Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-22-93MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: 7:05 p.m., Tustin Senior Center PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Kasalek, Baker, Butler, Stracker and Weil 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 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 March 8, 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. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 2 2. Conditional Use Permit 93-005 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ALI H. YAZDANI 648 E. FIRST STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 LARWIN SQUARE TUSTIN 275 CENTENNIAL WAY #209 TUSTIN, CA 92680 642 E. FIRST STREET ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 401-601-01 FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL AS PRIMARY USE IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS A MINOR ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING FACILITY AND IS, THEREFORE, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A COMMON OUTDOOR DINING AREA Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 93-005 to authorize the establishment of a common outdoor dining area by adopting Resolution No.3126, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Commissioner Weil inquired about a condition of approval related to storing the chairs when they are not in use. Staff replied that this information can be found on page 2 of Exhibit A, Condition 2.4. Colored photographs of the site were distributed to the Commissioners. Commissioner Butler asked if there had been any calls as a result of the noticing. Staff replied, no. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. With no questions of the applicant, the Public Hearing closed at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Baker wanted to know if it was the intent of the owner to have the umbrellas which are represented in the photographs. He liked them and thought the colors looked good. Commissioner Kasalek also indicated her approval of the colors and thought they called attention to the tables. Commissioner Baker asked if there is a condition or can one be drafted to include the umbrellas. The Director indicated that additional wording could be added to have them authorized provided they have no signage on them. Commissioner Kasalek thought that "maintained in good condition" should also be added. Commissioner Weil agreed that the umbrellas call attention to the fact that there are tables and the colors spruce it up. Commissioner Stracker stated that he assumed the applicant knew that if approved, these tables and chairs would not be strictly for him but would be for public use. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 3 Staff suggested including in the revision the fact that these tables and chairs must be kept under the trellis. Commissioner Butler moved, Weil seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 93-005 by adopting Resolution No. 3126 as revised, adding Conditions No. 2.6 to read "Solid colored umbrellas may be utilized in conjunction with the outdoor seating provided that no signage shall be permitted on the umbrellas; they shall be maintained in good condition and they shall be located only under the trellis structure". Motion carried 5-0. 3. Conditional Use Permit 92-048 APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: LITTLE FUN STATION 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE #740 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THE IRVINE COMPANY C/O DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD #300 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 2802 EL CAMINO REAL EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - MIX USE DESIGNATION IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS A MINOR ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING FACILITY AND THEREFORE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY TO INCLUDE A CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA, RESTAURANT, PARTY ROOMS AND CHILD CARE. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 92-048 by adoption of Resolution 3129, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Commissioner Stracker stated that there appears to be a lot of tables within the restaurant and wanted to know if this was anticipated as a very intensive use. Staff indicated that it was anticipated to be a normal restaurant use and parking was based on 1/75 sq. ft. of restaurant space. Commissioner Kasalek inquired as to what type of food would be served and would the project be similar to the "Discovery Zone" Staff noted that it was to be similar. Commissioner Weil noted that on page 5 of the provided chart, it calls out the parking rate for South Village restaurant pads at 1/100 square feet and wanted to know why there is a difference between those and the 1/75 square feet for the proposal. Staff stated that the East Tustin Specific Plan requires parking at 1/100 for fast food uses and 1/75 for restaurants. Commissioner Butler asked how many parking spaces could be restriped on the back parking lot. Staff replied that 26 spaces are proposed, but staff has not yet looked at a detailed plan. It appears that the two tenant spaces on either side are much larger than the applicant's space so there is additional area behind that could accommodate some parking. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:21 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 4 David Rhodes, Rhodes and Garrett Architects, 310 Golden Shore, Long Beach, Ca. 90802, representing the applicant, agrees with the staff report but just wanted to make one slight correction. The day care portion of the project is licensed for up to four hours although he believes that the majority of the children would remain one to two hours. Staff stated that perhaps the conditions of approval should be changed. The proposed Condition 2.1 indicates a maximum limit of three hours. David Rhodes also offered a picture board showing the applicant's existing store in another city. Staff noted that these were the same photos included in the Commission packet. David Rhodes stated that with respect to the restaurant portion of this facility, it would be much like a Discovery Zone as mentioned by Commissioner Kasalek, however, it will be a bit more upscale. The restaurant is designed in the center of the activity area so that parents participating with the children in the activities may use this area as a "resting place" This would allow them to sit in the center of the project and observe the children at play. The majority of those using the restaurant will be the same people who have come to use the activity area. Commissioner Baker asked how many of these facilities have been built. David Rhodes responded there is one located in Montclair. Commissioner Baker indicated that the Commissioners have the pictures which were provided of that facility in Montclair. David Rhodes stated that this was the second store, the first one being in Montclair. Commissioner Stracker asked if Mr. Rhodes could explain how the whole concept worked. Was this a stand alone restaurant, for example, or just a play area for the children. David Rhodes stated that unlike some of the previously designed concepts that the Commissioner may be aware of, his client is trying very much not to be a "Chucky Cheese", who have their own market place. His client is trying to be a little different. The prime importance in this facility is placed on the education aspect and motor driven skill play area which they are creating for the children to use. This, plus the service function, which is the day care area, drive this establishment and the restaurant is ancillary. The applicant doubts that people would come to the restaurant for the sake of dining unless they had children there. The noise factor from the types of activities going on would discourage quiet dining. Commissioner Baker noticed that under the conditions of approval a maximum of 22 children was indicated for the day care area and wanted to know if this was correct. David Rhodes stated "yes" and that the figure was based on state licensing requirements, as a licensed day care facility and is a square foot requirement that is applied. Commissioner Kasalek asked what types of foods were being talked about when the statement "a little upscale" is mentioned. David Rhodes stated that he did not have the menu to refer to but that the applicant intends to have gourmet foods that appeal to children. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 5 Commissioner Kasalek stated that it has been her experience that the Discovery Zone is the only type she has been in but everyone in the food areas of those places were there because they had a child there. Her experience has shown her that this type restaurant is not frequented by outsiders. David Rhodes stated that they may not sell as many nachos but it is the same concept. Commissioner Stracker stated that one of the issues the Commission needs to look at is the parking and which ratio should govern. He noticed that the rear is rather stark and there is no real visibility between the building out toward the rear parking area. He asked if the applicant would be agreeable to modifying the rear of the building. David Rhodes stated that they would not like to modify the rear of the building due to the cost involved. He indicated that this business was a very competitive market and the condition that has been placed upon them was to utilize the back area for employees as well as for party guests. Party guests can be anticipated and can be greeted and the applicant would know how to handle that, but he would not encourage a use that would have clients coming there with their kids for a Saturday evening or Thursday afternoon to utilize the parking. Commissioner Stracker then wanted to know how these people would get into the rear of the building. David Rhodes stated that there is a door there and it happens to be right next to their office. For those appointment type of visitors they would know they were coming. Commissioner Kasalek wondered if the applicant could put up a small canopy or something to indicate the exact door for entry. She thought this would be a minimal cost and would look better than just a blank wall. Commissioner Baker felt very strongly that there should be additional parking and mitigated with the spaces in the back. With only 22 children initially he was feeling the Commission should insist the children be dropped off at the back but he got the idea that the applicant did not feel they would be having many day care children. David Rhodes this is a service that the applicant plans to provide but that the majority of the users would be in the activity center and that would primarily be where people enter. Commissioner Kasalek wanted to know if there was a limit on the number of children in the activity area. David Rhodes stated that the building department places a limitation on the applicant. His client is writing a letter limiting themselves to the number of children who can use the activity area. Commissioner Baker was concerned that in his perception of the situation in a typical day care you have people rushing up and dropping off children, and running off to do other things. David Rhodes told the Commission that this would not be allowed. A person could not pull up a car and drop off a truckload of kids and then take off since their system requires stopping and checking the children in and then the parents are given bracelets that they must wear. The whole idea of the program is that the parent has to be a part of the program. Commissioner Baker reiterated that the concern was someone pulling up at the curb and leaving the car there for five minutes while they do this. He assumed the curb in that area is a red fire zone. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 6 David Rhodes stated that the way the program was set up he didn't see this as a concern. A parent might let the kids out of the car if it were raining and tell them to stay there until they parked but that there would not be line ups like at the movie theater. Commissioner Baker noted that was also the concept he had and he wondered about having children who are dropped off and left coming in the rear door also. Staff stated that the condition drafted related to the party guests who would be required to park in the rear. Commissioner Baker noted that with party guests and 22 children in day care, people are going to have to stop, park, get out of the car, walk in and he hoped everything would work well, and declared it looked terrific to him. He said he was just trying to satisfy his own understanding of the concept and that he did feel strongly that the additional parking is necessary. Commissioner Butler asked if Mr. Rhodes was involved in the day to day operation of the facility. David Rhodes stated no, that he was only the architect for the project, but was involved intensively in the development of the project. Commissioner Butler asked if there was someone present from the operational end of the project. Tim Panzer, Vice President, Little Fun Station Inc., 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 740, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 stated he believes 98% of the user of the restaurant would be people who are already at the facility for the playground or party operations. He stated that they had very little walk in restaurant use. The other item he wanted to discuss was parking in the rear, stating that although they don't have a problem with employees parking there, his concern is that it is primarily a receiving area with large trucks and that is not necessarily an environment of safety for the children. He thought it would subject them and the City to liability. Their experience has been as far as the child care which Commissioner Baker brought up that the facility would not have parents dropping off children, that there was a whole sequence of events including relevant medical history that had to be input on a computer and as Mr. Rhodes indicated, wrist bands that must be worn. Additionally, the parents would carry beepers in case of an injury to the child. It is an involved process and safety is a considerable concern. Commissioner Baker asked if they had any problem in Montclair with the parents pulling up in front of the store. Did the parents physically get out of their cars to go through the check in procedure?. Tim Panzer wanted the Commission to understand that in Montclair there is parking directly up to the curb and they have not had the double parking problem. He went on to say that most parents realize the time that is involved and they have never had an incident at Montclair as described by Commission Baker. David Rhodes stated that it probably takes ten minutes per child to check in and he didn't believe anyone would leave their car double parked for ten minutes. Ten minutes would be minimum time spent provided a parent could actually walk in and get right to the counter. Commission Stracker asked how many parties could take place at one time. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 7 Tim Panzer stated that weekends were the peak times but they are limited by the number of rooms they have. In Tustin they will have six rooms. They could only have six parties going on at any one time. Commissioner Baker asked what the total capacity in the whole place would then be. David Rhodes stated that as far as the building department is concerned, total capacity of the Marketplace store would be 800 at one time. His experience in Montclair was that the busiest time was at Christmas with 600-700 kids per day although he anticipated no more than 400 children at any one given time. The applicant is willing to limit themselves to 604 which is the calculation the architect has come up with. There are six party rooms, three of which can become day care if it is slow. They have experienced that the peak hours of day care are not the peak party hours so that it is a good use of the shared facility. Commissioner Butler asked if the configuration of the Montclair building was more of a square? David Rhodes stated that it was more of a rectangle. Commissioner Butler wanted to know how many total employees were anticipated at one time. Tim Panzer stated that management on the staff. they anticipated 50 employees plus Commissioner Butler wanted to know how many employees at one time on a regular Saturday operation. Tim Panzer stated that on Saturday and Sunday they would have as many as 15-20. David Rhodes stated that his experience with the previous operation has been exactly the same as when the kitchen is full. Commissioner Kasalek wanted to know if the majority of the parking in the back lot could actually be employees at the busiest times and thought that there wouldn't be much room for people to park for parties. David Rhodes stated there would be space for 27 cars and that for 27 employees, some of whom ride share, that even at the worst times that would only account for two thirds of the parking. Commissioner Stracker asked what the retail area was. David Rhodes stated that if the Commissioners were familiar with the Disney operation, like them, this operation would hope everybody would buy something on the way out. Mark L.Whitfield, Vice President of Donahue Schriber and Manager and Co-Owner with The Irvine Company of the Tustin Market Place,1018 Nottingham Road, Newport Beach, Ca. 92660, stated that he was at the meeting to respond to whether the restaurant portion of the use should be required to meet restaurant parking, or whether Fundazzle should be allowed the overall parking ratio of 1/200 square feet. Parking for the restaurant within Ikea was calculated at 1/200 square foot. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 8 Commissioner Weil stated that she thought that this use was an absolutely marvelous idea. She noted that something was said earlier by the applicant that they would like to change the number of maximum hours from three to four and she felt that it would take more than three hours for people to go out to dinner and see a movie so she would like to suggest that the hours be increased to four. As far as parking, her thoughts were that she would have to go along with Alternate No. 2 the 1/75. She believes that the 1/200 ratio would not adequately serve the use. Commissioner Stracker also wanted to go along with the four hours instead of three and parking Alternate No. 2. Commissioner Baker noted that if you have 600 kids, 6 kids per car, that is 100 cars. Staff stated 600 was maximum occupancy of building and that would include adults as well as children. Commissioner Baker thinks there is a need for 75 spaces and there is a definite need for more parking. Commissioner Butler stated that he was not a blueprint reader but was trying to figure out the bathroom situation as well. It looks to him like there is one large bathroom and another bathroom on the half side. Staff stated that basically they have an adult bathroom area and have an area for the child care but that really is limited and not mixed with the rest of the area so there are several. There are employee bathrooms as well as the bathroom for child care. Commissioner Butler then asked if staff thought this was adequate for the number of people that will occupy the facility. He assumed that this had been checked out but wanted to make sure. The Director stated that this is also regulated by the plumbing code so the number of fixtures is set by the occupancy of the building. Commissioner Butler also asked if the front entry doors, which he assumed were also checked out by the Fire Department, that it looked to him like there will be an entry way and exit door and that they will be six feet in width for both doors. Commissioner Butler wanted clarification on this. Staff stated that either door could be an exit in an emergency if that was the question. Commissioner Butler asked if the width was enough room to exit 600 people in a fire situation. Staff stated that this was all checked out when they reviewed the plans and she had not had any comments from the fire department that any added exiting was needed. Commissioner Baker also noted that there would be rear exits available. Staff noted that there were two rear exits, two doors at the rear of the building. There is only one on the outside but the interior hall has two exit ways. Commissioner Baker questioned that there was only one exterior door. Staff stated that the exterior door was double wide. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 9 Commissioner Butler was concerned with the 1/200 ratio and wanted to know how many actual parking spaces are necessary. Staff stated 55 if the whole business was calculated at 200. Commissioner Butler asked what is allocated for this spot. Staff answered 55 spaces. Commissioner Butler asked how many were needed for the 1/75 ratio. Staff stated that 82 were needed for the 1/75 square foot restaurant and party rooms and the remaining area of play yard and retail at 1/200 so that Alternate 2 is a combination of the two parking ratios. Commissioner Butler asked if that can be accommodated by striping 26 parking spaces in the back? Staff answered that actually 27 spaces were needed. Commissioner Butler noted that the front parking area almost all are for compact cars and wanted to know if that was an issue. Staff stated that staff did not see it as an issue. Commissioner Butler noted that he was at the Market Place this past Saturday at Home Depot peak hours and the ingress and egress were backed up every Saturday and fortunately this project is on the other side of Home Depot and the children will be out of that traffic. He noted that he had no problem with restriping the back and allowing the applicant to have the parking ratio of 1/75. If the Commission were to make the party people use the back entrance it wouldn't have much appeal. Staff noted that some landscaping could be put back there also. Commissioner Butler wanted to know where staff got 27 spaces out of there if we do that as a condition to have the party people use the back entrance. Staff indicated that they would have someone there as a greeter who would also escort the party people through the facility to the front. Commissioner Butler believes that the applicant doesn't want to do that at all if he had a choice but would rather have the party people come in the front door and he stated that he was not sure how he felt about that himself. The Director stated that there would need to be some minor alterations to the floor plan that could be made during building plan check stage. She noted that she was glad to see the Commission in agreement on Alternate No. 2. Without that direction there will be a precedent set on the issue. Ikea was an outright permitted use and did not require a Conditional Use Permit so it was within the authority of the 1/200 ratio. She was concerned with the solid exit doors on the rear of the building and thought they should be designed as a secondary entrance and identified as such with double pane glass like a store front door so that in exiting in that location there is not a security issue. Commissioner Baker stated that considering the number of people that they are dealing with it is imperative that the rear area have adequate access. The Public Hearing opened at 7:56 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 10 David Rhodes stated that they had cleared plan check and do have all of the drawings and structural information. He stated that they had gambled a bit but that they have been trying to get on this hearing