Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-28-94MINUTES TUST'rN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING M~RCH 28, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Weil, Baker, Butler, Kasalek, 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: (ALLMATTERS 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 March 14, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Butler seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. 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. 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 and Design Review 93-030 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660 BAYCREST DEVELOPMENT 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660 LOTS 28 AND PP OF AMENDED MAP NO. 1 OF TRACT 12870, NORTHWEST CORNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND TOWNSHIP DRIVE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL - (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 2 STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 10.582 GROSS ACRES INTO 69 NUMBERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 69 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS AND 17 LETTERED LOTS FOR LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE STREETS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3239; 2. Approve Design Review 93-030 by adoption of Resolution No. 3240, as submitted or revised; and 3. Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 by adoption of Resolution No. 3241, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Weil asked if the sister project contained slump stone fences. Staff stated that the sister project contains the wood production fences. Commissioner Stracker asked if the sister project also included "Z" lots. Staff replied, "yes". The Public Hearing opened at 7:10 p.m. Douglas Woodward, California Pacific Homes, noted that originally this project was designed along with Lot 8 as one continuous project with "Z" lots but following that, 120 condominium units were approved. Now, because of the current market they have changed their position and have returned to the original plan. In doing so they have decreased the density. The projects are called San Miguel I and II and ultimately will contain a total of 138 units. The present proposal is a sister project to the first. The model complex currently operated with continue throughout the life of both tracts and the recreation area will be utilized by both tracts and linked by a pedestrian paseo. There are two items in which they disagreement with staff, 1) The request for block walls. (It is important to them to have consistency in both tracts and the other tract contains wood fences) and, 2) locking mail boxes. (Since the other tract was approved with no mention of locking mail boxes and also they feel there is not a ready supply of adequate product). Commissioner Stracker asked that if the Planning Commission requested masonry walls, would they be willing to install them in the adjacent tract as well. Mr. Woodward stated that he did not have the authority to accept that condition. Commissioner Weil asked to see the fence model. Mr. Woodward showed and explained the fence model. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the homeowner would be responsible for painting the fence following the original paint application by California Pacific. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Woodward noted that the CC&R's state that the homeowner is responsible for maintaining the rear yard fences. Commissioner Stracker asked if the offset nature of the entry roadway had been looked at with regard to traffic entering it and the adjacent roadway. Staff noted that there were no concerns as it is shown. Commissioner Butler asked if both sides of the fence were identical. Mr. Woodward replied "yes". The Public Hearing closed at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if locking mailboxes and the numbers of boxes listed were a requirement of the postmaster. Staff stated that the language in Condition 4.10 for locking mailboxes has been stipulated as policy direction by City Council. In regard to the number of mailboxes, this item will be brought back to the Planning Commisson for more detail and review. Commissioner Kasalek commented that she had looked for a locking mailbox for her own use and had not found an acceptable product on the market. She would have a problem imposing a condition if a product were not available. Staff noted that there is product available and that there was clear direction from City Council that locked boxes were desired. Commissioner Weil was concerned that small packages may not fit in these mail boxes causing an inconvenience in having to continually go to the post office and also thinks that locked boxes will send a negative message to the future buyers of the area such as areas where bars are on the windows of homes. Since the tract has locked gates, she does not feel that locked mailboxes are also needed. Commission Butler is not in favor of locked mailboxes, and has no problem with the wood fence. Commissioner Stracker prefers masonry fences. Commissioner Kasalek is not in favor of wood fences if the homeowner must maintain them instead of the Homeowners Association. The Public Hearing opened at 7:38 p.m. Jon Robertson, California Pacific Homes, noted that the CC&R's provide enforcement for requiring maintenance of the entire project. The Public Hearing closed at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Butler indicated that he was aware of some projects in Yorba Linda with problems and noted that the grading map indicated a 60 to 75 percent fill and asked if there were certain percentages required for projects. Staff noted that a compaction percentage was required by the Grading Ordinance, Building Code and Grading Manual. All projects are tested and certified by Soils and Civil Engineers before a single pad is certified, in both rough and precise grading. It was il] I ---Trl-' ' Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 4 noted that certification can only be as good as the engineer performing the service. The City of Tustin has a good inspection process but some problems cannot be avoided if work is done improperly by an engineer. