Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-27-93MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Kasalek, Baker, Butler, Stracker and Well Absent: None 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 jurisdic- tion 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 September 13, 1993 Planninq Commission meetinq. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker 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. Larqe-Family Day Care Home (LFD 93-001) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DONNA FERRARI 2012 MUNTON CIRCLE TUSTIN, CA 92680 2012 MUNTON 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 T .... Tlllt -1 m~ Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 2 REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE-FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve LFD 93-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3197, 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 October 11, 1993 with responses to the issues or conditions to mitigate the issues raised by the valid protest. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. Mary Sullivan, 14881 Featherhill Road, Tustin, an adjacent neighbor stated that she was concerned about the impact of the noise level; and that "average" means half of the homes studied were above the noise level and half below. Stan Verdi, 14871 Featherhill Road, Tustin, an adjacent neighbor stated that he was concerned about peak noises and their frequency; and otherwise commended the staff on the report. Donna Ferrari, applicant, stated that she now watches four children from 9 months to 2 1/2 years old; that the noise variance was taken from a large day care center which accommodates school age and young children; that she does not intend to watch as many as 12 children, and none over the age of 4; that there will be no changes in the hours of her care, including no weekends; that she wants to accommodate siblings. Commissioner Stracker asked for a clarification of the play area for the children. Ms. Ferrari replied that the children mostly play on 3/4 of the patio which is enclosed by a removable fence, unless they are taken out onto the lawn; that they do not play near the property line. Mr. Verdi stated that the lots are not large and that the property line from the corner of their building to the fence is approximately 15 feet. Commissioner Baker asked if there had been any problems. Mr. Verdi replied that there had been no problems, but that he was concerned about the permit for 12 children. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Butler asked Commissioner Weil for her opinion on how these issues have been handled in the past. Commissioner Weil replied that the State has determined that the need for daycare is so great that they override local jurisdictions; that applications with parking issues can be refused; clarified the means of determining an average; that Ms. Ferrari is a responsible member of the community. Staff commented that the State allows that the residence must comply with the Noise Ordinance; that the existing daycare homes are maintained at 55 dBa without complaint; and that if there is a noise complaint filed, the City can take noise readings and assist the daycare home to comply. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 3 Commissioner Kasalek suggested that the neighbors speak with the applicant to correct any problems, prior to filing a complaint with the City. Commissioner Baker asked if the comments this evening should be considered a protest for continuation to the October 11 meeting. Staff replied that nothing new was presented during the Public Hearing, and if the Commission was comfortable with the input, then they should vote. Commissioner Stracker asked if parking must be maintained in the garage or driveway, as noted in Item 2B of Resolution 3197; and commented that he lives next door to a large day care home and hears some noise, but it is not a problem. Staff replied that the parking in the garage must be maintained; and that this is an opportunity to reinforce that the garage not be converted into a daycare area. Commissioner Butler commented that the applicant seems to be a reasonable person; that the letters presented express a concern regarding the number of cars. Commissioner Weil stated that there are several large family daycare centers in Tustin Meadows that have operated for years without complaint, and that this one should operate in the same way. Commissioner Baker moved, Weil seconded to approve LFD 93-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3197 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Variance 93-010 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: GARY McGILL 13682 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 PAT WELCH 17055 SOUTH PACIFIC AVENUE SUNSET BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90742 13682 NEWPORT AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL (PC-C) DISTRICT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) SECTION 15303 REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM 14 SPACES TO SIX SPACES TO ACCOMMODATE A 42 SEAT RESTAURANT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13682 NEWPORT AVENUE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Variance 93-010 by adopting Resolution No. 3194, as submitted or revised. Commissioner Stracker asked when the red curb was installed on the north side of Andrews. Staff replied that it was installed with the approval of the Music Plus Center. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:23 p.m. Mr. Gary McGill 13682 Newport Avenue, representing the property owner, Pat Welch and Bagel Me! Restaurant, stated that they wished to revise the parking variance request to allow for 30 seats with 10 parking spaces instead of the originally requested 42 seats and · 'r -i-' T'1111 "T ' ',":'TI Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 4 14 parking spaces; that the parking lot is never used due to the location of the preschool entrance being on Andrews; that they will lease extra parking and require employees to park at the car wash across the street to eliminate parking congestion; that a successful restaurant must comply with the regulatory issues and must have the physical parking available; that there is precedent for granting some type of variance since the two previous uses of the building did not have sufficient parking per the code due to the size of the building; that no business in that space can meet the Code; that by not granting a variance, the City has taken away a privilege enjoyed by others on the street. He continued with noting that if they only install 18 seats as limited by the amount of available parking, they are not required to renovate the building; that the building is within a Redevelopment Project Area; that they intend to install new landscaping, curbs, awnings, and paint; that there are special circumstances in this case since they are physically unable to meet the Code without congestion; that the City planners agreed this morning to support 10 spaces with 30 seats and that he hopes they will withdraw their denial. Commissioner Kasalek asked where the preschool employees park. Mr. McGill replied that the preschool owner parks in the joint use lot approximately 50% of the time; that employees used street parking. Commissioner Weil asked if the preschool parking lot is adjacent to the parking in the drawing; and asked for a clarification of the type of restaurant. Mr. McGill replied that the parking is the gray area on the illustration; and that they will have a full line of bagels, bagel sandwiches and pastries; and coffee products; that the nature of the business is take-out, with not much sit down. Commissioner Baker asked the hours of operation. Mr. McGill replied that the hours would be approximately 6:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., with no entertainment or liquor. Commissioner Stracker asked for clarification of the lunch trade. Mr. McGill replied that the sandwiches would be made with bagels instead of bread, like a deli sandwich. Commissioner Butler asked if any effort had been made for a parking agreement with the Music Plus Center. Mr. McGill replied that no spaces are available in that center; but that the car wash is not far for employees to walk. Mr. Earl Fleck, 13732 Newport Avenue, Tustin, owner of the building south of the restaurant, stated that he was concerned that his lot would be used for overflow parking; that there were minor problems with the past deli; that they lost three spaces when the curb was painted red; that his parking lot is used for principals and customers; that he would like to see the building improved; and that he is concerned that overflow cars would take spaces away from his customers. Commissioner Kasalek asked if he had any signage for "Customer Only" parking. Commissioner Weil asked if he would approve of conditioning the applicant to provide a sign. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Fleck replied that they do not have a sign, and do not wish to be required to tow; and that they do not want to be the convenience for them to make the business successful; that he would rather it be structured within the confines set by the City. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the 3 red spaces referred to. Mr. Fleck replied that there are 3 spaces in front of his building; and that some of his staff are using the legal on-street parking. Staff replied that the red curb is for site distance at the driveways and intersection; the green curb was installed at the direction of San Remo's; that the Public Works Department would condition the completion of the red curb with this applicant. Commissioner Weil asked if the red curb would be removed even if the Commission approved the parking. Staff affirmed that the curb front would be restriped red. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. Staff presented conditions of approval if the application is approved by the Commission: no entertainment would be permitted; no outdoor seating allowed; no ABC license; employees park off-site at the car wash; and noted that there could be enforcement problems in the future if the restaurant wanted to accommodate more customers. Lois Bobak, City Attorney, suggested that if the Commission is considering the alternative proposed by the applicant, the matter should be continued for analysis of the alternative with consideration of conditions of approval so that it is not approved in haste. Commissioner Weil appreciated the counsel's advice and stated that a restaurant of this type would not normally require as many seats as 42; suggested that 30 seats might be considered, but 42 would not be acceptable; and agreed with continuation of the matter. Commissioner Butler agreed with continuing the matter; and asked for a staff report regarding parking available at Music Plus Center. Commissioner Butler moved, Weil seconded to continue the item. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she was concerned with 42 seats and parking; that if the restaurant had a take-out trade, why would the applicant need so many seats; and was concerned with the business suffering due to the parking as the past businesses have. Commissioner Baker was concerned about the elimination of parking spaces at the curb; that a 3:1 ratio is not accurate for a bagel shop; that he was more interested in 30 seats; was concerned with the overflow parking affecting the neighbors; and asked staff to inform the applicant as to requirements for awning detail. Staff clarified that San Remo was an existing non-conforming use; that the sports store was a continuation of the non-conforming use due to not expanding or intensifying the use; that a restaurant would intensify the use and would be a non-conforming use unless brought up to current standards; staff had mentioned that they would be willing to look at alternative seating, but at no time did they indicate they would outright support a variance for 30 seats · ..... T- " 11111 '-1"' ~11 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 6 instead of 42; that Music Plus Plaza has no available spaces; that if the Commission decides that 30 seats is more acceptable, there is still a 40% reduction in parking opposed to 54%; that the nature