for quite a long time. He stated that he did not prefer to park in the back but are willing to do that for those cases when they know that people will be coming so that they can be greeted. He wanted to impress on the panel that the doors at the rear would not and should not be used for normal exiting. They should be used for emergency exit solely and he thinks the Police Department would not wish the doors to be used on a regular basis. He stated that operationally it does not work for the facility to use them on a regular basis and they really want to discourage that. The liability would be incredible to have a child escape out the back door by exiting whenever they wanted to. He also didn't agree with landscaping at the rear, although it would be nice, they really don't have a lot of area if the striping is to be done accommodate 27 cars. He asked that the Commission please not encourage the use beyond which they can control themselves. Commissioner Weil noted that in being next to Home Depot, people are loading and are allowed to park in front of the building. She wondered if it would be appropriate to have a small sign stating no parking for Fundazzle so that people would not be confused by the people from Home Depot. David Rhodes stated that they would not object to that at all. Commissioner Kasalek thought it wold be a longer walk to park by Home Depot and go around the curb than it would be to just park in the spaces directly across from Fundazzle. David Rhodes stated that they actually do not want people to park in front of their store because like any other operation they want the visibility for anyone driving by. Commissioner Weil noted that perhaps a sign wouldn't work since even at the airport with an announcer telling you not to park in a designated zone people do it anyway. Tim Panzer noted a real concern for them is the safety issue of the rear parking. He said that the operation stressed safety and that by creating a back entrance two serious potential hazards exist, children getting out of the building or being abducted and running through an area frequented by large trucks. It is much easier for them to control the situation by using the front. If they have to use the back they request that the Commission limit it to employee parking. Commissioner Stracker thinks the problem is that on a constraint of 1/200 parking ration that has been established a long time ago do we have a use here that is going to be more intensive than 1/200 square feet and that something has to be worked out. Tim Panzer stated that even if they pulled out the restaurant the use would be virtually unchanged and by removing the restaurant would fall within the guidelines, he suggested that they have not added traffic by adding the restaurant since the patrons are on premises anyway. Commissioner Weil wanted to address the safety concern. If an employee entrance was put in back and she assumed they will not all arrive at the same time, if they had some way of getting into the building so that if the back door needed to be locked perhaps an alarm could be installed so that it would sound if the door were opened from the inside. Tim Panzer stated that would address one part. Commissioner Baker stated that he did not drive the back lot but wanted to know if large trucks did frequent the area. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 11 Staff stated that there is an access drive that goes through the parking area back toward Ikea and Toys-R-Us. The Director stated that staff has not approved the striping plan as yet and we would not be obstructing the aisle ways, that the building is such that with compact spaces it is very likely that adequate parking behind this building can be achieved. Because of the various tenant spaces and the configuration of the building it would not be an impediment to traffic circulation. Commissioner Baker clarified that there would be adequate parking without going against the rear wall of the building. The Director stated it is all common area and does not all have to be right behind Fundazzle. Commissioner Stracker noted that there is a customer pick up area there too for shelves and cabinets. Commissioner Butler asked what the hours of operation would be. Tim Panzer stated Monday/Friday 9-9 , Saturday 9-10 and Sunday 10-6 The Public Hearing closed at 8:02 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek had some concerns for the children at the parties, mainly in knowing that once a child has been in a building they are keenly aware of the exits and entrances and would take that opportunity on a second visit to attempt to exit through the back. She would like to see that area used only for employees and she was concerned that with this a precedent would be set for all of the businesses. She sees the restaurant and other uses as overlapping and in fact the operation encourages this. Commissioner Butler stated that after hearing all this he didn't think the Commission should require the applicant to drop off party people at the back. Staff noted that staff had identified as a requirement that party guests as well as employees use that area so that parking would in fact be used as opposed to just striping it and having it sit there. The Director concurred with staff's analysis that if you restrict it to employees the rest of the spaces, even if striped will not be used. Perhaps if the option were given them, the facility can control the situation themselves. Staff concurred that then there would be sort of an honor system. Commissioner Weil noted that obviously the applicant was concerned about safety and if when say around Christmas when some of the parking lot is taken up with Christmas trees, they are the ones alert to the problem and even if we required them to have their party people park in the back it is still an honor system since it cannot be watched. The Director noted that these conditions can be easily revised to indicate that all employees shall be required to park in the back and that reserved party reservation people be provided with a notice indicating available parking in the rear. Commissioner Stracker stated that what we have here is a maximum amount of parking space that can be provided at the Tustin Market Place however it is divided up. This just means that a less intense use will be available the next time around. He doesn't care where they get the 82 spaces as long as they get them if they have to be in the back to have control. The Director noted that Commissioner Stracker's point is well taken. The reality is, however, that if every pad were developed Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 12 to its envisioned use, right now there would be a parking shortage. The developer is going to have to make some decisions. We can apply 82 spaces to this use but that means that the other pads are not going to be developed to their full intensity. The applicant should on the record indicate that they recognize that there is a 52 space shortage. If the Commission does not require parking in the back, the 82 spaces could be assigned to this use which reduces parking for future uses. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the Commission could still require some parking in back for the employees to alleviate and not make 82 in the front. Commissioner Stracker wanted to know if the 82 spaces included the employee parking. Staff answered yes. Commissioner Weil noted that the parking spaces in the back are pretty much in common area anyway so can be used by the employees of Home Depot and the other facilities too. She thinks it a good idea to mark off the 27 spaces just because they are needed. Commissioner Stracker thinks that the congestion at West Drive and E1 Camino Real will pretty soon solve the parking problem as people will avoid this area. Commissioner Baker allowed as a use. wanted to know if video games would ever be Staff stated that video games were not a part of the application. Commissioner Butler wanted clarification on this, he was concerned that if this facility opened tomorrow it could have video games without coming back for a conditional use permit. The Director clarified the point saying that they could have only 5 video games and that is regulated by our Business Licensing section. Any more than that would require a Use Determination under the provision of the Specific Plan and could be classified as a Community Recreation use as well. Commissioner Kasalek noted that it was her experience from her observance of these types of facilities that video games would defeat the purpose. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-048 by adopting Resolution 3129 as revised, changing the maximum number of hours of permitted child care in Condition 2.1 from three to four; Adding Condition 3.2, using Alternative No. 2, which provides that parking for the proposed use shall be calculated at the rate of 1 space/75 square feet for the restaurant use and 1 space/200 square feet for the remainder of the area, providing a total of 82 spaces for the subject use, with the additional 27 spaces provided at the rear of the building. A parking lot striping plan for the new rear parking area shall be provided consistent with the City parking lot design standards and shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits; and adding Condition 3.2, "Ail employees shall be required to park in the rear lot." Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 13 4. Conditional Use Permit 92-047 and Desiqn Review 92-053 APPLICANT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: TACO BELL CORP. 17901 VON KARMAN #303 IRVINE, CA. 92714 FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. 1322 BELL AVENUE, SUITE 1 H TUSTIN, CA 92680 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3010 EL CAMINO REAL, TUSTIN MARKET PLACE (LOT 5 OF TRACT 13556) PARCEL 2 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LL91-1 IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN PER INSTRUMENT NO. 91-124708 MIXED USE (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3127. 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 92-047 and Design Review 92-053 by adopting Resolution No. 3128, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Weil wanted to know if there was a difference between the pay window and the pick up window. Staff Stone affirmed that the pay window comes before the pick up window, which speeds up the process. Commissioner Stracker asked if a study was done at the intersection of E1 Camino and East Drive. Staff indicated an analysis was undertaken regarding traffic conditions at E1 Camino Real and East Drive as well as the site. The Traffic Engineer for the City also took into account the impact this would have on the actual public right-of-way which is E1 Camino Real. East Drive is a private street. Commissioner Stracker asked if that report were available. Staff noted that the cuing study was attached to the report for reference. Commissioner Stracker reiterated, that he meant at E1 Camino and East Drive intersection study. Staff stated that she believed that would have to be answered by the traffic engineer. Commissioner Butler asked what the wall space was between the drive aisle, In-N-Out Burger and Taco Bell. Staff answered five feet at the closest point to the drive aisle. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 14 Douq Anderson Transportation Engineer, for the City of Tustin stated that they have reviewed the cuing study that was done by the development consultant, KHR & Associates and agrees with the study that the seven car stacking is enough and agrees that it will break down at times during peak hours. The Public Works Department has compared this with other developments that have been approved, specifically the Carl's Jr., E1 Pollo Loco and In-N-Out Burger which also have requirements of a seven car stacking and it is consistent with those. Commissioner Stracker asked if the Taco Bell at Yorba and 17th was reviewed as well. Doug Anderson responded that Enderle Center and 17th were not considered in the study. Commissioner Stracker asked if there was a study done of the East Drive and E1 Camino Real intersection. Doug Anderson answered no, not specifically East Drive and E1 Camino. East Drive is a private street. Consideration was given to the build out volumes on the E1 Camino Real and according to the General Plan it will operate at level of service "C" at buildout at the year 2010. These are forecast volumes based on the existing land use. Commissioner Stracker asked if the capacity for the left turn lane was known. Doug Anderson answered, not at this time. Commissioner Butler wanted to know if closing off that one access way off of East Drive and making people go all the way around help the traffic flow problem. Douq Anderson answered that he would prefer that rather than to give his personal opinion that if that option is a consideration that a full analysis be done with considering impacts to adjacent businesses. Commissioner Butler assumed and wanted clarification if these pads were already pre-approved for fast food restaurants or drive- throughways. Staff answered yes. Commissioner Stracker inquired what the vacant pad uses were so far and where Black Angus was proposed. Staff stated that the City does have an application for a Black Angus at that location. The Director corrected a statement saying that the Taco Bell site was not an originally fast food pad location but that it was an anticipated financial institution. She pointed out on the projection that there is another pad down below one of which has the strawberry stand, that is shown as a potential fast food location. The parking estimates were based on total buildout of the area. Commissioner Baker asked if the four decorative auto sculpture areas as the corners would be continuing or would there be discussion to remove them at any time. Staff answered no. Commissioner Butler noted that the blueprints show ten cars. Staff mentioned that he was looking at the cuing lane. Based on a 19 foot car they can get 8 cars in the cuing lane with a little bit over in the drive aisle so it calculates out at 7 car stacking. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 15 The Public Hearing opened at 8:32 p.m. Scott F. Duffner 1322 Bell Avenue, Suite 1-4 , Tustin, Ca. 92680, Vice President of Fancher Development, representing the applicant for Taco Bell stated that for the development of the pad which staff has outlined, they have reviewed all of the conditions of Resolution 3128 and have no problems or concerns with the conditions as presented. The concern that has been posed with regard to the concentration of traffic at the intersection of what is a secondary drive aisle which runs along the In-N-Out Burger/proposed Taco Bell site exiting or accessing the primary drive aisle does pose some concern, especially the recommendation to close it down. He feels that this will immediately force the problem down to the next drive aisle which serves nothing right now to the east side of East Drive but at some point in the future will serve two other fast food operations. Another concern he has that in moving this down we are basically limiting two points of access from the east side of East Drive. The stacking problem only occurs about 5-8% of the time during their long peak lunch period. In addressing the situation is two fold they have designed the site such that their access is pushed as far away from the stop sign pulling everything over to the east and as far away from that as possible, second they are proposing signage at two points along that secondary drive aisle which will remind people not to block the drives and finally it is hoped common sense will prevail. If the Commission decides that is something to consider he would like to prepare some material since they only just learned of this concern. He also wanted to point out that the secondary drive aisle which would serve the Taco Bell and In-N-Out but also the proposed use around the corner at some future time is at least 200 feet away off the public right of way represented by E1 Camino Real which is a fully signalized intersection. He does not feel they are impacting the public right-of-way. This particular Taco Bell will be a research and development type facility and they will be testing in this facility. It is called a "restaurant of the future" This will be the first store to get the kitchen equipment and speed of service equipment which will be utilized into the year 2000 in stores across the country. In the peak hour from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. The speed of service is just under 30 seconds. Commissioner Butler asked if the architect had analyzed using either one of the other fast food sites as a potential site for Taco Bell instead of using the financial institution site. Scott Duffner stated that they considered the financial institution site a better site in terms of visibility, and accessibility to the right-of-way in terms of actual site area available. Commissioner Butler asked that in order to make the 8th car fit the cuing lane was there a possibility of moving the window up 4 or 5 more feet. Scott Duffner answered that to meet certain design constraints from the kitchen and dining areas they have pushed the window as far forward as they can. Commissioner Butler asked about moving the whole building. Scott Duffner answered that the design constraint to provide the 11 foot drive aisle and a minimum 15 foot radius in the turn and still not have the building so close to the corner that people can clip it. If the dimensions are added up that must be used, the building is as close to East Drive as it can be. Commissioner Baker inquired if they considered an extra marque, as they have on 17th Street Taco Bell. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 16 Scott Duffner answered that they are proposing to have as many as two people with RF head sets during peak period of operation which will expedite the process. The equipment is linked right into the kitchen which generates the food, facilitating a 30 second speed of service. Use of a preview board is counterproductive, it is not necessarily speeding up service. Commissioner Stracker asked what the cuing length currently was on 17th Street at Enderle Center. Scott Duffner indicated the average is 5-6 cars which facilitates the busiest stores they have. Commissioner Stracker said that many times he has seen that back up into Enderle Center all the way to 17th Street and he is concerned. Scott Duffner stated that 17th Street is an older facility one of the old slump block construction conversions and Taco Bell has since done 5 different revisions to the standard plan to improve the design. Commissioner Kasalek made a suggestion that the awning be constructed so that in rainy weather does not cause water to fall on the customer at the pay window. Scott Duffner answered that they have designed the awning around this issue so that the awing will extend, if not entirely over the car, should put the water mid point on the vehicle roof. Commissioner Stracker asked if Taco Bell had looked at the intersection of East Drive and E1 Camino Real as to capacity of that left turn to provide for service. Scott Duffner replied that the had reviewed the initial study prepared for the center basically as the traffic engineer cited, it projects, at worst case, a level of service "C" well out beyond into the future. This was one of their concerns too. The intersection with East and E1 Camino Real appears to work even during peak periods, the secondary drive aisle that will serve not only Taco Bell but also In-N-Out may work all but 4-5 % of the time and that is that peak hour 12:30 to 1:30, meaning they can handle all but 10 cars at that peak period. That is not based on projected data but on actual data from the store at Barranca and it would be very close since they use that store as a model given its geographic location and it's extenuating circumstances. Commissioner Stracker noted that it appears that the situation would reach level of service "C" very quickly, with a number of other fast food facilities as well and a Black Angus. He believes that we are heading for "D" at least and that concerns him. There has been some discussion on putting a median down there to not allow left turns onto the first area. He thinks something needs to be reviewed and looked at to see just what we are getting into. Scott Duffner peak period. asked if Commissioner Stracker were talking about Commissioner Stracker stated that he was at the site on Saturday and not at a peak period and there was heavy traffic. He had counted 500 turns per hour at that location. Scott Duffner said he was not prepared to address this concern. In their evaluation they did not see that same degradation of service. Commissioner Stracker wondered where that particular evaluation was because he has not heard of it and how it would effect the other proposed uses coming up. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 17 Scott Duffner stated that he would have to defer to the Public Works Department and the representative from Donahue Schriber as to the future uses. Douq Anderson stated that when the Public Works Department looked at the project they looked at the traffic study that was prepared for the Market Place and the East Tustin area and felt the use was compatible with other uses in the area and not inconsistent with any of the similar uses that had been approved and that is what they based their analysis on. Mark Whitfield , said that Donahue Schriber wants to address the potential or future uses. They do have the limitation in what they can do with the pads and that limitation is parking. He said he could not tell if there will be two fast food uses because of a whole series of conditions that could arise. When the Master Plan was developed it was anticipated that the financial institution would be a viable candidate for that site and obviously, as we have all witnessed, this market condition has shifted their emphasis and focus. The Black Angus is anticipated and they do think the night club use is consistent with what has been identified in the plan all along. It is important from the standpoint as the developer that they need to insure proper accessibility to the portion of this south village. What is being proposed to route vehicles and create added throat depth and cuing will be perceived as very detrimental by their retailers. The Public Hearing closed at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Butler referring to the overhead projection, asked if the Irvine Company and Taco Bell would take out the middle berm in the middle of the two sections of the restaurants. He would be in favor of taking that out and making that an access drive by moving the planter area over to the left, which would make a double wide area instead of a single wide area. The Director noted that the median is backed up against diagonal parking which extends at a 90% angle and is protecting the parking space. She stated that staff is not at this point prepared to recommend that the access be altered without more thorough traffic evaluation. Commissioner Kasalek would like to see the project go forward with the site plan as submitted and if it turns out to be a problem, In- N-Out and Taco Bell are going to want to do something and then the Commission will look at modifications. One of the things which might help are changing the signs out in front. They seem a bit misleading as to where the actual entrance drives are for Carl's Jr., etc. Commissioner Weil agreed. Commissioner Stracker feels that there is a traffic impact coming off E1 Camino Real. He insisted that there will be a problem there. He feels that people are not going to be turning left into that driveway. He does not feel that the Commission has enough information to make a determination tonight and believes that they need to take another look at the Master Plan. Commissioner Butler wanted to know if 10 parking spaces were adequate for parking at the restaurant. At peak hours people will have to access across a driveway to get into the restaurant as well. Staff noted that was considered during the review and it was felt that 10 parking spaces were adequate to service the site considering that there were 16 spaces in the common area. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 18 Commissioner Butler would like to see Taco Bell there but feels concerned with the parking and can understand Commissioner Stracker's concern for he lives near Enderle Center and it is a nightmare at lunch time. Trying to get to parking is a problem and they have much more than 10 spaces. He stated that this is why he was trying to figure out a design for a different area. Commissioner Stracker stated that he is familiar with that area too and knows the problem there. He thinks Taco Bell is a good establishment and has a good reputation but when it comes down to specifics, he personally sat at the site for an hour to see how traffic was moving and at the left turn alone there were 26 times where there was actually cuing back up where the flow of traffic had to stop to wait for the left turn arrow and that is a concern for him. This restaurant is not even in yet and with two others that may come in and Black Angus, that is a lot of traffic to be serviced by the left turn lane. He still insists that the Commission does not have enough information. Commissioner Kasalek does not believe people will block the drive. Commissioner Baker would avoid closing the first driveway because if traffic is wanting to go to Taco Bell they will be traveling a great deal more distance to get into it, whether parking or going to the drive up and he would make the trip as short as possible to either facility. They will be making those left turn movements whether you put in a fast food restaurant or not. Commissioner Weil does not think this discussion is giving the driver any credit for common sense. She thinks that if people perceive it is crowded and have to make a left turn they can park right there. She thinks there is enough off-site parking space that people will park and walk. The parking lot is designed to help protect people who are walking from cars to shops. She does not personally feel that if this decision is delayed for another few weeks that it will solve anything and she is in favor of going ahead tonight. Commissioner Stracker still feels there is not enough information to evaluate this tonight. Commissioner Butler would rather see Taco Bell on the other fast food site. His experience at the other Taco Bell at Enderle shows him that people don't park, but rather they sit on the street and wait to get in. Commissioner Baker stated that we know that people have backed up at In-N-Out Burger, it may block the traffic there but it sounds to him that Taco Bell is trying to mitigate the problem with the use of personnel. Commissioner Kasalek noted that there seems to be a problem at every fast food restaurant no matter how far it is planned out. At the 17th Street facility you are dealing with a different area and different surroundings of business. She is not convinced that the other two areas now marked for fast food should be and thinks that the developer is not convinced either. She feels comfortable with it as is. Commissioner Weil agreed and thinks this is a larger plot than the other two and they accepted this one so short of telling Taco Bell they can't go in there she is not sure a delay would solve anything. She thinks that the Commission should go ahead and make a decision tonight. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 19 The Director stated that for purpose of discussion, the Commission could require a condition that would allow the Public Works Department to monitor the site in the event there are congested levels from East Drive onto the second drive. Public Works could at that point have authority to contact the owner of the property and within 30 days ask them to recommend mitigation measures to reduce and eliminate the congested condition. Commissioner Baker asked that to satisfy the Commission, what kind of teeth can be put into this 30 day notice and what if there is no response. The Director stated that with the Conditional Use Permit, conditions run with the property and staff has the ability to bring it back to the Commission for review. She stated that she would not place that obligation on the applicant because there are other things influencing the site which are out of the hands of the applicant but within the control of the owner. Commissioner Weil thinks that makes sense. In the future we would have a lot more information from those other two pads and this would put the company on alert. She does not want to tie up Taco Bell at this point. She is in favor of this suggestion. Commissioner Butler stated that he can live with that as well. Commissioner Stracker asked what kind of change can be anticipated and said that is what he was pointing out, he feels the Commission does not have enough information to even know what changes can be anticipated. Commissioner Kasalek suggested that a study would be done at the time. The Director suggested language for the condition as discussed. Douq Anderson stated that through timing of the signals we can monitor all along E1 Camino Real and we don't monitor private streets but the Public Works Department would be willing to do that. Commissioner Baker asked if that was acceptable to the applicant. The Public Hearing opened at 9:17 p.m. Mark Whitfield asked the Director to repeat the condition as she had stated it before. The Director stated the condition language again, "Traffic cuing into Taco Bell and left turn movements from E1 Camino Real to East Drive and East Drive to the secondary driveway servicing Taco Bell shall be monitored and in the event that congestion or inadequate levels of service occur as determined by the Public Works Department the Public Works director shall notify the owner of the property to conduct a traffic study, by a traffic engineer which recommends mitigation of such measures to reduce such congestion and this would be at owners expense" Mark Whitfield stated that the concern the owner will raise is requiring that condition of Taco Bell since other uses contribute to traffic flow at East Drive. The Director stated that the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land so it is the owners ultimate responsibility whether or not there is an existing interim use on the property, so the condition can be worded to be tied to the owner of the property as an obligation. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 20 Mark Whitfield stated that the owner would be willing to support a corrective device necessary to insure a proper traffic flow to their center. He stated that they can't afford to choke off accessibility to their tenants. He said they would be very concerned with condition language that would start to require a level of action within a short time period. The Director stated that the traffic study can be easily completed within a 30 day time frame and that the improvements would be dictated by the analysis and then would be required and accepted by the Public Works Department, so there is nothing in the condition that would set a time frame. Mark Whitfield noted that from the owners standpoint they would be wiling to abide by that subject to what ever conditions Taco Bell will be willing to abide by. Commissioner Weil asked what was meant by "owners" were we talking of owners of the center or owners of the pad. The Director stated, owners of the center. Scott Duffner stated that his concern is that we are tying this to the use permit relative to the Taco Bell site. Taco Bell is making the investment here for the development of the site in excess of over 1 million dollars and to have this condition that if a condition occurs according to the perception of the public works engineer that some resolution can in fact be found but he was concerned about the denial or the revocation of the use permit for this particular site. Taco Bell would have significant concern in investing in a property where revocation of that use could occur, especially when so much of the jeopardy falls outside the scope of their control. He reiterated that he has a concern with any kind of condition of that sort. They will do all they can to facilitate access to their site. Commissioner Kasalek noted that in looking at the left turns on the second drive, she noticed that some of them go to In-N-Out, and she can understand his concern if we are talking about tying their use permit into it. The Director stated that she has conferred with the city attorney who has indicated that the Commission does have the ability to impose such a condition because there are related potential impacts that have been identified on the record. Commissioner Stracker has a concern as well as that which has been expressed by the applicant. He still wants to delay. Commissioner Butler does not think imposing a condition and putting it on the owner means that we are requiring Taco Bell to do the traffic mitigation, but the owner of the property has to do it. Scott Duffner stated that it is tied to their use permit. Commissioner Butler stated that he thinks Taco Bell can certainly put a clause in their lease agreement that if the owner does not comply with the conditions of the conditional use permit that they do not have to continue with their agreement. Commissioner Weil noted that they have already spent all this money on the building. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 21 Scott Duffner suggested that as the Commission is talking about the study of the various intersections he would like to see them limit that principally to Commissioner Stracker's concern and that is, the impact of all the aisles to the public thoroughfare at E1 Camino Real. He thinks this is an opportunity, with the design of that intersection to perhaps come back and modify that intersection if it is determined that it is absolutely necessary. But tying it back to the use for Taco Bell and he has a problem with it, if the applicant would want to appeal then he will let them but by limiting it to just that area, we are dealing with something that the owner can do something with. Mark Whitfield noted that pretty clearly Taco Bell is not interested in entering into a condition that would jeopardize their use permit. Commissioner Weil said she can understand that but on the other hand the Irvine Company has plans for at least two more fast food places and she wanted to know if that was in addition to Black Angus. Mark Whitfield stated that Master Plan approval identified fast food in those two other locations and the only active deal today (negotiated deals) is with Black Angus and that is an executed deal, and it is the prescribed night club use. Commissioner Well doesn't think anyone anticipated the success that the shopping center has had, but at the same token we don't want gridlock out there. She would like to see a plan to come up with some way to take care of it in the future, because right now there is not a problem but the problem is anticipated. She feels that no one wants to stop Taco Bell from coming in but she does think it appropriate for all of us to take a look at how to keep gridlock out of the area. She feels that they must come up with, outside of this conditional use permit, some kind of study in the future. Mark Whitfield stated that the Commission has the ultimate authority because it will be coming before them as it relates to these two fast food pads as well as other pads on the site. Commissioner Weil stated that if we can move parking around it would be appropriate before those other uses come before the Commission. She thinks perhaps there is a condition we can put on the future pads, that a traffic study can be done before it comes to the Commission to push it to the future and at the same time gathering information. She would be in favor of letting this one go through and require some kind of study as a condition of approval for what is coming in future. Mark Whitfield stated that they are approaching ultimate build out of the center and that because of the issues related to accommodating the uses that traffic and parking is going to come into play as well. He stated that they have additional restaurant pads available in the north village area that have not been entitled and obviously would like to see prescribed use, but he is not sure it is even viable. As a representative of the Irvine Company, he does not want to throw away entitlement for pads they have available, but by the same token they know they must make it work to be practical. Commissioner Butler said that the issue he has is this restaurant is right next to the other restaurant. This particular restaurant is going to hurt the traffic flow at this particular piece of property. He would feel comfortable with, before approval, delaying for two weeks to get a commitment, in writing, from the Irvine Company as to what they will do to mitigate traffic problems. Commissioner Kasalek noted that perhaps the Irvine Company is not in a position to do that in two weeks time. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 22 Commissioner Butler was sure they could. Mark Whitfield stated that you specifically know the future uses. the proposed use in the future. would have to be able to There is a problem, based on The Director suggested that the Commission has three alternatives available to them now: 1) to motion to approve the application; 2) to motion to continue; or 3) to approve the project with modification to the conditions that would create some level of comfort for all. A more detailed staff study would be impossible to complete in two weeks. If there are concerns that the Commission does not want the applicant to wait that long, than there is the ability to create a monitoring condition. Commissioner Stracker moved to continue this matter for 30 days for a traffic study, based on this use and anticipated other uses. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Butler moved, Weil seconded for a two week delay for a study to be done on mitigation of traffic concerns and that a letter agreement be signed by the Irvine Company taking responsibility for solving the traffic problem. Motion denied 4-1. Commissioner Butler in support. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to recommend the Planning Commission approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3127. Motion carried 4-1 Commissioner Butler opposed. Commissioner Weil feels that Donahue Schriber has the obligation to take this message of concern back to the Irvine Company. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:40 p.m. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-047 and Design Review 92-053 by adopting Resolution No. 3128 as submitted. Motion Carried 3-2. Commissioners Butler and Stracker opposing. Commissioner Weil moved, Stracker seconded to adopt by Minute Order that staff require more traffic circulation analysis and parking analysis consideration when considering future discretionary projects in the Tustin Market Place. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Extension of Temporary Use Permit 93-002 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: PUMPKIN CITY'S PUMPKIN FARMS 22312 ROSEBRIAR MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 VACANT DEVELOPMENT PAD ACROSS SOUTH OF CARL'S JR RESTAURANT, ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 500-291-12 PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15268 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION OF AN EXTENSION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE (3) MONTHS RESULTING IN AN EXPIRATION DATE OF JULY 3, 1993, FOR THE SALE OF STRAWBERRIES IN AN OPEN-AIR STAND. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request to extend Temporary Use Permit 93-002 by Minute Order. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 23 Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Commissioner Stracker inquired if Condition No. 10 was being complied with since staff noted they have been by the location several times. Staff affirmed and indicated that they had seen two different people stop and walk across to the stand. Commissioner Butler wanted to know if there were any known complaints. Staff said that the City has not received any complaints and she has spoken with the owner and the management company and they have not received complaints either. The Public Hearing opened at 9:53 p.m. Bill Derentz 22312 Rosebriar, Mission Viejo, Ca. 92692, president of Pumpkin City's Pumpkin Farm, here to receive questions in relation to the operation. Have been in business for fifteen years and they try to do a professional job of a seasonal enterprise and they would appreciate an extension. They feel three months will be only necessary. Commissioner Stracker wanted to know if the applicant was familiar with the conditions of the conditional use permit. Bill Derentz said he reviewed them again today and also two weeks ago. Commissioner Stracker wanted to know if the applicant was especially familiar with condition number ten with regards to parking on site. He wanted to know if the applicant were aware that out there on Saturday there were a number of cars parked along the aisle way right by the stand. Bill Derentz said he has seven locations and he travels all of them and he has been out to this site several times and has seen, on occasion, someone parked there. The stand is not the busiest location at this point. He has not seen it to be a problem. Commissioner Stracker was there on Saturday and between 10:15 and 10:35 there were four cars parked along the drive aisle at 11:47 and 12:56 there were four parked on the grass and some on the drive aisle and that adds up to about 18 vehicles and puts your permit in jeopardy. He thinks the Commission needs compliance if they are going to approve an additional three months. The Commission just had a long discussion about the traffic impacts at this location and he thinks it is important to require some enforcement on the applicants part to keep these vehicles from being improperly parked. He wanted some discussion from Mr. Derentz as to what he anticipated doing. Bill Derentz said he was not aware that it was a problem because he had no complaints from the center nor his employees. If the people do park illegally they are only there about five minutes, he would not be adverse to some signage about no parking, but he was given a major stipulation not to have signs out and if signs were anywhere but at the stand itself the permit would be pulled immediately so he feels caught in a catch 22. Commissioner Stracker stated he would not like to see a lot of signs out there either since it gets away from what they are trying to do. The Director stated she was out there at their peak hour (lunch hour) today and she did not observe any illegal parking situations. Perhaps the applicant can be asked to have his employees monitor this more carefully. The signage issue might be a bit of an overkill. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 24 Commissioner Butler had asked one of the employees at the stand if there was a fire extinguisher and he learned there was none, and he knows it is one of the conditions. Bill Derentz said that his employee had told him about that and they do have a fire extinguisher. The person Commissioner Butler spoke to was a new person in the booth that day and he did not take it out of the truck. He mentioned that Saturday is the busiest day for the stand. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Weil stated that she had a problem with this location. She felt that there has been a lot of time, money, etc. on the specific plan which sets that shopping center up as a very well developed center under strict design and signage guidelines, setting it up as a model shopping center. She has a problem with something coming in there that does not meet the standards. The guidelines set up for strawberry stands were for the City but the Marketplace is under a different set of guidelines. If you wanted to put the stand in a building she would not have a problem with it but to put a temporary usage out there to her, flies in the face of what we are trying to do. The City and the Irvine Company have done a good job with the center and she does not want anything to jeopardize the relation with the tenants there already. When the first consideration came about strawberry stands it was linked to the agricultural history and they were originally put on vacant lots or on the edge of some kind of agricultural area and are very appropriate there. She is personally against extending the use permit for she does not feel it should have been there in the first place. Commissioner Baker initially was looking to go along with what Commissioner Weil said, he agrees with the stand concept in a field etc. but he is willing to go along with what staff has recommended and not put the applicant through a hardship in this particular case but he would want to discourage it in the future. The Director stated that previous Planning Commission policy determination that was made on these agricultural sales was applied throughout the city through all commercial zone districts and it was not isolated to a vacant parcel. Staff would feel more comfortable as a separate action, the Commission require that the original use determination be brought back and be explored. Commissioner Baker stated that Commissioner Weil had a good point because that was a separate site and we do give different considerations in the Market Place as opposed to Old Town, etc. The Director stated that the original use determination did not do that so she feels it is important to explore that to provide clear direction to staff in the future. Staff provided further clarification on the recommendation on the sites. The applicant had looked at a number of sites. The other site was the Tustin Plaza site. Staff has, in previous actions with the Tustin Plaza site determined that there is a parking issue on that site and have ceased to approve temporary use permits in that location. Based on the options, the development pad at the Tustin Market Placed seemed to be the appropriate location. Commissioner Kasalek would also like to bring the use back up for discussion because she agrees that this particular site is inappropriate. She thinks there is a place for them but shopping centers are not it. However since staff approved the site and we are only looking at three more months she does not wish to cause the applicant any hardship in this case. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to approve the extension of Temporary Use Permit 93-002 by Minute Order. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Weil opposed. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 25 Commissioner Stracker wanted to point out Item No. 14, and in the event of any violation the extension would be immediately revoked and that includes parking. Commissioner Weil stated that she still has to vote against the request. Commissioner Kasalek wanted to know how soon this item would be reviewed because she has a concern about precedence too. The Director stated that staff would be prepared to bring it back to the Commission within 30 days and she suggested that on record staff be given direction not to approve any new temporary use permits for agricultural product stands until the Commission has reviewed the use determination. Commissioner Weil moved, Butler seconded that by Minute Order the discussion of agricultural product sales be brought back to the Commission at a future date for clarification and direction to staff. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Butler stated that when it is brought back to the Commission perhaps they could identify specific sites they would be allowed at. Commissioners Weil and Kasalek did not want to make it too specific. o Zone Chanqe 92-003, Conditional Use Permit 92-038 and Desiqn 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 14001 NEWPORT AVENUE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) AND COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) DISTRICTS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1. TO AUTHORIZE A ZONE CHANGE ON THE SUBJECT SITE FROM CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) DISTRICT; 2. TO AUTHORIZE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF A SELF- SERVE, COIN-OPERATED CAR WASH WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) DISTRICT; AND 3. TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CAR WASH FACILITY AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3130; 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 92-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3131, as submitted or revised; 3. Approve Conditional Use Permit 92-038 by adoption of Resolution No. 3132, as submitted or revised; and 4. Recommend to the Redevelopment Agency approval of Design Review 92-050 by adopting Resolution No. 3133, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Joann Perry, Associate Planner Commissioner Stracker wanted to know where the photos were taken. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 26 Staff stated in Murietta, California and that the applicant had provided the photos. Commissioner Butler asked which parcels were being talked about. Staff explained the wall exhibits to the Commission. Commissioner Butler wanted to know if this was the same owner. Staff stated that the current owner of the property is a corporation known as Franagofin who owns the vacant parcel and this parcel. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:31 p.m. Vince Mayell, 1200 Quail St. # 100, Newport Beach, California, applicant, and President of Frontrunner Homes, wanted to request approval of the various items that are before the Commission this evening for his project. He commended staff for their thoroughness. He has no problems with the majority of the conditions but basically has concerns with a few of the conditions of approval. One of the conditions requires that all the exterior surfaces of the structure which are primarily stucco, be treated with anti graffiti material. The materials he has found are unsuitable and cannot be used on stucco. If the anti graffiti material is applied to stucco it will no longer take paint and significantly increases maintenance. The interior bay walls are treated with anti graffiti material because it works on smooth walls. He knows the City has a lot of car washes and he wanted to point out that a full service tunnel car wash and a self serve car wash are two different things. A self serve car wash uses only eight gallons of water as opposed to forty gallons used at home to wash a car. He was concerned about the condition of widening the landscape area from six to ten feet. Commissioner Stracker noticed that the applicant is requesting a 24 hour facility and asked if there is actually that much use in the morning and late hours. Vince Mayell stated that it is almost impossible to shut it down. They don't want to gate it up for that would create other problems. After midnight they shut off a portion of the lighting in the bays themselves and cut down on the exterior lighting. They do not advertise 24 hours but the facility is just there and available to use. In talking with the Police Department here and in Murietta that does not appear to be a problem. The noise problem is the only thing that ever occurs and they have never had any complaints related to noise. Commissioner Kasalek asked for clarification on the vending machines, and wanted to know if they were on the inside. Vince Mayell stated that they are built into the block structure with access to the outside. Up to 10-13 feet high is all block in the design. They are all designed for anti-theft. His consultant who has built about 8 or 10 of these and owns two of them himself has never had any significant problem. Also they use tokens and that minimizes the desire to break into the machines. Commissioner Butler wanted to know what products are being sold in the vending machines and he asked because of the high school foot traffic. Vince Mayell responded that they would be vending all auto related products. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 27 Staff stated that there has also been a condition of approval added that prohibits the future installation of any free standing vending machines such as but not limited to drinks or soda, candy, magazine racks or any other retail product is prohibited. Commissioner Butler stated that is something he would like to modify to make sure they don't have any food products not just free standing but even with the existing equipment they have. Another question he had on the tagger issue, he wanted to know if the lights were set on motion detectors. Vince Mayell stated that they are time controlled with an override for darkness but not motion detectors. Commissioner Stracker with regards to maintenance, for the columns at the entry which are all stucco, he questioned how this would occur. Vince Mayell they are stucco over block but these are fairly easy to fix. It can be patched and re-stuccoed and then there is fog coating. The big way to eliminate that is that their bays are all 13 ~ feet in the clear inside. Commissioner Stracker the question is with regards to maintenance, how will the applicant make sure that the items are repaired. Vince Mayell stated he did not know how to answer the question, for whenever something like that happens he just repairs it. Commissioner Stracker just wanted to know what kind of turn around ont the repair we were talking about, we want to see something nice there if it goes in. Vince Mayell it would be done the sooner the better as far as he was concerned. If it happened on a weekend it probably would get fixed till during the next week but certainly no longer than the following weekend. It would be done as quickly as physically possible. The Director stated that besides the aesthetics along that front north elevation there was a bit of concern and Condition 3.6 D does suggest that in front of the columns that a landscaped bubble be installed in front of the column with a 6 inch high curb that would protect that column and it was designed to serve two functions both the aesthetic function and the issue Commissioner Stracker is raising. Commissioner Stracker asked how high the tower was on the Murietta site. Vince Mayell stated he could not answer that exactly probably within a foot or two of this one. Because of the irregular lot these bays are staggered and because of this the tower in the center is more separated front the rest of the building. Commissioner Kasalek wanted the reason for widening the driveway area. Vince Mayell stated there was two way traffic going across the front of the project and they would like to have some access for stacking during peak hours. Commissioner Butler asked about making two driveways, one on each end. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 28 Douq Anderson, City Transportation Engineer, stated that the proximity of the property line with the intersection of Orange and E1 Camino Streets would open up a lot of conflicts with turning movements. Commissioner Stracker wanted to know if there were any traffic counts as to left turns onto Orange from E1 Camino. Douq Anderson stated no they do not have that data right now. Commissioner Baker asked if in the future if we could have some traffic study relative to putting a stop sign at Orange and E1 Camino. Doug Anderson said they could do a stop sign warrant analysis. Vince Mayell the question that just came up never occurred to him and he would like to ask Doug Anderson about the second driveway there at the east end if it were designated only as an exit and no entrance. He wanted to know if this could be a possibility. Doug Anderson his first impression is that there would still be conflicts if there were exiting traffic which desire to cross the two through lanes of traffic. It is at this time an uncontrolled intersection and because of the proximity to the high school he would prefer that the access be limited to the western most driveway as shown on the proposed plan. Commissioner Kasalek asked what if it were a right turn only drive exit, would that make any difference. Douq Anderson felt that there would be a compliance problem there and is not sure what the Police position would be on that. The Director suggested that given the applicants concern regarding anti graffiti paint, staff would impose a condition that on all other wall surfaces the applicant shall be responsible for removal of all graffiti or tagging within 48 hours of notification to the on-site manager or owner, so the City doesn't end up paying for graffiti removal. Vince Mayell said he can't believe that the City should be responsible for any of it, he thinks the property owner should be responsible anyway. He would expect to take care of his own graffiti. The Public Hearing was closed at 11:01 p.m. Commissioner Butler for clarification he wanted to hear the reason for removal of two light fixtures in staff report and Commissioner wanted to know why staff thought it would not work. Staff indicated that in the past there has been concern about wall- pac fixtures, the industrial style wall fixtures applied to buildings, of excessive glare, and unsightliness regarding the fixtures themselves. The applicant is proposing two other wall pac fixtures to the rear which staff has no concern with. Staff is sensitive to the design issue on the street frontage on E1 Camino Real. Commissioner Weil wanted to discuss the City requirement for the ten foot landscaping rather than the six foot. She expressed concern about the turning radius. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 29 Staff indicated the ten foot area is established via the landscape ordinance and also the zoning code districts, that area is established to provide ample distance in which there can be earth berming of a sufficient height to lessen the impact of paved areas, the ten foot landscape would also help further mitigate the view of the open bays and reduced the proposed drive aisle to 27 feet which accommodate single axle vehicles and their turning radius. Commissioner Stracker thinks it is a very nice looking facility from what he has seen but he just doesn't like it in this area, he feels that this area is the gateway to the City and it needs to be looked at with more in mind than a car wash. We have six car washes in close proximity to this one. He thinks the 24 hour operation is a concern with residences so close and the site is too small, he thinks the cuing is a problem and that it will cue off- site and into the street. Commissioner Butler wanted to make a revision to the 48 hour painting time frame for removing graffiti. Commissioner Weil wanted to say that staff did a wonderful job with the staff report and would also like to congratulate the applicant, it is an environmentally sensitive and conscious project and she disagrees with Commissioner Stracker as to the inappropriateness of it. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3130 as submitted. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Stracker opposed. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 92-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3131 as submitted. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Stracker opposed. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 92-038 by adopting Resolution No. 3132 as revised to add Condition 2.5 to Conditions of Approval to read "The products sold from the proposed built in vending machines shall be limited to auto related products and shall not be modified to sell food or drink products" Condition 3.6 (G) revised to read, "The wall-pac lighting fixtures located on the north elevations of the car wash building shall be removed. The proposed wall-pac located on the east elevation shall be modified so as to be architecturally compatible with the proposed building, subject to Condition 3.5 Additional decorative pole lights shall be provided in the perimeter landscape areas. The overall lighting for the project shall comply with the City of Tustin Security Ordinance and shall provide a minimum of one (1) footcandle of lighting illumination throughout the site" Condition 3.6 (H), shall read, "Specifications at Building Permit plan check submittal shall reflect materials call-outs on all elevations and applicable details and notes added indicating that all wall surfaces in the bays shall be coated and protected with a graffiti resistant finish and/or material. On all other wall surfaces the applicant shall be responsible for removal of all graffiti or tagging within 48 hours of notification of the on-site manager at the applicants expense". Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Stracker opposed. Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to recommend Redevelopment Agency approval of Design Review 92-050 by adopting Resolution No. 3133 as submitted. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Stracker opposed. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 30 7. Use Determination 93-001 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MARIETTA VISE 801 AMIGOS WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660 PHILIP K. COX P.O. BOX 10 MYERS FLAT, CA 95554 403 EL CAMINO REAL (COX'S MARKET PLAZA) C-2(P) AND CR (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH COMBINING PARKING DISTRICT AND CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) SECTION 15301 PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO DETERMINE THAT USED FURNITURE SALES ESTABLISHMENTS ARE AN OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE C-2 DISTRICT. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Weil wondered if she heard correctly that the used clothing stores in that area were non conforming. Staff replied yes, that two of the used clothing stores do not have conditional use permits but it is not know when they were established, and are considered non-conforming. The Public Hearing opened at 11:20 p.m. Marietta Vise, owner of Stix and Stones, 801 Amigos Way, Tustin, California, thanked staff for all the time put in on her project and asked the Commission for approval of this use determination. The Public Hearing closed at 11:21 p.m. Commissioner Weil considered this a wonderful idea whose time had come but the only problem she has as a permitted use is the people who may come after or follow this one. She would be in favor of having all of the existing non-conforming uses get conditional use permits also. Commissioner Kasalek has the same concerns but wanted to know if there was a way to put some language in the condition to limit the type of business. The Director stated that the use determination can be limited to use furniture only. The other particular uses that concern Commissioner Weil preexist anybody on the staff. Some of the business in the downtown area have been existing and have been legally non-conforming uses for many, many years so we can't go in and require them to get conditional use permits. Staff is not able to find information on the actual date they began business. Commissioner Stracker asked if there was any discussion by the Police Department with regards to these uses. Staff replied that she had checked with the Tustin Police Department speaking with the Sergeant in charge of burglary and he could only recall one or two instances where furniture had been stolen in the three years of his experience, both of those involved antiques stolen from apartments rented furnished and the items were recovered in the area. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 31 Commissioner Weil moved, Butler seconded that the Planning Commission make a determination by Minute Order that used furniture sales establishments for this proposed use be a permitted use within the C1, C2 and CG Districts but that this permitted use should not include the sale of used appliances, electronic equipment or jewelry. Motion carried 5-0. 8. Conditional Use Permit 93-008 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MARIETTA VISE 801 AMIGOS WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660 PHILIP K. COX P.O. BOX 10 MYERS FLAT, CA 95554 403 EL CAMINO REAL C-2(P) AND CR (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH COMBINING PARKING DISTRICT AND CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) SECTION 15301 PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO ALLOW A SECONDHAND SALES ESTABLISHMENT FOR HOME FURNISHINGS, SOLD ON A CONSIGNMENT BASIS Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 93-008 by adopting Resolution No. 3124, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Due to the action taken in Item No. 7, above, this Conditional Use Permit application was withdrawn by staff on behalf of the applicant. 9. Status Reports Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to receive and file the Status Report. Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS: 10. Appeal of Temporary Use Permit (B & J Tree Service) APPLICANT: OWNER CONTACT LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: BOBBY L. GILBERT B & J TREE SERVICE 17300 17TH STREET, SUITE J231 TUSTIN, CA 92680 CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ATTN: JOHN LOW OR LYNDA COLLIE 1065 NORTH PACIFIC CENTER DRIVE, STE 200 ANAHEIM, CA 92806 1100 EDINGER AVENUE PLANNED COMMLrNITY PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN, REGIONAL CENTER DESIGNATION THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 21) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15321 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD AT 1100 EDINGER AVENUE. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 32 Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Uphold the action of the Director of Community Development to deny the subject Temporary Use Permit; and 2. Defer Code Enforcement action for sixty (60) days. Presentation: None The Director stated that the applicant left about an hour ago and since the appeal action does not require a public hearing it is up to the Commission as to what they want to do. She suggested that it could be continued for two weeks to allow the applicant to attend staff is also suggesting a delay of code enforcement activity for 60 days to allow him to relocate. Commissioner Butler since he does business with this applicant he asked the City attorney if he had to abstain from voting. John Shaw, City Attorney, stated that the test is whether the applicant is a source of income and if it can be objectively looked at. Commissioner Butler answered that he was not. John Shaw, stated that he believes that for due process the applicant has a right to speak and this item should be continued. Commissioner Stracker moved, Butler seconded to continue this issue to the next regular meeting of the Commission which will be held on April 12, 1993. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Weil made a suggestion that at the next meeting this item be placed at the top of the agenda so this problem will not occur again. 11. Nuts and Bolts Conference Received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS: 12. Report on actions taken at March 15, 1993 City Council meetinq The Director reminded the Commissioners that their Economic Interest Statements were due to the State by the first of April. The Director noted that on April 12 the new modified work schedule will go into effect with Friday, April 23, being the first Friday the city offices will be closed under this new system. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Butler Referred to his attendance at the recent Nuts and Bolts Conference. He would like to see the City pursue the exploration of making professional looking folders for people who request city information. Wanted commissioners to receive the noticing mailing lists for all hearing actions brought to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 33 The Director indicated that this information could be provided but that it would be a time consuming and costly process. The Director stated that on larger projects the mailing labels for a 300 foot radius can have up to 1200 names (i.e. adjacent to condominium sites, etc.). Since this was a staff function and she is accountable for any omissions or errors on the part of staff, that providing these lists would be a duplication of effort. If Commission Butler feels this is necessary, staff will provide him with a vicinity map showing the properties that have been noticed. Mailing labels may also be reviewed at the Community Development Department. Wanted to know if the Commission received a report when there was a one year monitoring required on a conditional use permit. The Director stated that these would not come to Commission attention unless there was a violation. If the Commission wants a memo on status of a project where a monitoring condition was provided, staff can provide them. Commissioner Baker - None Commissioner Stracker Recalled a woman who had previously complained to the commission about the bright lights coming from the Standard Service Station at Bryan behind the Tustin Market Place. On his inspection tour he did notice that the lights were very bright and wondered what was being done to alleviate this situation. The Director stated that a temporary certificate was on file and they have until April 13 to resolve lighting issues. Correspondence has been drafted to the applicant to also require a photometric analysis. In driving by the K-Mart site he observed weeds, and the fence in disrepair. The Director noted this and will notify Code Enforcement. This past Friday, while at the library he was not able to find the Planning Commission packet and was told it was not there. He wanted to make sure that a packet was delivered to the library on time. The Director will look into the reason for the delay in their receiving their packet. Commissioner Stracker noted that he had personally met Bill Steiner and had given him a City of Tustin pin. Commissioner Kasalek Received an invitation from Bill Steiner for a brown bag luncheon and shared the invitation with her fellow Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1993 Page 34 Noted that the complaints from Peppertree concerning the train noise were taken care of and she appreciated the efforts of the Public Works Department for solving the problem right away. Commissioner Weil - None AD JOI/RNMENT: Commissioner Weil moved, Butler seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:47 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on April 12, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tustin Senior Center, 200 S. "C" Street, Tustin. // / Kathleen Clancy Secretary ~a r ~r/f ~ ~a s a 1 e~k~f Chairperson