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3239 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review 93-030 by adopting Resolution No. 3240 revised as follows, Exhibit A, page 2, paragraph 1, No. B, 3rd line, "waster" should read "water", Condition 3.11 on page 4 should be removed. Condition 4.10, page 7, should be modified to read as follows, "mailboxes shall include methods to ensure security provisions with locking devices where an acceptable manufactured product is available, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. Said mailboxes shall also meet the requirements of the postmaster.Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Butler moved Baker seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 by adopting Resolution No. 3241 revised as follows, Exhibit A, page 13, paragraph E, second line, add "statement to be signed by each tenant home buyer". Condition 1.1, page 1, No. H, the word "waster" should be changed to "water". Motion carried 5-0. 3. Conditional Use Permit 92-038 and Design Review 92-050 APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FRONTRUNNER HOMES 1200 QUAIL STREET, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 FRANAGOFIN, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 505 N. TUSTIN AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92705 THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET EAST OF NEWPORT AVENUE COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) DISTRICT IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CERTIFIED ON MARCH 22, 1993, ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION WILL BE REQUIRED. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE EXPIRATION DATES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-038 AND DESIGN REVIEW 92- 050. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Number 3244, as submitted or revised: 1. Approving a modification to Condition No. 1.3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3132 to allow a twelve (12) month extension through March 22, 1995 to obtain all building permits and have substantial construction underway for Conditional Use Permit 92-038; and 2. Recommending to the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency approval of a modification to Condition No. 1.3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3133 to allow a time extension to run Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 5 concurrent with Conditional Use Permit 92-038 through March 22, 1995 to obtain all building permits and have substantial construction underway for Design Review 92-050. Presentation: Dan Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Stracker asked how far along the design was and if plans have been submitted. Staff stated that the plans have not been seen as yet. The Public Hearing opened at 7:56 p.m. Mr. Vince Mayell, Frontrunner Homes, stated that plans had not yet been submitted because of failure to find financing for the project. Commissioner Weil asked the applicant if he thought that 12 months would give him enough time. Mr. Mayell indicated that due to the current financial climate he was not sure. The Public Hearing closed at 7:59 p. m. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3244 revised to modify the Resolution title and Sections 2 and 3 to read, "September 1, 1995". Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS 4. Design Review 93-041 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SANDERSON J. RAY DEVELOPMENT 2699 WHITE ROAD #150 IRVINE, CA 92714 LOT 13 OF TRACT 12763, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IRVINE BOULEVARD AND JAMBOREE ROAD. NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL), EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED, FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE MODIFICATIONS FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for this project by adopting Resolution No. 3242; and 2. Approve Design Review 93-041 by adopting Resolution No. 3243, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Stracker asked about the speed bump design to the rear of the facility and inquired as to what type of speed bump design would be utilized. Staff noted that the preliminary design has not yet been seen but that speed "humps" would be sufficient. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 6 Commissioner Stracker asked about parking behind lot D, stating that it would be difficult to back out of these spaces. Staff stated that these three spaces could be eliminated and the parking requirement would still be met. Mr. Gary Muran, Sanderson J Ray, will work with staff to safely mitigate that situation. He has reviewed the conditions and concurs except for Condition 3.1. requiring modification of the building elevation and proposed exterior materials. He stated that when Irvine Company entitled the property, at purchase, the south elevations were to have a trellis treatment but it was not return to rear. Staff noted that this is the same condition as previously proposed, but that the additional architectural details shall be added to the south side and rear elevations "down" to the service area screen wall so that below the service wall does not need embellishment. Judie Lai, Architect for Sanderson Ray, stated that the original design was one solid wall. Irvine Company and Donahue Schriber had previously worked on this condition with staff and the south wall was changed to add arches and trellis. Staff noted that this was a correction item which had not been taken care of and that this was the reason for Condition 3.1. Judie Lai feels that architecturally there would be a conflict. Staff noted that language can be added to provide flexibility to give the architect time to address the issue Commissioner Butler asked what the height difference was from the side walk to the top of the wall. Staff noted that it steps up from 7 to 10 feet. Commissioner Stracker asked if parking was all standard width and how much had been set aside for compact parking. Staff stated that there were 40 compact spaces out of total 692 parking spaces. Commissioner Stracker noted that directly opposite Pad C, there were 5 conflicting traffic areas and 4 conflicting areas at another location. Staff stated that conditions of pad development would be approved at design review and that these were only conceptual plans. Commissioner Stracker noticed that the V over C ratio changes quite a bit and asked what was happening across the street in terms of what is going to be processed in the county territory. Staff replied that the area bounded on the west by Jamboree, Culver Avenue on the east and all the way up to Portola on the north, south of the I-5 freeway, is an extremely large area, larger than our East Tustin area by several hundred acres, where there will be significant commercial development, south of Irvine Boulevard and Bryan which will correspond with what has occurred at the Tustin Market Place. There will be significant potential traffic issues. Material and a schedule of activity has been received and a report will be distributed at the next Planning Commission meeting to summarize this information from the Irvine Company. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 7 Commissioner Kasalek moved, Stracker seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for this project by adopting Resolution No. 3242 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Butler seconded, to approve Design Review 93-041 by adopting Resolution No. 3243 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 1, Condition 1.6, eliminate "Pad A"; Condition 3.13, page 9, end of sentence, add, "in addition to numbered addressing required by the UBC on store fronts"; Condition 4.11, page 12, add "include the removal of six parking spaces in the area north east of Payless Drug, incorrectly specified on the landscape plans"; and add Condition 3.15 to read as follows, "The three spaces at the entrance to the parking lot west of pad D shall be redesigned to eliminate Planning Commission concerns of traffic entering the parking lot area, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director". Exhibit A, page 5, Condition 3.1, should read, "Modify building elevations and proposed exterior materials subject to approval of Community Development Director to address the following concerns: A. Additional architectural details shall be added to the south side and rear elevations (from building elevation down to the service area screen wall) of Anchor & to include, at minimum, similar built-in arches and metal trellis elements over cement plaster consistent with the front elevation of Anchor A." Exhibit A, Condition 3.8, last line, should read, "stated in Condition 3.9(c) below." Motion carried 5-0. Draft Request for Proposal for Advertisinq Bus Shelters in the City of Tustin Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Review and comment on the proposed Draft Request for Proposals for Advertising Bus Shelters; and 2. Designate a member of the Planning Commission to be included on the Evaluation Committee that will review proposals received during the RFP process. Presentation: Katie Pitcher, Administrative Assistant Commissioner Stracker noted that he did not see an area for specific references where companies had worked previously with governmental agencies. Staff stated that Section B.1 asks that question and that there are strict advertising requirements noted in the sign code regarding alcohol and tobacco. The Commission will have full review and the City Council full approval of advertising and removal conditions with penalties included in the contract. Provisions are also included for having maintenance problems taken care of within a certain time frame or the City could have any necessary maintenance done and then recoup the cost. Commissioner Butler indicated he had a lot of issues and questions. In regard to experience needed, he questioned how a new company could get started if they have not had an opportunity to work with a government agency; he does not feel that governmental experience should be a requirement but perhaps the RFP could be worded to the effect that the experience would be preferable but not required. He asked how many companies might be bidding. Staff noted that the four large companies now in the market would probably bid but bonding issues and financial requirements are also factored in and smaller companies would not be excluded from the process if they were able to meet these requirements. Commissioner Butler asked if the franchise fee figure of 130 to 150 thousand a year as listed in the report was correct. Staff stated that it would depend upon the number of shelters. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 8 Commissioner Butler asked where the money goes for the revenue generated and why couldn't the city operate the program, receiving all of the revenue instead of franchising it out. Staff noted that capital investment for the first year is significant; at this time the City does not have a lot of discretionary funds to divert to this program, and grants which have been applied for in the past 10 months have all been denies. The advertising is also a factor since the City does not have expertise in the area of selling advertising. Commissioner Butler feels the City could borrow the money to make the capital improvements and hire a firm to sell the advertising. Staff noted that there would still be maintenance resonsibilities. They stated that the City is now in a down sizing mode and is currently modifying the maintenance operation. Also the experience of other cities has been weighed and shows that this is not very lucrative due to the heavy maintenance, up front construction costs and capital investment. Commissioner Butler asked if the shelters were to become the property of the City after the expiration of the contract. Staff stated the City could own them at that time or could extend the contract at the end of the 5 year term. Commissioner Butler noted that under the instruction portion of the RFP, no telegraphic, telephonic or faxed proposals or modifications would be accepted and asked the reason for this. Staff noted that late proposals could be accepted but experience in going through the RFP process shows that sending a late proposal in this manner and having a receipt for having done so does not mean that the City has received it. Hard copy is a verified RFP received. Commissioner Butler believes the $500 proposal guarantee to be excessive. Staff stated that with the assumption that four to five bids would be received it was not an excessive amount due to the number of hours to be spent by staff and the attorneys office in reviewing the proposals, also the City could enter into more than one franchise agreement. Staff feels that the cost should not be borne by the citizens of Tustin but rather, passed on to the parties who stand to benefit from the process. Commissioner Weil noted that it is a slim possibility that the City may not receive any responses to the RFP and with this view in mind could the matter be readdressed at a later date. Staff replied in the affirmative and also noted that an amendment could be made to provide an extension. Commissioner Butler asked if information about permit fees would be given to the applicants up front so they would know the costs involved and would the applicants receive a copy of the evaluation criteria. Staff stated that they would definitely be told the costs if they requested this information and final criteria evaluation would be a matter of public record when presented to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 9 Commissioner Kasalek asked if the Irvine Company is responsible for the East Tustin area and did they have freedom to set up these same types of shelters with advertising and would this revenue go to the City. Staff stated that no advertising would be allowed under the East Tustin conditions. Commissioner Butler asked if both sides of the panels were lit and if electricity was of low voltage. He also inquired as to why the benches were not attached to the shelters. Staff stated that only one two sided panel was allowed and both sides of it were back lit. Regarding the electrical question, UBC codes must be complied with. It is easier to maintain or replace benches not attached and also a provision will be added to request stool type benches to discourage reclining. Commissioner Weil asked how much time was allowed for public service messages and who made the decision as to what they would be. Staff stated that the company would bear the cost of advertising any program the City asked them to for a period of 20 days a year. Staff will look for direction and policy decision as to the content. Commissioner Stracker feels that requiring and verifying a certain amount of service experience is a good protection for the city. Commissioner Kasalek asked what will occur with regards to trash and when is the decision of acceptable advertising content made. She also questioned the fact that Section 5 notes that basic shelter design does not require enclosure. Staff stated that most cities use language from the code and added to the franchise agreement is a provision that if any City official finds an advertisement objectionable the City can "on demand" ask for its removal. Page 4, Section 2, under "D" states that trash removal is required twice each week. Basically the shelters are designed for convenience of sitting and sun shade. Commissioner Weil asked where the shelters would be located and was provision made for locations where a larger shelters are warranted. Staff stated that location would be determined at the time of design selection and that right-of-way constraints were also a factor. Commissioner Butler reiterated that he is in favor of opening the bid process to more companies than those who have previously worked with government agencies; and feels that staff has justified the $500 fee, however, he would like to discuss a one-half rebate for unsuccessful bidders. He also inquired if it would be acceptable for the other companies to modify their proposals if there were late proposals. Staff noted that a 14% cost on top of any fee reimbursement would occur due to administrative costs and it would be preferable to lower the fee rather than grant a reimbursement. Commissioner Weil noted that if a company felt that a $500 fee was too high, perhaps they would also lack the experience and financial resources needed to fulfill a contract. ......... 