added concern about keys to the pedestrian gate. She visualizes lost keys all over the neighborhood with copies being made. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 12 Camille Courtney, stated she had not indicated before and wanted to quantify, because there seems to be such concern about school children, that she has a letter from the School District and at a high estimate there are only 75 total children anticipated, based on the current census, as compared to the previous apartments with hundreds of children. Leonard Markwitz, stated that it was brought out that this new development needed an egress and ingress and asked why since their project has only had one entrance for 32 years. The Public Hearing closed at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Lunn, asked for clarification of conflict of interest since she lives across the street from this project. Lois Bobak stated that the law provides if a person lives within 250 feet of the property line of the project it is presumed to be a conflict unless you can show with absolute certainty that there is no possibility that the decision will have a financial affect on your property either negative or positive or also if it will impact the source of income beyond $250. Commissioner Lunn stated that based on this she wished to abstain. Commissioner Kasalek, asked if the parking lot was definitely owned by the School District and is it definitely not an option for the road to go through. She also was concerned about landscaping near the railroad track because of noise. As far as the emergency Carfax access she is opposed to opening it at all. She is concerned about the pedestrian gate for she does not like to see the children forced out onto Newport Avenue which she considers unsafe. The Director stated that it was staff's understanding that the parking lot was owned by the School District. Commissioner Baker agrees with Commissioner Kasalek. He asked that when the construction comes to Newport would there be mitigation for the neighbors concerning the traffic on Carfax. Staff stated that at this time they wanted to secure at least temporary access to Carfax should the possibility occur that Newport would need to be closed down completely. It is not known now because of the relocation of the utilities. The Engineering Department and Community Development would anticipate coming up with a construction access plan that would deal with property in the neighborhood and which would result in the least amount of access obstruction. Also a condition can be added to keep construction traffic off of Carfax at all times. Commissioner Weil stated that she hoped that School Lane walkway could be opened and asked if it were fully researched. The Director stated that to provide it as a mandated access from this site the School District would have to provide a permanent easement or provide for the property to be purchased and they are apparently not interested in doing this. Also the City has had a number of other development opportunities and the School District has not been willing to share facilities even with the City. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 13 Commissioner Weil asked if this was because of liability. The Director stated it would be difficult to impose a condition when the developer does not own the property and the City has knowledge that the School District apparently is not willing to sell that property. Commissioner Baker asked if the developer could go directly to the school and ask if a gate could be opened. The Director stated that the developer has the ability to continue to discuss the issue with the School District. Commissioner Weil stated that conversation with school board members might be more productive than with school board staff. She stated that she was reluctant to open the pedestrian access on to Carfax. She feels that it would be too difficult to control guest cars and additional vehicles and it would become a problem. Commissioner Kasalek stated she was against the pedestrian gate. Commissioner Mitzman stated that pedestrian gates always have a way of staying open. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3288 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Lunn abstained. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-007 and Design Review 94-013 by adopting Resolution No. 3289 revised as follows: Exhibit A, page 1, Condition 1.3 shall read, "Design review approval shall become null and void unless all building permits are issued within twenty four (24) months of the date of this Exhibit." Exhibit A, Page 6, Item 4.2, add Section "J" to read, "Provide one tree for every 30 lineal feet along the north and south side of the subject property." Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Lunn abstained. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14934 by adopting Resolution No. 3290 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 4, add Condition 1.13 to read "Vehicular and pedestrian access to the Carfax Drive cul-de-sac shall be limited to emergency access only except as herein provided. Pedestrian access to the Carfax Drive cul-de-sac shall be eliminated from the proposed plans. Ail access and gate details shall be subject to final review and approval of the Orange County Fire Department and the Community Development Department. In the event approval from the School District can be obtained, the Community Development Department shall be authorized to approve pedestrian access across School District property to Service Road. Full vehicular and pedestrian access shall be permitted to the Carfax Drive cul-de-sac only during the period of construction related to the realignment of Newport Avenue as determined by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. No construction vehicles shall be permitted through the Carfax Drive cul-de-sac access at any time. The Public Works and Community Development Departments shall coordinate with adjacent home owners to ensure the least disruption to their neighborhood during this Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 14 period of construction." abstained. