Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-11-91MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGUL&RMEETING FEBRUARY 11v 1991 CALL TO ORDER= 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL= Present: Absent: Le Jeune, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek Shaheen 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 January 28, 1991 planning Commission meeting. 2. Final Tract Map 14110 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: LDM DEVELOPMENT, INC. 25241 PASEO DE ALICIA #150 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 ATTENTION: MR. FOREST DICKASON LOTS 11, "M", "O", AND "P" OF TRACT 12870 ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268 (B) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 9.555 ACRES INTO 4 NUMBERED AND 5 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 129 CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNITS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2876, as submitted or revised, recommending to the City Council approval of Final Map 14110. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 2 Commissioner Kasparian asked if there were any differences between the final map and the tentative tract map of Item 2; and asked if the staff brings any substantive changes from vesting to final map before the Commission. Staff replied that they are very consistent, and that the only changes were made to the landscaped lettered lots along Greenway and La Colina due to fence configurations; and that the applicant would be able to request an amendment to his tentative map if there were substantial changes that would be inconsistent with the Subdivision Map Act, which would then be brought back to the Commission. 3. Permit to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home APPLICANT OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: KIM MC GAUGHEY 14742 CARFAX AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 CALVIN C. CRUM 10122 RANGEVIEW DRIVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 14742 CARFAX AVENUE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Recommendation - It is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a protest, and then accept any protests submitted. If a protest is lodged, then the matter should be continued to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting in order for staff to evaluate the protest. If a protest is not filed, the Commission should approve the subject application without further discussion by Minute Order subject to compliance with all requirements of Ordinance 991. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if anyone in the audience was pro- testing Item #3; there was one complainant. He requested Item #3 be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mr. Calvin C. Crum, 10122 Rangeview Drive, Santa Ana, is the owner of the property at 14742 Carfax Avenue. He is protesting the permit on the basis that he has not received proof of insurance from the tenant and his policy does not cover the property. Staff explained that insurance on day care is not required by the State. Commission asked if approval were given for the permit, would the Commission or City be held liable. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, explained to the Commission that the matter was a tenant owner problem and was of a civil nature. The City has no jurisdiction on this issue. The City Attorney advised the property owner to seek the advice of counsel. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the State would require insurance if a license was approved; and if there would be no liability on the Planning Commission or the City. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 3 Staff responded that the State used to require insurance, but it is no longer mandatory, but it is suggested that the operator inform the parents of their lack of insurance; and affirmed that the Commission and City would not be liable. Commissioner Baker moved, Commissioner Kasalek seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion passes 4-0. PUBLIC 4. Variance 90-14 (First Team Real Estate) APPLICANT/ LESSEE: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CAMERON MERAJ PO BOX 2198 COSTA MESA, CA 92628 BRUCE A. ENDERLE TRUST 10505 E. ESCALANTE TUCSON, ARIZONA 17240 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET PC-C (PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11), SECTION 15311 TO ALLOW A BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WALL SIGN ON A SIDE ELEVATION TO INCREASE FROM 25-SQUARE FEET TO 64-SQUARE FEET IN ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA ~ecommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 90-14 by adopting Resolution No. 2874, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the difference between this building and the one at Mimi's Plaza. Staff replied that property across the street is a much larger parcel with more front on 17th Street; and freeway signs are mainly for businesses located in other parts of center. The Director stated that this was a special request for the building that faces the access street; these were considered off- premise signs. Commissioner Kasparian noted that they are not buildings. stand-alone Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:17 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian stated that he felt that a larger sign seems appropriate with an equivalent trade-off. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Variance 90-14 by adopting Resolution No. 2874, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 4 5. Zone Change 90-04 and Design Review 90-52 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: WESTERN NEURO CARE (TUSTIN REHABILITATION HOSPITAL) 165 MYRTLE AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92681 LAWRENCE HARTMAN 2535 SOUTH FAIRFAX AVENUE CULVER CITY, CA 90232 621 WEST FIRST STREET COMMERCIAL - PRIMARY USE, HOTEL - SECONDARY USE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 1) TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE SECONDARY LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM HOTEL TO OFFICE. 