of the business in the morning at peak periods has a quick turnaround within close proximity to the preschool; that the Engineering Department recommends red-striping along Newport as a condition of the Music Plus Plaza to improve visibility; that he would recommend continuing the application and bringing it back with the appropriate conditions; and that the property is within the South Central redevelopment project area and all design and site improvements would be subject to approval of the agency. Commissioner Stracker stated that he was not concerned with a bagel shop with morning traffic, but was concerned with traffic back-ups that could occur if the lunch period is successful; and that the Commission needs more information as to what kind of parking this business will generate as a sandwich shop; and that parking would have difficulty pulling out with other traffic entering which could cause back-ups down the street. Commissioner Butler asked what other uses could be had for this property. Staff replied that a restaurant of 18 seats or retail use would be acceptable; that being a big tenant space is part of the problem; that as an enforcement problem seats tend to increase which would increase the parking problem. Commissioner Weil requested a menu to provide an idea of the nature of the business. Commissioner Weil withdrew her second of the motion. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 8:00 p.m. Mr. McGill replied that they did not have a printed menu, but could provide one; that there was nothing unusual planned; that they would be providing meat sandwiches which would require seating; that his experience indicated that 30-40 seats would be required to make the shop economical; that there will be a problem with other uses if the City strictly adheres to the parking requirements; that retail would require 14 spaces; that they were originally told that their use would require 14 spaces; and that they have almost 2,800 square feet and did not understand the parking requirements in the beginning. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:02 p.m. Staff recommended continuing the item to the October 25 meeting to allow time to address the comments and renotice. Commissioner Butler moved, Weil seconded to continue the item to the October 25, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Desiqn Review 93-023 and Conditional Use Permit 93-030 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: LOCATION: CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 ATTN: MR. RANDY WESTRICK PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-316 (12850 Robinson Drive) Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 7 ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: COMMUNITY FACILITY - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1 . APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT; AND 2. AUTHORIZATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SPORT FIELD LIGHTING. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3195; and 2. Approve Design Review 93-023 and Conditional Use Permit 93-030 by adopting Resolution No. 3196, as submitted or revised. Commissioner Butler asked the distance from home plate on the Diamond that faces towards Robinson Drive; and if a fence would be provided or open bushes. Staff replied that all fields were standard softball fields; that the landscaping would provide a solid row of trees as well as a berm to slow balls down. Commissioner Kasalek asked how the 70 foot high lights compare with Harvard Park or Columbus Tustin (CT) ball fields. Staff replied that the lighting was similar to but more advanced than CT; that they could look like the new lighting at Woodbridge; that the lighting would be focused on the playing surface and glare would be minimized; that the Community Service Department receives very few complaints regarding CT; that there are only 2 light poles on the outside perimeter facing in toward the center; and that the 10:00 curfew was consistent with City park regulations. Commissioner Weil asked if the future school parking lot could be paved now; and if the ground would be hard enough to park on. Staff replied that it would be paved in conjunction with the opening of the school in the Fall of 1995; that the parking lot could be made into a temporary lot; and that they would have to work with the school district to access the property. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:09 p.m. Donald Nevins, 2519 Ballesteros, Tustin, President of Venturanza Del Verde Homeowners Association, stated that their neighborhood would be most impacted; and asked when initial design of the sports park was started. Staff replied that the first task force met September 10, 1992. Mr. Nevins stated that the developer literature they received indicated that the park would be a community park for the neighbors; that he specifically asked if the park would be a sports park; felt that, through time, the City changed the use to a community sports park; that 3 games with 6 teams with 10 players each would overlap; that he commended the no parking requirement on Robinson; that their Association is installing no parking signs; that balls will be in the street during tournament play; that they do not want to see fencing; that their main concern is lighting; that homeowners who purchased along Robinson Drive each paid a $15,000 premium for the view; that the public plans do not indicate an exact location of the lighting; that their homes are 3 story T .... ¥1'11'1 -'--!'- ' Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 8 with the living area on the second and third levels; that trees would not alleviate the glare; that evergreen trees are more preferable than eucalyptus; that the sports park will increase their property values; that the orientation of the softball fields will critically impact the views and quality of life of the homes. Commissioner Stracker asked if Mr. Nevins was present at the task force meetings. Mr. Nevins replied that he was not available for the first meetings; that other homeowners attended, but there was not a consolidated effort to attend; and that people have been moving in within the last 6 to 10 months in the majority of the complex. Ms. Marqaret Choe, 2942 Ballesteros, stated that they were encouraged by the representatives of the developer that the park would be for community use by the residents; that construction would begin within 5-6 years; that there would be plenty of time to become involved in the discussions. She continued with noting that it would be an expensive project, and asked if it was possible to use the field as a neighbor versus the paying teams to support the development; asked how the curfew hour was enforced; why the soccer fields were on the far side of the park rather than on Robinson drive since there is no lighting; that they spend 75% of the time on the second floor; that they would not want so much landscaping that it cuts outs the lighting or their view. Susan Jones, Community Services Department, stated that softball programs are scheduled with fees and times; that it is limited to 7 innings or 1 hour and 5 minutes; that the City Ordinance closes the parks at 10:00; that the lights would be on at night only and should not affect the view; that the park was designed for maximum use. Ms. Choe stated that the lighting would obscure the sunset and view; that lights would be necessary at 5:30; that they would be coming home to lights in the field; asked if there should be a limit as to how many times per week the fields should be available. Ms. Jones replied that in the summer the lights are turned on after 8:00 p.m., but earlier in the fall; that the fields are used Monday through Friday, but not Saturday or Sunday; that the fields are available for rental use, but are generally not rented at night due to the cost for the renter to pay for the lighting; that this park is a high priority and had to pay for itself; that this park was designated as a high-intensity sports park in 1986; that there was a change in the lot, but there was always supposed to be a sports park in that area; that their department was instrumental in the design of the disclosure; that every effort was made to educate the community. Ms. Choe stated that there was a possible misrepresentation by the developer; that they indicated that development would not be for 5 years; that they were encouraged that there would not be 3 fields and that they would not all be on their side; that they are concerned with the problems when they wish to sell; and that there is a sign indicating that this is proposed as a "Community Park." Ms. Jones stated that she was sorry for any miscommunication by the builder; that the signs are only a general designation with a Community Park having more than 8 acres; that every builder map had a disclosure indicating the plans for this particular site; that descriptions were distributed by some builders regarding the parks in the area. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 9 Commissioner Weil indicated that the original timing was 5-6 years, but that the City Council has been pressing to begin this project. Ms. Jones agreed that the timing has been changed internally several times, with the Council making it a priority within the last year and one-half; that there are needs of recreation facilities within the community; that it will meet the needs of a lot of people, but will not make everyone happy. Commissioner Stracker stated that when Commission, they encouraged the Council fruition ahead of schedule. he was on the Parks to bring the park to Mr. Nevins stated that many of the attendees of the meeting were softball players; and asked if the City will be able to tell the residents when the lights will be turned off; asked if this is the same lighting as at Jeffrey and Barranca; and asked if the scale of the drawing was 1 inch to 50 feet. Ms. Jones replied that when they adopt an open plan for the park there will be a public forum for neighbors to become involved. Staff affirmed that the lighting would be the same. Neil Noble, architect with Anthony and Langford, stated that fields are 300 feet deep; that the lighting would not be at the corners and would be carefully directed away from the homes; that the lighting further away from the residents might affect them more. Mr. Nevin asked if any of the Planning Commission would want to live adjacent to the park with the lighting when you paid a premium for the view. Ron Reed, Reed Corp Engineering, stated that the type of system specified is the best quality manufactured and is better than the system at Barranca and Jeffrey; that the light cut-off will be sharply at all base and foul lines; that there would be less than 1/2 foot-candle outside baselines; that there will be 30 foot candles elsewhere; that the glare at the source is designed with shields on the lamps and intensity is reduced at the source by 60%; and is the best quality on today's market. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the shields would limit the glare towards the home. Mr. Reed replied that the sight of a light in the distance could be a nuisance, but the shields would help reduce the glare. Commissioner Stracker asked about the hum of the ballasts. Mr. Reed replied that there would be no hum with electronic ballasts. Commissioner Butler asked if site drawings would have been done by the staff or architect. Staff replied that it is not a requirement to provide section details, but would have been done by the architect if provided; and that the lights will be above the residents' eye level and focused down. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Butler noted that this was being approved without operation schedules and noted that the homeowners should be ' -1' '-11' Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 10 involved in the input; that 203 parking spaces may not be adequate; that their Association is putting up signs regarding parking and asked if the City could help with the cost of the signs. Ms. Jones responded that 203 spaces is more than provided at CT which has 4 diamonds, a gymnasium (under construction); that when all fields are lit, there is still lots of parking; industry standards indicate that 203 spaces is a lot of parking; that most of the people in the beginning will be people from the area; that the school will contribute 40-50 more when completed; and compared to the example set by CT, they should not worry too much. Lois Bobak, City Attorney, responded that any policy decision to make a contribution to the homeowners association would have to be made by the City Council. Commissioner Butler commented that he hoped the school district installs the parking to alleviate potential parking problems; that a 300 feet fence line is a long way, but not necessarily for a good ball player; that the field facing Robinson Drive should possibly not be used for A or B tournament play; that the homeowners should not be concerned about property values; and asked if the landscaping would be turf or seed. Staff replied that it would be seed with a 90 day maintenance period. Commissioner Weil was concerned that the bathrooms are not locked at night and loitering around the outside telephones; that staff has indicated that there have been no loitering problems at CT; but if a problem occurs, they look at moving the telephones inside. Commissioner Baker asked if the acreage was the same as planned in 1986. Staff replied that the original park was to be an 16 acre community park and a 4 acre neighborhood park and an adjacent high school; that with the relocation of the high school site, the community park was swapped for a 20 acre site; and that the change occurred in 1988. Commissioner Baker stated that they try to keep the neighbors and buyers notified; that it will be an exceptional park, but sizable, and would be a benefit for the area. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she felt comfortable that staff and the architects took the time on the lighting issues to ensure that the neighbors are not disturbed; and encourage the homeowners association to stay in touch. Commissioner Stracker moved, Baker seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3195. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Stracker moved, Weil seconded to approve Design Review 93-023 and Conditional Use Permit 93-030 by adopting Resolution No. 3196 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: 5. CITY OF TUSTIN DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Receive and file General Plan Task Schedule; 2. Request that Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 11 staff adgendize a Planning Commission discussion on the Draft General Plan and EIR for their meeting on October 11, 1993. Commissioner Weil asked if the document the Commissioners had was the same as the Assistant Directors'. The Assistant Director affirmed and noted that all corrections and comments were incorporated. Commissioner Butler requested a copy of the changes be supplied for identification of changes. The Assistant Director replied that he could make an appointment to review the changes; that the changes were checked to ensure all comments were incorporated; and could provide the changes before October 11 if necessary. Commissioner Weil suggested that each Commissioner review their own changes. Commissioner Weil moved, Butler seconded to receive and file the General Plan Task Schedule. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Weil moved, Butler seconded to request that staff agendize a Planning Commission discussion on the Draft General Plan and EIR for their meeting on October 11, 1993. Motion carried 5- 6. Status Report Commissioner Weil noted that she appreciated the work done on the Greinke property. Commissioner Butler moved, Weil seconded to receive and file the status report. Motion carried 5-0. 7. Newspaper Clippinq Service Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. It was requested that the City Manager's office make additional copies of the articles they clip for the Planning Commission. NEW BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: o Report on actions taken at September 20, 1993 City Council meetinq Staff reported on the subject agenda. Commissioner Weil asked for a clarification of the signal changes at Red Hill and Edinger regarding the railroad crossing; and regarding the status of bus shelters. Staff replied that the signals were changed to assist with intersection congestion when a train goes through the Red Hill crossing; and that the Public Works Department is working on an RFP for bus shelters within the City. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 12 COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Stracker -Noted a correction to Page 14 of the minutes from the September 13, 1993 Planning Commission meeting: second line, change "would" to "could". -Inquired about the striping guidelines for private property. Noticed striping on Parkcenter in the Monterey project is inconsistent with industry standards. Staff indicated that striping on private streets needs to be consistent with the City's construction standards for private streets and would look into the matter. -Inquired if notices were sent to the surrounding residents regarding special event parking for B'Nai Israel Temple. Staff noted that the temple would handle the noticing of residents. -Asked City Attorney, Lois Bobak, about the status of the Brown Act. Lois indicated that the bills were being consolidated but did not know the outcome of the voting. She would check on the status of the bill and get back to the Commission. Commissioner Baker -Noted that the lights at the temple on Bryan Avenue were very bright. Staff indicated that the electrical contractor installed the wrong lighting fixtures and are in the process of correcting the situation. -Attended the Redevelopment Agency affordable housing workshop and asked about having a similar presentation for the Planning Commission. Staff indicated that the materials could be made available to the Commission and would schedule a presentation later this year. Commissioner Butler -Congratulated Commissioners Baker and Weil on their re- appointment. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Page 13 The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on October 11, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. j 6rie- .~sale~-~ ? ChairpersOn /~Ka~thleen C~ ~ Secretary 1111t '1' 'Ti1