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Lunn Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded, ~ recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 94-003 by adopting Resolution 3291 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Lunn abstained. 7. Desiqn Review 94-011, Conditional Use Permit 94-004, Conditional Use Permit 93-035 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: TUSTIN ASSOCIATES 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD, #300 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 631-701 EAST FIRST STREET, 14921-14971 HOLT AVENUE, AND 18182-18232 IRVINE BOULEVARD FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. (1) APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE SHOPPING CENTER; (2) AMEND THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 76- 14, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURTYARD SHOPPING CENTER, TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE SHOPPING CENTER, INCLUDING AN ADDITIONAL 1,934 SQUARE FEET IN BUILDING AREA; AND (3) TO APPROVE A MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR THE COURTYARD SHOPPING CENTER WHICH DEVIATES FROM STANDARDS OF THE SIGN CODE PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 9404B6 Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 94-011, Conditional Use Permit 94-004, and Conditional Use Permit 93-035 by adopting Resolution No. 3287 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky C. Stone, Assistant Planner The Public Hearing opened at 9:51 p.m. David Obbage, Donahue Schriber, stated that the shopping center had opened in 1977 and now there were struggling merchants due to the inefficiency of the design and they wished to correct the situation by demolishing and reconstructing a new building for a single tenant, Mrs. Gooch's, which is a very successful operation dealing in natural foods. This would be the first Mrs. Gooch's store to be opened in Orange County having seven stores in the Los Angeles area. He stated that they were in general agreement with staff and thanked them for their cooperation and assistance on the project. Ruben Andrews, Graphic Solutions, stated that there were a couple of small issues of concern. One was the Real Estate sign which he wished to be 64 square feet instead of the 24 square feet now allowed. He feels that this reconstruction makes the center like new and they wish to market it as such. He also asked for 100 square foot banners for promotion and special events instead of the 32 square feet in order to promote Mrs. Gooch's. Commissioner Kasalek asked the height of the current monument signs and how many there were. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 15 Ruben Andrews stated that there were four at eight feet in height. Staff corrected this saying there were three monument signs. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there was a reason for requesting the monument signs to be 14 feet in height. Ruben Andrews stated that they would still be in scale and that there is a planter at the bottom portion. The sign would also list four major tenants and name the project. Since the face is narrow they need the extra height. The Public Hearing closed at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Mitzman stated that it seemed that making the real estate sign larger would not attract but make the developer seem desperate. Staff stated that they were not in support of the 64 foot sign. Commissioner Weil agrees that a larger sign would not make a good impression. The Public Hearing opened at 10:02 p.m. Ruben Andrews stated that the project sign was important to them as it announced the project. The Public Hearing closed at 10:03 p.m. Commissioner Weil feels that 24 square feet is more than adequate and as far as the 14 foot monument sign she agrees with Commissioenr Kasalek. She feels three signs are adequate for they cover Holt, First Street and Newport Avenue. Commissioner Lunn agreed with the other Commissioners. Commissioner Weil stated that the Real Estate signs and banner sizes should be left as they are. The Public Hearing opened at 10:08 p.m. Ruben Andrews stated that it was very important that they have a sign on First Street since the property is wrapped by Holt. David Obbage stated that as one travels down First Street toward Newport the entrance to the shopping center is passed before the sign can be seen. He stated that an issue with renting the tenant space to Mrs. Gooch's was the fact that there would be signage on First Street since they are not readily seen from that direction and were also very concerned with exposure on Newport. Commissioner Weil asked if a six foot sign would be sufficient. The Director felt that it was necessary for them to have the height on the signs. Mervyns has stayed in the center but also needs the exposure and that is a consideration. This shopping center has major tenants and it produces a good tax base. Commissioner Kasalek stated she was only concerned about the massive look. The Public Hearing closed at 10:15 p.m. -i- ............. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 16 Commissioner Kasalek moved, Mitzman seconded, to approve Design Review 94-011, Conditional Use Permit 94-004 and Conditional Use Permit 93-035 by adopting Resolution No. 3287 as submitted. Motion passed 4-0. Commissioner Baker abstained. 8. Interim Urgency Ordinance APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15262 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENCY WITH THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue consideration of this Interim Urgency Ordinance to their August 8, 1994 meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Department Director, Community Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded, to continue consideration of the Interim Urgency Ordinance to the August 8, 1994 meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: 9. Sign Code Exception 94-003 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. WILLIAM TAYLOR TAYLOR'S RESTAURANT 1542 EL CAMINO REAL TUSTIN, CA 92680 EDGAR PANKEY 320 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 1542 EL CAMINO REAL CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-2) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) SECTION 15301 TO PERMIT AN EXCEPTION FROM TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9403hd REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE TO BE SUBORDINATE TO BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION, AND TO ALLOW SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE TO EXCEED 25 PERCENT OF THE ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA. Recommendation -Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Becky C. Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Mitzman asked if to simplify the situation the issue was that a new sign had been erected without approvals and they are currently in violation of City code. Staff stated that this was correct. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 17 Commissioner Weil asked if it was more or less than 50% of the sign that was damaged. She stated that she had gone through the sign code quite extensively and that a business identification should name only the name, address and lawful use of the premises on which it is located and that does not necessarily say it has to be the DBA name. She stated that she would have a problem asking Mr. Taylor to take the sign down if he had put up the word "restaurant" but he had put up a sign naming a product and the code is very clear on the fact that products can only be 25 % of the total allowed sign area. Staff stated that the damage was less than 50%. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the supplemental signs were pre- existing. Staff stated "yes" as far as is known they were up with the beginning of the restaurant. Lois Bobak stated that the word restaurant would not be a supplemental sign and would be a lawful use. Ron Little, Manager, Taylors Restaurant, stated that the reason that the word "burgers" was put up was because this indicates it is a food place and since the freeway has eliminated their sign being seen going southbound, 25-30% of their business has been lost and they needed the exposure. Commissioner Weil asked if they had spoken to Mr. Pankey about putting up a 24 foot high freeway sign and asked if he had seen the staff report. She stated that the sign manufacturers know that they must check with the City before they put up a sign and she suggested that Taylors go back to them for compensation. Staff stated that there was some confusion on the applicants part between their understanding of the building code and the sign code. Commissioner Baker moved, Mitzman seconded, to deny an exception from the Tustin City Code Section 9403hd requiring supplemental signage to be subordinate to business identification and denied allowing supplemental signage to exceed 25 percent of the allowable sign area. Staff was directed to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting to be held August 8, 1994, denying the requested sign code exception. Motion passed 5-0. 10. Design Review 94-021 APPLICANT: THE HOME DEPOT 601 S. PLACENTIA AVENUE FULLERTON, CA. 92631 ATTN: JEFF NICHOLS OWNER: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92658-8904 ATTN: KEITH EYRICH AGENT: DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE RD., SUITE 300 NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660 ATTN: MARK WHITFIELD REPRESENTATIVE:GREENBERG FARROW 17941 FITCH ROAD, 2ND FLOOR IRVINE, CA. 92714 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 18 LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ATTN: TAMARA SANTONI 2782 EL CAMINO REAL PLANNED COMMUNITY-MIXED USE (PC MU), SPECIFIC PLAN EAST TUSTIN THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A GREENHOUSE, MODIFY THE RECEIVING AREA, EXPAND THE GARDEN CENTER, ADD A NEW TOWER COLOR AND MODIFY THE PARKING LOT DESIGN AND ACCESS DRIVE AISLES. Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 94-021 by adopting Resolution No. 3292, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Kasalek asked if the West Drive aisle was being widened at all. Staff stated that the corner radius would flare out a bit more to facilitate an easier right turn into Beacon Bay and then on to the new one way drive aisle out of the project. They had done restriping and added some signs to direct traffic to other parts of the center for exiting. Commissioner Mitzman stated that this was quite a concern since he feels it is probably the worst intersection in the City. He asked if it was in the traffic study that there be an added right turn lane and could the landscape be eliminated to help the situation. Commissioner Kasalek stated that the right turn did not seem to be the only problem. Commissioner Mitzman stated that an other problem might be that people are stopping to pick up the purchases which eliminates one more lane. He feels that this creates a very dangerous situation for pedestrians. He asked if sidewalk sales were permitted. Staff stated that the East Tustin Specific plan prohibits outdoor storage and Home Depot is not cooperating. They have indicated that some of the problem may be alleviated with the addition of the expanded garden area which is being requested. In most of the communities in which Home Depot operates there is a continuous enforcement problem. It is important to reinforce the condition and staff needs full support to cite them when they are in violation. As part of the conditions and improvements of Black Angus they did show an increase of the radius at West Drive to accommodate the additional striping that was identified on the six month improvement program so if these mitigations come back and there still needs to be additional mitigations that would be one of the items looked at to provide additional right hand turn movements. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the parking was so limited that the idea of opening the whole drive way up was an option. Staff stated it was possible if it became a necessary mitigation measure. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 19 Commissioner Lunn stated that the loading area in front of Ikea seems to work well and asked if at some time in the future they could reconfigure the parking field so that it would work better. Staff stated that it certainly could be looked at but that it is not all a loading problem. The primary problems seems to be the number of people crossing in front of Home Depot and as cars leave E1 Camino they can't get through and consequently back up into the intersection. Commissioner Mitzman asked if Home Depot has agreed that by agreeing to these conditions they will stop sidewalk sales. Staff stated that by signing the conditions that is in fact what they would be doing, if that becomes reality will remain to be seen. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the applicant was in agreement that in six months there would still be a study needed. Mark Whitfield, Donahue Schriber, Manager of Tustin Market Place, wanted to address a few things with the application, specifically there are improvements intended to address some of Commission Mitzmans comments. There is a widening to 33 feet at West Drive which is intended to increase the stacking of what is considered the north bound or exiting lanes. He had a question as to the condition of the movement of the drive 50 feet to the east as it comes against his traffic engineers thinking as well as Home Depots traffic engineers thinking. He understands the importance of the six month traffic study. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the moving of the 50 foot drive could be addressed. Staff stated that the condition is worded as approximately 50 feet and should be reviewed by the Director of Community Development and Public Works. This creates the environment to work out the details in the plan check stage. Now the cross access is right at West Drive which would still create a bottleneck condition so it should be moved further to the east. Tamara Santoni, Greenberg Farrow Architecture, discussed Section 4.2 A to provide one tree for every 30 feet from West Drive to Myford Road. They do not think they can do that all the way down and would like to change the wording to provide one tree for every 30 lineal feet, on the south side of the new drive aisle adjacent to the rear parking area by Myford Road. Because of the concern of providing a visual screen for the garden fence they wish to replace Condition 4.3, changing it to say, "additional landscaping shall be provided to visually buffer the garden center." She feels they can achieve the same thing with vines and bushes. The Director stated that this wording would be too broad and does not provide an objective criteria to review a set of plans and staff can suggest some alternate language. Commissioner Mitzman asked if the Planning Commission had authority for code enforcement. He believes it is a public safety issue and wanted to know if the Commission had the authority to say this was approved conditioned on code enforcement of sidewalk sales. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 20 Staff stated that the Community Development Department has the enforcement obligation under code enforcement but this is not like a conditional use permit where the Commission can impose a revocation clause or has the ability to revoke a permit. This is just an architectural review. It, therefore, becomes an enforcement matter for staff and becomes much more difficult than it would be in any other instance of discretionary action. Staff has added a condition that prohibits outdoor storage and the conditions reinforce this and the City will continue to enforce if there is violation. Citations do not necessarily mean the violation will be removed. Commissioner Mitzman asked if staff had received any indication that Home Depot would stop sidewalk sales. Staff stated that their standard method of operation is outdoor sales. Representatives of Donahue Schriber have sat down in counseling sessions with the applicant and still have not been able to resolve the issue. Staff has been told by Donahue Schriber and the applicant that the justification for the garden