2) TO APPROVE A DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE PLAN AND RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2880 certifying the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2881 recommending approval of Zone Change 90-04 to the City Council, as submitted or revised; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2882 approving Design Review 90-52, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the TSIP was made based on today's traffic or when the arterials revert back to normal; and where the entrance to the parking area is located. Staff replied that the EIRs were created before the construction began; and noted that some mitigation measures in the EIR are currently being undertaken; and that there is one entrance on First Street and one on Yorba. The Director responded that even with the TSIP, the 55 widening, and the bridge improvements, all future traffic conditions will not be mitigated; that even with mitigation measures, the traffic volume will increase approximately 3% per year; that they are trying to mitigate the traffic over the next 10 years; that there is an interim fee program as a basis to be able to mitigate the impacts; that they are estimating the cost of improvements of 25 intersections in the TSIP area; that there will be anticipated future increases to the fee schedules. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the fund would be split between Tustin and Santa Ana. The Director replied that the money is pooled and distributed to local mitigation in both Communities as the board prioritizes projects. Commissioner Kasparian questioned the use of only one handicapped space; and asked how the requirement of drought-resistant foliage is specified. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 5 Staff replied that only one space is required by the Uniform Building Code; and that drought-resistant foliage is a standard requirement of the Department Landscape Guideline. Commissioner Baker asked how much the TSIP fee would be. The Director responded that the fee is 2% of the construction value of improvements. Commissioner Kasalek asked the timeframe of road improvements in the area. The Director replied that it would be approximately 18-24 months with traffic problems; that Yorba is being widened incrementally; that other intersections that are being financed through the capital improvement program if TSIP is not funding; and that noticeable changes may not be seen until all work is completed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Kirk Nelson of Design Intervention spoke on behalf of Western Neuro Care. He stated that the facility would primarily be out- patient oriented with walk-in patients. He also stated that they felt that one handicapped space would be adequate for their needs. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they expected the traffic to be unlike a convalescent hospital and more like a regular hospital; and asked if the applicant was aware that traffic would be a problem and was willing to accept it. Mr. Nelson replied that it would be more like an office; that it will be for therapy; and that they understood the traffic problems. Commissioner ~e Jeune asked if the people in the Neuro Care center were in wheel chairs. Mr. Nelson replied that the majority of the patients seen here would be ambulatory; that those in need of a higher degree of care would go to the hospital. Commissioner Baker noted that if they find that they need more they can paint them. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m. Commissioner Baker questioned if they were to pick a location on 4th Street that was currently zoned for doctor's offices, if there would be the same issues involved. The Director replied that there would be no change of use. But that the proposal the City is now looking at is a discretionary approval changing the revenue producing aspects of the property; that the proposed operation would create a non-revenue producing use; that a new use must be evaluated with an EIR unless the Commission imposes a mitigation measure that has been found to be acceptable. She also noted that the previous tenant produced approximately $45,000 (forty-five thousand dollars) over the last year of operation; and that it would be reasonable to impose a similar fee as would be imposed on any other new use or remodeling in the area. Commissioner Kasparia~ asked if the property next to this location is a small medical complex. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 6 Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Le Jeune seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2880 certifying the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Le Jeune seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2881 recommending approval of Zone Change 90-04 to the City Council, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2882 approving Design Review 90-52, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. o Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 90-18 and Design Review 90-28 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ALDERSGATE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 1201 S. E. IRVINE BOULEVARD TUSTIN, CA 92680 1201 S. E. IRVINE BOULEVARD P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING OF 8,300 SQUARE FEET TO ACCOMMODATE ADMINISTRATION OFFICES FOR THE CHURCH AND ENLARGE THE EXISTING DAY CARE FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE A TOTAL OF 132 CHILDREN. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2877 approving Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 90-18 and Design Review 90-28, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kasalek asked the distance between the new building and play area and the residents; and which entrance the parents would use. Staff replied that it would be over 50 (fifty) feet; and that they could use either Wass or Irvine as an entrance. Commissioner Kasparian asked that the conditions include the wording of Condition 3.4 of Item 5 (Western Neuro Care) regarding recycling requirements. Staff replied that the site plan indicates two (2) types of trash enclosures. The Director suggested adding item 3.6, as moved, to clarify the issue. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of paragraph 1.5 of Resolution No. 2881. Staff replied that it related to fencing and the operations; and they would still be entitled to the 48-child day care in the exist- ing structure if the applicant did not proceed with the expansion. The Director added a qualifier, "unless otherwise corrected, herein," as moved. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 7 ¢ommis~Qner Kasparian suggested that Item 2.1 should be changed to read, "At building plan check, the following shall be submitted." Staff changed, as moved. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:46 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the City received any further complaints regarding the noise in the parking lot; and asked if the residents were notified of the Public Hearing. Staff replied that they were unaware of the Police Department receiving further complaints in the evening, but that there have been not problems with the day care facility; and affirmed that the residents were notified. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2877 approving Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 90-18 and Design Review 90-28, revised as follows: Resolution No. 2877, Exhibit A, Page 3, Item 3.6 should read as follows: "...Director of Community Development. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide written documentation from Great Western Reclamation stating that the proposed enclosure and type of trash containers (roll-off) used are adequate to accommodate the City's recycling program." Motion carried 4-0. 7. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 87-24 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THRIFTY OIL CO. 10000 LAKEWOOD BLVD. DOWNEY, CA 90240 14121 NEWPORT AVENUE C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE COPY AS WELL AS EXPAND THE SIGN COPY AREA TO APPROXIMATELY 82-SQUARE FEET FOR AN EXISTING POLE SIGN. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Amendment #1 to Conditional Use Permit 87-24 by adopting Resolution No. 2879, as submitted. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner The Director added to the staff report that code enforcement action had begun in August, 1990; that they had only recently received the application and scheduled the application for the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting from when they received the application; that Thrifty has altered the sign significantly without City approval; and that they have not seen the kind of cooperation they would have liked. Commissioner Baker asked if this is a new owner. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 8 Staff responded that Thrifty is the same owner, but that they may have subleased to Circle K; that they have again regained control of the property. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that the signs shown in the video across the street were inherited with the annexation of this area. Commissioner Baker noted that "food store" does not appear on the sign and asked if Thrifty is asking for additional wording. Staff affirmed and stated that the actual unauthorized sign had "food store" listed; that staff has asked it to be covered or removed since they are getting the benefit of signage without City authorization; that temporary fuel pricing signs were approved in lieu since State law mandates showing of prices; and that they only removed the food mart portion. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Jack Ray, 1346 Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, of Ad-Art representing Thrifty Oil, explained that Thrifty Oil inherited problems from previous owner which caused the delay in submittal to the City. He noted that the sign was changed when they took over the property; that they are guilty of changing the face without a permit; that Thrifty sells by its gasoline prices, not merchandise; that there is less sign now than what was originally approved; that most of the other gas stations in town have numbers larger than six (6) inches; and that they have blocked off the food store wording. He also indicated that when Circle K originally submitted the permit they had three (3) lines of gasoline, and they only received a permit to advertise two (2) lines. Staff replied that the original application for the sign would have been 80.5 square feet; that the actual fuel pricing would have been 14 square feet; also, that staff clarified to Mr. Ray that changing copy on an unauthorized sign does not rectify the problem. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the sign only indicates two (2) gas prices, when they serve three (3). Staff responded that she does not know when they were made aware of the fact that they needed to indicate the three (3) prices; and that a third price could be accommodated. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification as to whether the new numbers would be placed in the "food store" section. Staff affirmed, and noted that there is a question as to whether the "food store" section had been enlarged. The Director commented that it was originally proposed as one can with all lettering contained in it; that it was consolidated and altered; and that even though the changed areas are not that significant, there was never an approval for the alterations. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the can for "food store" was there when Thrifty resumed ownership; if that can was large enough for the three (3) gasoline prices; asked if it meets the minimum State standards; and asked if the size of the sign meets what was originally approved. Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 9 Commissioner Kasparian asked what the sign area was that the Sign Code permits; and asked if the expansion would be approximately two (2) square feet more. Staff replied that there is no specific criteria as to the dimension of the sign, and that it was subject to the approval of the use permit; and affirmed that the expansion would be two (2) more square feet. Commissioner Kasparian asked staff to comment on the applicant's comment that the Commission had approved the original sign. Staff replied that the original sign was approved as one total can area with 80.5 square feet; that Thrifty changed the copy on an unauthorized sign when they took over. Mr. Ray commented that this would be acceptable, but that they would need to make a new box. Commissioner Baker noted that a point of contention was the size of the pricing. The Director replied that their copy is larger than the identification; but that with the reduction in the "food store" copy this would be a reasonable compromise. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed that one of the objections is the size of the numbers; and that he would like to see the size go from 17 inches to 12 inches. The Director affirmed that this would cut the "food store" cabinet size to seven (7) feet and the numbers to 12 inches. Commissioner Kasparian noted that it would reduce the square footage and give a nicer aspect to the sign. The Director noted that the applicant has explored this issue and will work with the staff and continue to the next meeting. Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue the item to the February 25, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: 8. Modification to Design Review 90-29 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL 9 EXECUTIVE CIRCLE, SUITE 190 IRVINE, CA 92714 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 330 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 3015 EL CAMINO REAL (LOT 3 OF TRACT 13557) TUSTIN MARKET PLACE MIXED USE (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 10 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 90-29 TO ALLOW THE USE OF TIVOLI LIGHTS ON THE VERTICAL PORTIONS OF THE WINDOW FRAMES Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the lights were non-blinking. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Tivoli lights were of a specific design. Staff replied that it was a term that design professionals use for small bulbs strung in a row. Commissioner Kasparian asked it approval of these lights without further definition would cause future problems. Staff replied that the definition was indicated report, and suggested they be included in the approval. in the staff conditions of Commissioner Kasparian noted that a quartz bulb that size could be ten (10) times as bright. Staff noted that application would require an electrical permit; and that plans and lighting specifications would be required which could control the wattage requirements. Commissioner Kasalek noted that an electrical contractor would consider a Tivoli light to be a very small bulb. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it would be limited by wattage. Mr. Jeff Smith, representing Red Robin Restaurant, provided samples of the bulbs; and noted that Tivoli is a generic term for the type of bulb. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they were only available in one wattage. Mr. Smith replied that he believed so; that it was energy efficient; that there are two types of Tivoli lights: one that has removable bulbs; and one that is small lights in a plastic strip that is difficult to maintain and that they do not intend to use. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the sample is a Tivoli bulb. Mr. Smith affirmed that it was to Red Robin's purpose; that their intention is to create a happy festive environment with the lights; and that the lighting provides a faint accent light. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded conditionally approving a modification to Design Review 90-29 to allow half-inch, low voltage tivoli lights spaced approximately 8 inches apart on vertical window mullions at 3015 E1 Camino Real by the adoption of Resolution No. 2875-A revised as follows: Resolution No. 2875-A, Page 2, Item II. should read: "The Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves a Modification to Design Review 90-29 to allow half-inch, low Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 11 voltage tivoli lights spaced approximately eight inches apart on vertical window mullions located at 3015 E1 Camino Real in the Tustin Market Place subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto." Motion carried 4-0. 9. Q~d Town Charette Received and filed. 10. General Plan Update CommissiQDer Le Jeune asked if there will be Planning Commission representation. The Director responded that the document needs to be completed within 14 months on a restricted budget and timeframe; that they will elicit as much participation by the Planning Commission as needed and will have workshops. Commissioner Kasparian asked if specific plans will be revised. The Director replied that when they identify a major problem area during the update, they would then implement specific plans. She also noted that the Commissioners would receive a copy of the work program in the future and that staff would make a presentation to orient the Commission. Comm%ssio~er Le Jeune recommended that last years's Planning Commission Institute tapes have sections on the General Plan. The Director noted that even though some of the existing General Plan information is 20 years old, they will be working from an established data base; and that they will be updating it consistent with State law based on issues that have arisen, i.e. air quality, solid waste management, airport noise, and the community's growth. 11. Ora~ Report on Source Reduction & Recycling Element (SRRE) and Congestion Management Plan Presentation: Development Rita Westfield, Assistant Director of Community The Director noted that three (3) components of congestion management must be completed and to the County by March 28: 1) complete trip count of all major arterial intersections; 2) trip reduction ordinance must be adopted by March 28; and 3) a seven (7) year capital improvement program designed to eliminate significant problems at those intersections or to improve the arterial highway system. The County will then work with the City to design a deficiency plan; that they cannot worsen the condition of the highways without making specific findings or the Measure M money might beretracted for non-compliance. Commissioner Baker asked how the Pacific Center East project affects this. The Director replied that Congestion Management Plan issues were addressed by the Plan area. She also stated that as part of Measure M, the City is mandated to do a growth management element of the General Plan; and that they have to respond to the issues if they do not want to jeopardize the funding coming back to the Community. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 12 The Assistant Director noted that it was their intent to keep the Commission apprised. No Planning Commission action necessary. STAFF CONCERNS: 12. Report on actions taken at February 4, 1991 City Council Meeting Staff reported on the subject agenda. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he recently discovered that the Tustin blacksmith's building was not part of the survey of unreinforced masonry buildings. The Director replied that his was exempt from the provisions of the law because it is considered a warehouse. 13. Report on Siqn Code Review by Chamber of Commerc~ The Director reviewed some of the items contended by the business community. She noted that temporary banners do not permit pricing information, only business identification, and that they wanted feedback as to whether pricing information could be allowed. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that he did not think the signs should exclude pricing. The Director asked if it was not limited to business identification as long as it was a temporary banner. Commissioner Le Jeune affirmed. Commissioner Kasalek agreed. The Director noted that companies are allowed to have five (5) temporary flags with six (6) square feet of flags on each pole. She cited Ricoh's carp flags as an example of a non-standard request, and suggested that rather than defining a standard around a particular use, there be a process for review. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that flags in proportion to the buildings should also be considered. The Director stated that they would like arcade signs to be illuminated. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the arcade signs in East Tustin were illuminated. The Director replied that there are not many arcade signs in that area, that they are wall signs. Commissioner Kasparian asked who would have an arcade sign. Commissioner Le Jeune cited Sabo's Mediterranean Market as an example. The Director stated that the applicant went through the variance procedure which would not control lights and colors; that a finding would have to be made to indicate that there was something unusual about its location, use, size or shape of the lot. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 13 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this would be handled under a Master Sign Code; noted that they should not deviate; and that anyone could still apply. The Director noted that there was significant discussion regarding controlling inside lights. Commissioner Kasparian noted that there was nothing precluding someone putting in large bulbs, and that he was more concerned with the possibility of glare. The Director replied that the Chamber is favorable to setting a standard; that it would be a more acceptable approach than completely prohibiting anything within three (3) feet of a window. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they were concerned about blinking lights. The Director replied that they were interested in small Christmas tree lights that blink. CommissioDer Baker asked if they had made an exception to the blinking lights. The Director replied that they would be allowed during the Christmas holidays; but that the Chamber pointed out current examples within the City and indicated that they felt them not to be offensive. Co~missiQ~er Le Jeune stated that he felt that blinking lights should not be allowed; and that no new applications should be permitted since they may pose a safety factor that has to be determined each time. The Director noted that the Chamber would like to authorize festoons and buntings for special events; that the current code does not allow festoons. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that the new code should not allow festoons either; but that the Chamber indicated that it should be allowed on the Fourth of July. The Director responded that treating it as holiday decorations would be acceptable. Commissioner Kasparian noted that if these were not limited, they would proliferate. Co~miss~oner Le Jeune stated that if the Auto Center could agree to discontinue their use, the rest of the Community could, too. The Director noted that the Chamber is concerned that there are businesses that are separated from the freeway due to a frontage road that are not receiving adequate business signs and could be dealt with with a distance factor. Co~missioner Le Jeune asked where there are commercial areas next to a frontage road. The Director replied that Nisson Road, along E1 Camino Road, and possibly more in front of the mobile home on Nisson are affected. Com~issiQner Le Je~ne was concerned about the footage allowance. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 14 The Director replied that qualifiers would be added to indicate that it would be only the areas affected by adjacency to a frontage road. The Director also noted that the Chamber was concerned about what constitutes business identification; that it should include product, or brand name, or service; and that they would like the definition reviewed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what past problems there have been. The Director replied that in the past, if it was part of their identification license, it was never contested. The current code says that it must be business identification, product, or service, not all three (3). Commissioner Le Jeune noted that a descriptive license could allow one person in a building to have a very descriptive sign, and another may not; and that it may be discriminating. The Director asked at what point do they make judgments; she noted that the direction from the Planning Commission was to have clean signage not related to advertising in any manner. She also noted that wording could be provided to allow a sign with qualifying language for service or product identification. Commissioner Le Jeune suggested that the descriptions not exceed a third of the sign area. The Director noted that the Chamber will also recommend alternative language. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that real estate signs were an issue. The Director suggested that since real estate signs had significant problems, a workshop was in order. No Planning Commission action necessary. 14. Attendance at the Leaque of California Cities Planning Commissioners Institute, March 20-28, 1991 No Planning Commission action necessary. CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasparian - Indicated that he was recently in La Fayette Plaza and noticed a uniformed guard. He was told that the guard was hired by the shop owners. Staff responded that the owner, Burnett-Ehline hired the guard and that this is an interim policy until a traffic study is completed on the center. Chairman Le Jeune - Asked about the stop sign issue on Darsy Circle. What are the legalities of traffic related issues with a stop sign installed without warrants. The City Attorney responded that she had spoken with Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works, and he said that they needed to make findings for the warranting of a stop sign. She also said that she would need to speak to the Police Department regarding the liability issue. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1991 Page 15 - Asked if the car washes approved by the Planning Commission were mandated for recycling of water. Staff responded that they would have to refer to the individual projects and conditions of approval for that information. -Noted that he was traveling on Tustin Ranch Road at 5:30 a.m. and noticed that the sprinklers were on and flooding the area. Staff responded that they would check into the matter. -Referenced an article satellite dish. from the newspaper regarding a ~)JOURNHENT: Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:11 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is on February 25, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. A Sign Code Workshop has been scheduled on February 25, 1991 at 6:00 p.m. preceding the Planning Commission meeting of that date. Donald Le Je~ ~%, ~ Chairman Kathleen Clancy Secretary