1- HI 1' Hi '- Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 10 Commissioner Butler was chosen as Planning Commission designate to the Evaluation Committee for review of proposals received during the RFP process. Following review and discussion, the report was received and filed. 6. Status Report Commissioner Baker asked if some of the older items reported ever expired. Staff stated that there was a continual process of clearing off old items but that recent time extensions allow items to continue on the report for longer periods. Received and Filed STAFF CONCERNS: 7. Report on actions taken at March 21, 1994 City Council meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda with the following highlights. A copy of the reduced discretionary application fees will be provided to the Commission at the next regular meeting. A copy of the Tustin Pride Graffiti Sub-committee report will be provided to the Commission at the next regular meeting. The Commission will be kept up to date on Senate Bill 1477, which limits the number of people who can legally occupy dwelling units, as it proceeds through the legislature. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasalek Asked what the structure was in the Industrial Park at Walnut which resembles a water tower. Staff stated that it was the Pacific Telephone Regional Control Switching Center. Commissioner Stracker Asked about a Tustin Weekly "letter to the editor" concerning alcoholic beverage use in the Tustin Plaza. Staff stated that the applicant had signed the Conditions of Approval and had not voiced any concerns. However, the owner is proceeding with an amendment and has alerted the Chamber of Commerce. Indicated he had recently attended a meeting of the Orange County Division of the League Transportation and Public Works Advisory Committee and noted that there is a bill in the Senate now to look at the reorganization of Cal Trans into a super transportation agency, being removed from Business and Housing and added to the Transportation Section. He noted that new federal legislation (AB 3636) concerning telecommunication in infrastructure, because of the superhighway concept, will allow all information systems companies to cut into city streets without city review or franchise. The Commissioner suggested calling the League and congressional contacts for further information since Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 11 voting on this is scheduled following the Easter holiday. He also noted that federal legislation sponsored by Norm Manetta (HR 3948) allows for storm water NPDES requirements to go down to fifty thousand starting immediately. Commissioner Baker Noted that the latest issue of Western City contained an interesting article by the League of Cities concerning taggers. Inquired about the blacktop work at the Beacon Bay area of the Tustin Marketplace. Staff replied that the work being done is part of the conditions of approval related to Black Angus to modify to a one way entrance. Exhibits are being prepared and will be distributed at the next meeting of the Planning Commission to inform the Commission of what is happening. Asked for clarification on the Brown Act definition of a meeting. City Attorney, Bobak, noted that the new conditions of the Brown Act become effective April 1, 1994 and since the Act states that the Commission may take no action on items not included on the agenda she reminded the Commissioners to contact the Planning Secretary with items for the Commissioner comment section so that they may be added to the next agenda. With respect to discussions between various members, she stated that it is not considered a meeting where one member speaks with another, unless several members are involved and collective decisions are made. Social gatherings or policy events are not considered meetings as long as the members do not discuss City business. Attorney Bobak stated that a copy of the conditions of the Brown Act will be distributed to each of the Commissioners. Commissioner Butler Commended staff on the outstanding water desalinization report. He reiterated how valuable he believed this City staff is in comparison to others he has encountered, especially through his contacts with the California Association of Realtors (CAR). He has been hearing from many on the "sea of roofs" in the East Tustin area. Stated that he had recently attended a CAR Director's meeting in Sacramento and had the following to offer. A roofing measure is being put forth by Willy Brown to accelerate making all new projects Class A with no Class B roof options; a subdivision map act is being changed from 2 years to 5 years for a one time extension; an assembly bill related to water service for projects of over 500 units; and the closing of loopholes to prevent cities from seizing property through joint power agreements. A Senate Bill (SB 1814) Point of Sale, retrofitting requirement making it mandatory that all swimming pools be provided with a six foot high fence or pool cover. He also brought back some rosters to distribute to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 12 Commissioner Weil Stated that she felt that representation on the local level is probably more concerned with issues than any other level of government. Noted that today was the first day of the Metrolink service with three round trips and that there was an article in the Orange County Register featuring a map and schedule and listing Tustin as a proposed station. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:58 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on April 11, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Barbara Reyes Secretary Chairperson