center expansion will reduce some of the outdoor issues but staff feels that is not a guarantee that Home Depot will cooperate. Lois Bobak stated that in order to put a little more strength into the condition, some language can be added that if there is storage or display in violation and the City is required to incur costs, in code enforcement including the involvement of the Attorney's Office, that Home Depot would agree to reimburse the costs. This may encourage Home Depot not to violate the provision and will also provide a little more authority ,if it is in a condition of approval which the applicant signs off on and accepts should it go to court. Commissioner Mitzman said he did not wish to mis-lead, that he felt Home Depot was a fabulous use and he was there practically every Saturday morning himself but he feels that there is a safety issue there with the congestion. Commissioner Baker stated that he would welcome a suggestion as to how to get pedestrians across the drive aisle. To really handle the traffic there really needs to be four lanes but how do you get people across there. Staff stated that concerning proposed modifications to the landscaping conditions those conditions come directly from the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines which require landscaping along perimeter property lines as well as adjacent to building structures. As part of the requirement for one tree for every lineal foot does not mean it has to be on center or in a consistent pattern, it could be grouped, clustered or somewhere in the general vicinity that would get credit for that number of trees, through the plan check process staff can work with the applicant and to that extent staff would not recommend modifying this condition. Commissioner Baker asked if there was any discussion on the tower color. None of the Commissioners were concerned with it. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 21 Commissioner Weil asked if with the new parking spaces in the back of the building could customers use the back entrances or would they be just for employees? Staff stated that would be up to the individual operation of the tenants. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Lunn seconded, to approve Design Review 94-021 by adopting Resolution No. 3292 revised as follows: Exhibit A, page 3, Condition 3.1 shall read, "There shall be no storage or display of any merchandise, products, plant materials or promotional activities on the sidewalk outside the Home Depot store or above the 25-foot high perimeter fencing and columns. A note shall be added to the plans stating that outdoor storage and display are prohibited. Home Depot shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City, including all reasonable attorney's fees, in enforcing the provisions of this condition. In the event there is a violation, the City may also require Home Depot to post a cash bond in the amount of $10,000 to cover costs of enforcement. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Home Depot shall sign a separate agreement evidencing its consent to this condition." Exhibit A, page 6, Condition 4.3 to read, "Where sidewalks would permit, additional trees, 15 gallon in size shall be provided along the north side of the garden center, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development." Motion carried 5-0. 11. Planning Commission Re-organization Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission follow procedures noted below to elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-tem. By consensus vote the Planning Commission directed staff to agendize reorganization for the next meeting date of August 8, 1994. 12. Status Reports For the benefit of the two new Commissioners staff reviewed the purpose and use of these reports. The report was received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS: 13. Report on Actions taken at July 18, 1994 City Council Meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda with highlights of the following, Council upheld the denial of Zone Change 94-002 along Red Hill; the appeal of the Ail Star dedication requirements; McKinney Act discussion on the Base Closure project and the Roller Hockey facility potentially at Columbus Tustin Sports Park. A full report will come back on the McKinney Act and Roller Hockey issue at the next Council meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Lunn Said serving as a Commissioner was very interesting and she is enjoying it. ! ..... ! ........ 111 I I] Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Page 22 Commissioner Baker - Welcomed the two new Commissioners Commissioner Mitzman - Stated he was pleased to be serving as a Commissioner; his family has been in the City for 30 years and hopefully he could bring something to the City that will be of help. Commissioner Kasalek - Stated that she was glad to have all of the Commissioners working with her. Noted that there was a short red netting being used as a fence surrounding a construction excavation at a Chevron Station on Walnut and Red Hill where tanks are being put in and inquired if this type of fence was acceptable. Staff stated that chain link fence was required around a construction site and that someone would be sent out tomorrow to investigate the matter. Commissioner Weil - Welcomed the new Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Motion Carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commi~ion isj~August 8, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council C h/~~~J~ntenn±ai Way, Tustin. ( ~2(.,~.~/ ( X ~//Thairper~on ' Barbara Re Secretary