Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-13-89H I NUTES TUSTIN PL~'NING CO~HISSION REGUL~ ~EETING NOVEMBER 13, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ATW.EGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CAT.L: Present: Le Jeune, Baker, Shaheen, Kasparian Absent: Pontious PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CAT.'P.')i'DAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION 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 October 23. 1989 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Time Extension for Tentative Tract Map 13038 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES NORTHWEST CORNER OF JAMBOREE ROAD AND BRYAN AVENUE - LOT 12 OF TRACT 12763 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13038 TO OCTOBER 7, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve a time extension for Tentative Tract Map 13038, by adoption of Resolution No. 2696, as submitted or revised. 3. Extension of Temporary Use Permit - 14901 Holt Avenue RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve, by minute order, the thirty day extension of a temporary use permit for display of two banners to expire on January 17, 1990. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page two 4. Final Tract Map 13796 APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE BREN COMPANY 5 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 C/O MR. BRAD ENGELLAND LOT 27 AND LOTS 44 AND SS OF TRACT 12870 AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 12.268 ACRES INTO 5 NUMBERED LOTS AND 4 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE A 108 CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNIT DEVELOPMENT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Vesting Tract Map 13796 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2698, as submitted or revised. Commissioner Baker moved. Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Le Jeune abstained). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Variance 89-15 and Exposed Neon Sian APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DIGITAL EAR 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 BURNETT EHLINE PROPERTIES 2050 SOUTH SANTA CRUZ, SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE 100 C-2, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11 APPROVAL OF ONE 25 SQUARE FOOT BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGN WITH EXPOSED NEON TUBING AND A SECONDARY 28.75 SQUARE FOOT EXPOSED NEON ADVERTISING SIGN FOR AN EXISTING RETAIL STORE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Approve the requested secondary sign by the adoption of Resolution No. 2695 and conditions contained within the attached Exhibit A, as submitted or revised. 2. Approve the requested use of Exposed Neon tubing on the subject signs by minute order. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page three Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Baker asked if the name of the applicant should be updated on the Resolution since it has been changed. Staffed affirmed, and changed the name as moved. The public hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m. Wanda Hawkins, applicant, noted that the name of the business was changed when they filed their new DBA upon incorporation. She commented that their business was unique in the center since their building has 5,200 square feet, whereas the other buildings in the center are much smaller, but have much more area for signage. Mark Ross, representing Plaza Lafayette, supported the applicants in their request for the variance. The Public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian moved. Shaheen seconded to approve the secondary sign by adoption of Resolution No. 2695 including the name change on page one of the resolution. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved~ Shaheen seconded to approve the requested use of Exposed Neon tubing on the subject signs by Minute Order. Motion carried 4-0. 6. Conditional Use Permit 89-39 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 PORTION OF ABANDONED AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE I-5 FREEWAY AND LAURELWOOD CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT PLANNED COMMUNITY - RESIDENTIAL (PC-R) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 (e) (CLASS 3) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT (8) FOOT HIGH DECORATIVE BLOCK WALL TO ENCLOSE A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE YARD RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 89-39 by adopting Resolution No. 2703, subject to the conditions contained therein, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page four Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if maintenance of both sides of the wall was the responsibility of Laurelwood; and if the RV park was part of Laurelwood. Staff affirmed that both sides of the wall would be the responsibility of Laurelwood. The public hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen moved. Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-39 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2703. Motion 7. Conditional Use Permit 89-24. Variance 89-12 APPLICANT: CALVARY CHAPEL IRVINE, KEN CATCAMP P.O. BOX 16956 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92713 PROPERTY OWNER: ROY E. HARRIS 17506 VIA CALMA TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 LOCATION: 14312 FRANKLIN AVENUE ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY, INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 5) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A CHURCH AND TO PROVIDE 98 PARKING SPACES, RATHER THAN THE 146 SPACE REQUIRED BY CODE. RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the Planning Commission Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner ¢o~mi~sioner Shaheen asked how long the variance would be valid. Staff replied that the variance was only valid as long as the CUP was valid; if the church left and no church replaced it, the use permit would be null and void after six (6) months; a new church would be restricted to the same conditions. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there was a religious station nearby. CommisSiOner Baker noted that Channel 40 is in the vicinity. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page five Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was concerned about this being the first application for a church in the industrial area; if an industrial plant wanted to work 24-hour shifts, then there is not enough parking; he was concerned that the City could suggest they limit their attendance; and he requested guidelines from the staff. CQmmissioner Baker commented that this was not actually the first church in an industrial district. The public hearing was opened at 7:25 p.m. Bob Hoekstra, representing the applicant, stated that they desired to be located within the City of Tustin; that they do fit into the Planned Community Industrial Park; he noted that they have searched for a facility that would meet their needs and the needs of their neighbors; they are affiliated with the Calvary Church of Costa Mesa; they are 8 years old; would like to be located between the cities of Irvine and Tustin; and he feels that they have a good track record in service, integrity and responsibility to the community. The location would require minimal adjustment; they are not facing traffic challenges; the hours dovetail with the industrial sector; the owner of the building is willing to work out shared parking if the hours increase. He feels that their presence would provide income for the owner and make an economic impact via traffic trips through town; and that they differ greatly from the first applicant's needs. The public hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m (inadvertently). Commissioner Shaheen asked how many members the church presently had. Mr. Hoekstra replied that there were approximately 100 adults and 30-40 children; that the church was limited by the number of chairs allowed by the City; that they would post the sign of allowable occupancy and only provide the required number of chairs. CQmmissioner Kasparian asked who would turn away excess members. Mr. Hoekstra replied that every church has a limitation to the size of their auditorium; if the need arises, they will possibly have to look for another location. Commissioner Shahe~n asked if they could conduct two services; and if they have contacted their immediate renting neighbors. Mr. Hoekstra noted that they could increase the number of services; he thought that only the owners were contacted, but felt that they would not pose a threat, but could be considered partial security; and if the tenants are not happy with their presence, then they are not doing their duty as a church. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page six Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of Item 2.1 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2706 regarding hours of use of assembly areas; and if it meant that no one could occupy the premises on the other five days of the week; and if further details should be included in the conditions. Staff replied that the office could be occupied by two to three people working during normal business hours, additional language was added to the Resolution, as moved. Mr. Hoekstra noted that he felt that the restrictions referred to the meetings of the congregation which occurred twice a week. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the maximum allowed during the week should be limited by the number of parking spaces allocated to the facility. Mr. Hoekstra noted that the City and the owner seemed to be committing 31 parking spaces to the facility, all of which would not be required during non-congregational times. Commissioner Baker assumed that they could use the facility the other five days of the week up to the capacity of the 31 parking spaces. Staff made corrections to Item 2.1, as moved. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the only time they could exceed the parking spaces was when they had a congregational meeting. Mr. Hoekstra noted that the critical issue was the management of the parking; they intend to use less than the 31 spaces except when there are congregational meetings. CQ~missioner Baker suggested that the wording be changed to accommodate increased usage during congregational times. Lois Jeffrey noted that she would read it as having restrictions on congregational meetings, with no other restrictions. CQ~missioner Kasparian asked if there was anything forthcoming that might put the City in a compromising position if this application was approved. Staff replied that with the CUP, the City has the ability to tailor conditions to fit the specific project; Condition 2.2 was set up to allow a mechanism to address any parking problems; and they could modify Item 2.2b to include a provision for two or three services which would then allow for the entire congregation; the condition is stated such that if there is a concern about parking, it would come to the Planning Staff for review. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page seven Commissioner Kasparian asked if this was made into a unique situation by the conditions set, then they may not be setting a precedent. Staff noted that any action by the Planning Commission sets some kind of a precedent; and that the Planning Commission action to approve this application would confirm the interpretation that a church is a conditionally permitted use in a Planned Community Industrial District; that with three applications in process, there is definitely a trend towards having churches in industrial areas because of the large assembly areas available; by approving this application, the Commission would be setting a ~recedent, but the city would still reserve the right to impose unique conditions on future applications. Com~ssioBer Kasparian asked if they would be abrogating chances of future denials by imposing restrictions in the Resolutions. Staff replied that the Commission would still retain the ability to impose conditions as necessary, i.e. parking, location, industrial use in immediate vicinity, which might affect the conditional use. Ms. Jeffrey commented that the Commission always retains the ability to deny a Conditional Use Permit; this issue allows a church in a Planned Community Industrial Use, which sets a precedent; the previous church was allowed in an industrial area. The issue is: If zoning is set up for an area, and development directed in a certain way, is it good planning to allow other types of development in, via a Conditional Use Permit, which were not thought about ahead of time. However, each application can be considered individually on a Conditional Use Permit basis, and can be denied based on adverse impacts or incompatible use in surrounding area. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if Item C were adopted, how long would the guidelines take to be processed by the staff. Staff replied that they could be provided by the first meeting in December. Commissioner Baker noted that his concern was with the parking; and asked if there were any complaints about the church on Sixth Street; and if off-site parking would be allowed at this location. Staff replied that there have been complaints in the past regarding off-site parking at the church on Sixth Street, but that the parking demands at this location would be accommodated for and should not pose a problem; off-site parking is not allowed on Franklin. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page eight Commissioner Ba~er commented that the Conditional Use Permit allows the Commission a vehicle to alleviate problems caused by parking that may occur in six months or so. He also noted that the fire marshall posts allowable occupancy figures in all buildings, including churches. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he was very concerned about setting a precedent without having a detailed review of the guidelines; he would also like to hear from the tenants and Associations that may be involved, via a possible mandatory response; that they should also look into what would be permitted for expansion in the immediate area for these items; and that some churches add day care facilities in the future; he would like these items addressed in Item C when returned to the Commission. Commissioner Baker agreed with Commissioner Le Jeune, but that there were no responses from the immediate owners, including Mr. Harris, the owner of this property. Commissioner Le Jeu~e noted that only the property owners, not the tenants were required to be noticed. Staff replied that they received a letter from Mr. Harris that day. Commissioner Shaheen noted that if a landlord receives a letter and thinks that his tenants are in jeopardy, then he should respond; and that child care centers were restricted by the restrictions. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there are no provisions additional parking for special events. Staff provided a fourth alternative to the Commission so that they could make a positive action on the Conditional Use Permit and Variance, and direct staff to prepare guidelines or report back within thirty days for possible standards or guidelines to consider future applicants for the Industrial area. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there could be a cap put on the number of congregation. Staff replied that they could evaluate that aspect for feasibility in context with the other guidelines. Commissioner Shaheen suggested that the situation be reviewed annually by the staff; and asked if the Commission was delaying the church. Ms. Jeffrey commented that Deputy Attorney Nixon noted that if the Commission would be approving this tonight, they ought to consider additional amendment to Item 2.1 of Exhibit A to include religious holidays which would occur on days other than Wednesdays after 7:00 p.m. and Sundays after 8:00 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page nine Commissioner Kasparian noted that they did not know which holidays this church celebrated. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the amendment should include Wednesdays and religious holidays after 7:00 p.m. during the week and Sundays after 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Baker noted that if this church moves out another religion may move in that celebrates different holidays. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the issue would still be to keep the hours to after 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and during daytime hours on the weekend. Commissioner Baker noted that other tenants at that location may decide to open for business on Saturdays. Commissioner Shaheen asked who the variance was being given to, the lay of the land or the applicant. Staff replied that Condition 2.4 requires the variance to be in effect only as long as the Conditional Use Permit is in effect. If this use is disbanded for six months or more, then the use permit will become null and void and so would the variance. However, this tenant could leave and another church come in within the six months, and the use permit would still be valid. Commissioner Shaheen felt that any church could then move in, and that they should have to start at the beginning, not receive this variance. Staff replied that they would be subject to the same conditions of the Conditional Use Permit which would also have the same limitations. Commiss$one~ Shabeen noted that since this was intended to be an industrial area, and should not perpetually be a church area; and if this church leaves, the Use Permit should become null and void. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the Variances and Use Permits are tied to the real property due to the conditions of the Planning and Zoning Code. Even with a new church, so long as they abide by these conditions, there should be no problems. Commissioner Kasparian commented that this CUP is tailored to this individual. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the hourly restrictions, except with the question of Saturday, related to the use of the parking by the congregation; it would be difficult for a church that wanted to meet on Saturday during the day, but then that church would look elsewhere for residence. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page ten Staff noted that if another church could not live with these conditions, they would have the opportunity to come back and ask for an amendment to the conditions, which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the Commission or the City could ask to review the CUP with the possible thought of changing it in case they move out. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the Commission could always review a CUP if the applicant is not complying with the conditions, for consideration of revoking it, but not simply if the applicant was considering relocation. Commissioner Baker asked if there was a condition that required the applicant to gain additional parking if there is a problem with parking. Staff replied that if there is a parking problem, Item 2.2 provides a condition requiring the applicant to provide mitigation measures to offset the parking impact; they could secure off-site parking from an adjacent property owner, or reduce the maximum number of seats, or provide additional services. Commissioner Baker was concerned with religious holidays and Saturday usage. Staff replied that an option would be to leave it as recommended by the City Attorney, and have the applicant approach the city for a Saturday religious holiday use. Commissioner Kasparian commented that he felt that they were telling this congregation when to pray. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if a future applicant came to the Commission with more than normal holidays, and special events, could they be required to specify them. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the timing of the congregational parking was the issue; which should be after 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and after 8:00 a.m. on Sundays; if another church's religious holidays do not fall within these hours, they may decide to look elsewhere for their location. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if Christmas fell on a Thursday, would they not be able to hold daytime services. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page eleven Ms. Jeffrey noted since they are mixing industrial uses with the church, she raised the question about what is good planning; here is a church that has not even started operating, and the Commission is attempting to tailor ground rules to fit their situation and not infringe on the parking situation; and that they should not worry about the next church that may come after this one, since they will have to fit within these guidelines, or ask for an amendment to the CUP. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that the Reverend would not be happy with having to hold religious services after 7:00 p.m. Mr. Hoekstra commented that Wednesday and Sunday are critical to them each week, but that religious holidays that fall outside of the hours allowed were not a strategic issue. Commissioner Baker moved. Shaheen seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-24 and Variance 89-12 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2706 with the following revisions to Exhibit A: Reword item 2.1 to read as follows: "The assembly area and classrooms of the church shall be occupied only on Wednesday or any religious holidays after 7:00 p.m. and Sunday after 8:00 a.m. for congregational meetings."; and Reword item 2.2, B. to read as follows: "Reduce maximum number of seats permitted or expand number of services in the assembly area subject to Planning Commission concurrence." Motion carried 4-0. ¢oHmissioner Le Jeune moved. Shaheen seconded to direct staff to research and bring back a set of guidelines for the placement of churches in industrial districts. Motion carried 4-0. Bob Michelson, Planning Consultant for a future applicant, asked for permission to discuss Item C, which he thought was going to be a separate issue. His client, First Baptist Church of Irvine, is ~roposing to purchase an industrial building. His concern is that if a study is going to be done, will it hold up his client who is required to enter into an escrow to get to the Public Hearing. CQmmissioner Le Jeune wondered if there should be a workshop prior to the meeting to discuss the guidelines prior to this item at the next meeting. Staff replied that they would be addressing this application the same way as the one this evening, by tailoring the conditions for the specific case; and that a workshop could be scheduled, but was probably unnecessary. As they prepare the guidelines for the Commission, the staff would be directed to follow the new guidelines for the First Baptist Church application to ensure coordination. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page twelve A~endment to Use Permit 88-8. Variance 89-16 and Use Permit 89-36 APPLICANT: OWNER.- LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RUBY'S DINER, DOUG CAVANAUGH 1721 WHITTIER STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92627 COLCO LTD., JIM COLLINGS 17320 RED HILL, SUITE 190 IRVINE, CA 92714 17582 SEVENTEENTH STREET, OAK TREE PLAZA PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL (PC-C) THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ARE REVIEWING THE PARKING DATA AND EXHIBITS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue this public hearing to November 27, 1989. Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Commissioner Shaheen moved. Baker seconded to continue the public hearing on Amendment to Use Permit 88-8, Variance 89-16 and Use Permit 89-36 to the November 27, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. General Plan Amendment 89-03. Zone Change 89-01 and Tentative Parcel Map ~-110 APPLICANT: CONSULTANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: MR. MICHAEL O. PADIAN IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA 92714 MR. KURTIS HOEHN C.D.C. ENGINEERING, INC. 15520 'B' ROCKFIELD BOULEVARD IRVINE, CA 92718 SOUTHEASTERLY OF FUTURE JAMBOREE ROAD AND NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE ADJACENT TO PETERS CANYON WASH, (A.P. 434-061-014) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page thirteen REQUEST: 1) A REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM P&I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO I (INDUSTRIAL) 2) A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FRO P&I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO M (INDUSTRIAL) 3) A REQUEST FOR A SINGLE LOT SUBDIVISION TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 2.6 ACRES TO ACCOMMODATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Adopt Resolution No. 2699 certifying the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment, Zone Change 89-01 and Tentative Parcel Map 89-110; Adopt Resolution No. 2700 recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-03; Adopt Resolution No. 2701 recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change 89-01; and Adopt Resolution No. 2702 recommending approval to the City Council of Tentative Parcel Map 89-110. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Staff made changes to Resolution No. 2702, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian noted that Item D of Resolution No. 2700 states that the General Plan shall not be amended more than four times in a year and presumed that the staff followed those guidelines. Staff replied that this is the third amendment to the General Plan for 1989 and in compliance with State law. Lois Jeffrey commented that with previous amendments multiple changes were made which makes it seem like more than four changes in the year. The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 8:31 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian moved. Baker seconded to certify the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 89-03, Zone Change 89-01 and Tentative Parcel Map 89-110 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2699. Motion carried 4-Q. Commissioner Baker moved. Shaheen seconded to recommend approval to City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-03 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2700. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page fourteen Commissioner Le Jeune moved. Shaheen seconded to recommend approval to City Council of Zone Change 89-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2701. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved. Kasparian seconded to recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Parcel Map 89-110 with the following revisions: Change Exhibit A, item 2.5 to read as follows: "Prior to Final Map approval, the precise alignment of Jamboree Road extension shall be determined and all required right-of-way along the Jamboree Road frontage shall be dedicated to the City in accordance with said alignment as determined by the Director of Public Works." Delete Item 7.2 and renumber the following. Motion carried 4-0. 10. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 89-03 and Design Review APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. ANDREW SHUTZ 2402 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92715 15101 RED HILL AVENUE (S.W. CORNER OF RED HILL AVENUE/INDUSTRIAL DRIVE) M (INDUSTRIAL) THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CONSIDERED CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED FOR THIS PROJECT. MODIFY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-03 AND DESIGN REVIEW 88-62 TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN, LANDSCAPED PLANTER AND BUILDING MATERIALS FOR THE BUILDING. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission amend Conditional User Permit 89-03 and Design Review 88-62 to approve modifications to the landscaped planter and building materials and deny modification to the mechanical equipment screen by adoption of Resolution No. 2704, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Baker asked what the height and material of the new screen would be. Staff replied that it is about four (4) feet in height, made of the same metal; the previous design was a rounded sheet design, and the new design is horizontal mounted panels of the same color. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page fifteen Commissioner Shaheen asked why the applicant proposes the change. Staff replied that the applicant felt it was a positive design and economic change. The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. Andy Shutz, President of W & S Commercial, noted that the changes have been made purely for aesthetic reasons; more design criticism and scrutiny have gone into this design since the owners intend to occupy it for twenty years; they felt that the City was forcing them to use the original screen; they were never felt happy with the original design, but made concession to the curved element which they felt was too massive and detracted from the building; there would be no significant cost savings; they rely on their architectural judgment, even though Staff disagrees. Leonard Malmquist, representing the designer, passed out a drawing of the original design which was approved by the Planning Commission. He noted that the height was nine feet high, and they were forced to bring it to the edge of the parapet; they have not put a concave element in to pick up the concave element at the ground floor entry; they have pulled it back from the edge; and they feel it reflects the design in a much stronger manner. Commissioner Baker asked how far they were moving it back; and how tall it is. Mr. Malmquist replied that since it is a flat vertical plane, rather than a half-round plane, they could move it back from the parapet further; they have moved it back four (4) feet further from each edge to fifteen feet; it always was and still is nine (9) feet tall. He noted that there is a pewter metal edge along the building which the screen picks up; and that it picks up the same horizontal line of the brickwork. Co~mi~sioner Le Jeune asked if the panels were horizontal. Commissioner Shaheen asked if this was purely a design function. Mr. Malmquist affirmed both questions. The public hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen could see no aesthetic conflict. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he put a lot of faith in the aesthetic position of staff; he generally does not like to agree with something and then change it in the future; but he did not see anything wrong with the design aesthetically. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page sixteen Commissioner Baker wanted to make certain that the correct Resolution was moved upon; and asked if the Commission might slow down the applicant's progress. Staff replied that Item C 1, 2, and 3 needed to be modified, either during this discussion, or after staff prepares alternative Resolution and bring it back to the next meeting; and that the Resolution would still have to be approved by the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this could be put on the consent calendar for the next meeting. Staff replied that it could be put on the November 27 Consent Calendar, and still have time to be reviewed by the Redevelopment Agency at their first meeting in December; and that since there was a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission, they are approving a new set of plans to satisfy the first condition that these plans are in conformance with what the Planning Commission reviewed; however, the Redevelopment Agency has final design review authority. Staff noted that action at this time or a decision at the November 27th meeting will have no bearing on when it will be able to go to the Redevelopment Agency, which meets December 4; the applicant will still be able to submit final plans for plan check with a letter acknowledging that final approval is pending. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it would then go to the consent calendar of the next meeting. Staff replied that since the public hearing was closed, it would then be put on the consent calendar of the next meeting for approval of the Resolution. Co~issioner Baker moved~ Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-03, Design Review 88-62 and direct staff to bring back a resolution to reflect same on the Consent Calendar of the November 27, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. 11. Amendment to Variance 88-10 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: SYCAMORE GARDENS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION 14802 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 SYCAMORE GARDENS STOCK CO-OPERATIVE 14802 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 14802 NEWPORT AVENUE R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 (a) (d) AND (k) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page seventeen REQUEST: A SIX (6) MONTH TIME EXTENSION TO VARIANCE 88- 10; AND AMENDMENTS TO CONDITION NO.'S 8, 9, AND 10 OF EXHIBIT A, RESOLUTION NO. 2543, PERTAINING TO CERTAIN REPAIRS RECOMMENDED IN BUILDING AND PEST INSPECTION REPORTS AND COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S SECURITY CODE. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2705, extending the time limit for Variance 88-10 six (6) months and denying proposed amendments to condition no.'s 8, 9, and 10 of Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2543. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Commissioner Shaheen asked how the applicant intends to treat one unit for pests; and how they make the owners that do not reside on the premises make the corrections. Staff replied that the efficient way to treat for termites is to tent the whole building, as they tend to migrate when only one portion is treated; and noted that by releasing the obligation to make repairs now, how does the City know that they will be done later. Commissioner Baker asked if there was not a homeowners association; and if they have any powers. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of Condition 8, pursuant to Section 9274D.2, and if it uniformly applies to all buildings or just condominiums, or apartments. Staff replied that the City Security Code applies to all types of structures; that section of the Code is in the conversion standards, and reiterates that these units should comply with the Security Ordinance. Commissioner Kasparian asked if it does not apply to the apartment before conversion. Staff replied that it would not apply to an existing non-conforming structure, such as one that was built before the Ordinance was adopted; and that it was triggered by the conversion process. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of Exhibit A, Item 9, and if it was to determine if it is in compliance with current regulations, or to determine the current situation. Staff replied that it was to determine condition of the structure. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page eighteen Commissioner L9 Je~ne asked if an apartment is converting to condominiums, is inspection of the property standard procedure; and if staff is asking anything different of this applicant that they would not ask of an apartment to condominium conversion. Staff replied that they are not asking them to do what a converter of an apartment would be required to do; the circumstances are different because it is already an ownership situation. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the City would make an inspection of an apartment. Staff replied that the applicant is required to hire a qualified engineer or inspector and file a report with the City. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if a defect in an apartment would have to be corrected before a conversion could be made; and if it was at the expense of the apartment owners. Staff affirmed. The public hearing opened at 9:10 p.m. John Stuczynski, SCMV Service Corp., addressed conditions 8, 9, and 10. Regarding the locks: the Association could purchase the locks, but cannot make the people put them on the windows; if pur- chase is sufficient, they would consider it, but it may be a waste of money. Regarding the stock co-op: the existing owners cannot obtain financing in the general market place; their property values have been depressed; this is a low-income housing project; the sales prices were between $75 and 90,000 and are now between $75 and 110,000; this is the only type of housing of this type in the City. Regarding repairs: the original inspection was called to determine soundness; the inspection report noted that all areas under the responsibility of the Association are in good shape and there is nothing major to repair in the individual units; is requirement of repair creating a financial hardship for the owners. Regarding the assessment levy: the Association cannot assess the general membership for improvements on individual units; the Association would have to pledge assets to put up a bond, and they cannot pledge reserve accounts for work to be done by individual owners; the owners have already been assessed in excess of $1,500 per unit over the period of a year. Regarding increase in value upon conversion: they will increase, when sold, but it does not give the owners money to improve now. Regarding pest control: most units were done three (3) years ago; when sold, lenders require deficiencies to be improved prior to sale; to require tent- ing prior to conversion is not inexpensive; additional assessments would be a financial hardship. The intention of the conversion is to change the way they hold title, and creates greater opportunities to sell the units; the property inspection is at the discretion of the buyer; and he does not know why the City should be able to require compliance at this point. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page nineteen Commissioner Shaheen asked how many buildings and units were involved. Mr. Stuczynski replied that there are 25 buildings with four (4) units each. Com~issioner L~ Je~n~ asked why some were not inspected. Mr. Stuczynski replied that 85% have been inspected and 15% not completed; each owner was noticed by Registered Mail, and evidence of notice made to the Planning Staff; they made an attempt to contact all owners, but cannot do more than request them to make their units available. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there was any indication that any units needed major repairs; and asked the age of the buildings. Mr. Stuczynski replied that if the balance of the units are as the ones that have been inspected, then there are only minor problems; and are approximately 25 years old. Staff replied that he thought they were built in the mid to late sixties. Commissioner Baker asked when the units became co-ops. Staff replied that they converted in 1979. Mr. Stuczynski commented that there was a loop-hole in the law that allowed an apartment conversion to a stock co-op. Commissioner Kasparian asked if one unit of the four is sold, how do they handle pest control treatment if the others do not want to be treated. Richard Kvidt, Sycamore Gardens Homeowners Association President, replied that if it was determined that the termites were inaccessible, all four tenants would have to move out so that they could tent the entire building. Commissioner Kasparian noted the absence of the discharge pipe of the pressure temperature valve for the water heater throughout the inspection report, and asked if this was a building violation; and if a unit is sold and inspected, does it have to be brought up to code before the sale can be finalized. Staff replied that it was a violation of the Plumbing Code; the water heaters may have been installed prior to that requirement being included in the Plumbing Code; and that if a unit is inspected and violations identified, then permits are required to be obtained and work performed to correct the violation. If it is Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page twenty determined that the pressure valve and dispensing pipe would have been required at the time the unit was installed, then this would have to be installed. If not, then it would not necessarily have to be corrected. Mr. Stuczvnski noted that there are ten units out of the 100 that had that problem. Commissioner Kasparian replied that he felt that it was a lot, that it was dangerous, and that it was a violation; and he noted that one of the units was noted to have an electric outlet with an open ground, which he felt was very dangerous to the occupants; and that there is a breaker panel with a missing door. Mr. Stuczynski noted that the individual owners could be notified of the particular problems, but the association does not have the authority to make repairs; it is unlawful, even for the betterment of the tenants. Commissioner Kaspari~D asked if the units would be sold from an individual to an individual; and asked what the current ownership of the total units was. Mr. Stuczynski replied that they would in 99% of the cases; and that there was approximately 70% owner-occupied, with the remainder being rental. Many of the rentals are due to the inability to sell; and one of the requirements of the City was to allow the renters first right of refusal to buy the units. Commissioner Shaheen asked if it was the City's requirement, and if the City had any right to make it. Staff replied that it was adopted as part of the Ordinance that enables the City to issue a certificate of compliance to convert the units from a stock co-op to a condominium, directly from the State Subdivision Map Act. ~ noted that there is an owner who intends to go to court to stop this, and feels that it will become a serious issue in the future. Lois Jeffrey noted that the City Attorney, Jim Rourke, has been working with staff on this issue and has been in contact with the State Attorney General and will be issuing an opinion on that. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there are deadbolts on the doors; and if the window locks can be additional security locks that screw in. replied that all of the units have window locks. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page twenty-one Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they were questioning the type of lock or the fact that there is no lock on the windows. Commissioner Baker asked if the City is saying that there are no locks on the windows. Staff replied that the City is only requiring locks to be on the windows to comply with the Security Ordinance. Commissioner Kasparian clarified that the conditions require secondary locks. Commissioner Le Jeune asked who guarantees that the locks are installed. Staff noted that the language of the condition states that the applicant only has to provide the locks. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the City was satisfied that some of the units would not be able to be inspected. Staff replied that this was not an issue. ~ commented that the Association has no ability to require the owners to make the repairs; he turned the inspection reports into staff in April, and has been awaiting a reply from staff for seven months to make safety repairs; and that the City has the ability to cite the owners and require the repairs. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff how compliance is enforced and if it is the Homeowners Association's responsibility, or the City's. Staff replied that Building Code violations can be required to be corrected via citations; but was unsure as to the authority of the stock co-operative; and the City could not write a citation for something that is not a requirement of the Building Code. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how the changes can be made, and are they necessary. ~ noted that some of the corrections are not necessary for a safe unit; and he asked the City to cite the owners for Code violations, and notify the Homeowners Association so that they might work with the owners to ensure compliance. CQmmissioner Baker noted that any of the fifteen units that were not inspected may have problems. Staff noted that the conditions of the approval of the variance require as part of Conditions 9 and 10 a notification be recorded concurrent with the Certificate of Compliance on those uninspected units that notifies those persons that those units were not Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page twenty-two inspected; The owners and prospective buyers would know that the units were never inspected; the issue here is not regarding the uninspected units, but how to repair the units that were inspected; and identify violations to the Building Code. Commissioner Shaheen asked if staff had reviewed the CC&Rs and the Homeowners Agreement, which would indicate what could or could not be done. Staff replied that he had not reviewed them. Lois Jeffrey noted that although it would not ensure that the repairs be made, the City could require the inspection reports be recorded as a notice so that anybody purchasing the property would be aware of the problems noted in the inspection report; they could then negotiate on the price, or the seller could be required to make re~airs before occupancy; this would place the new owner in a bargaining position; they will have to work out the pest control situation, though. ~, made suggestions in his reports to the City that they would take care of the common area, and as one unit in each building sells, they would take care of the whole building. The Association has to pay for termite control, but at this time, they would have trouble obtaining the money. In the last three to four years, 15-20 units have been sold through foreclosure as the people were unable to resell them or refinance them because they are a co- op; the reason for the high number of rentals is because the owners could not sell their units; as the momentum moves toward 50% rentals, more will move out and rent; and they need the conversion to keep the quality up and so that people can keep their homes. Susan Taylor, Sycamore Gardens owner, bought her unit in 1980. In 1986, as president of the Homeowners Association, she started addressing the problem of conversion. In 1986 there were three (3) sources for loans for co-ops in the state, with rates 1/4% to 1/2% higher than a comparable condominium loan. Regarding some units not being inspected: some tenants are just not available, not just trying to avoid the inspection. Regarding locks on the windows: there are working locks on the windows. Regarding deficiency repairs: If she owned a single-family detached house, she felt the City would not be trying to make small repairs prior to selling her home. She appreciated the City's concern, but noted that it is 100 people trying to keep their homes, not a master developer trying to convert; and to impose repairs beyond the health and safety of the tenants may be going beyond the extent of the law; and that the improvements will be realized upon sale, but another special assessment now will cause an immediate cash flow problem. She noted that the tenants do not see themselves as low-income housing, but as starter housing for young families who have great pride in the complex. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page twenty-three ¢om~issioner Shaheen asked how these units are financed. ~ replied that most of the units were financed through Citicorp. ~ noted that over the years lenders have made loans and then gotten out of the market; Citicorp, who is trying to get out of these loans, will not make a new loan on a unit that they do not presently have a loan on. Commissioner Shaheen asked how many people would take out new loans upon conversion; and noted that upon sale, lenders ask for pest inspections. ~ thought that not all would refinance, but that the loans probably range from 11% to 16% because the owners cannot refinance; that Citicorp will often not give the tenants a new loan at a lower rate; and asked for approval to put in no maintenance landscaping. Robert Fisher, resident at Sycamore Gardens, noted that the City is imposing a standard of care on the owners that is not imposed on other homeowners throughout the city. This is not the same condition as an apartment conversion; this are older buildings needing insignificant repairs; if some do not cooperate, all of the owners are hostage; to require them to offer a right to buy, and offer a certain level of landscaping, and make minor repairs is an overreaching of local government; the important function of City government is to protect the health, safety, and welfare; code violations should enforced by City staff, not put on the Homeowners Association. The public hearing was closed at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Planning Commissioner had the authority to give relief on code violations. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the Commission could only change the conditions that the applicant has requested Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this was the only co-op within the City. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian noted the word "leverage" within the text of the Resolution, and felt that it was describing his own home; he did not expect any City function to tell him to make minor repairs, and that these things take care of themselves; he feels that the code violations should be looked into; and concurs with Mr. Fisher that the City should not interfere with the minor items. Regarding locks on the windows: staff says secondary locks are apparently required. He is opposed to Conditions 8, 9, and 10. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page twenty-four Commissioner Shaheen felt that the landscaping was immaterial; and asked for clarification of conflicts remaining. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that landscaping was not an issue this evening. Staff affirmed. CQmmissioner Baker was still concerned about the remaining 15 units; and felt it unfair that 85 had to be inspected, but that the other 15 did not. Ms. Jeffrey replied that there is not much that the City can do about those who do not allow their units to be inspected; she still suggests that future buyers be alerted that inspections were not performed and that certain problems exist, by amending the conditions to require that the building inspection reports and termite inspection reports be recorded along with any Certificates of Compliance that the City issues. The buyer could then decide whether they wanted an inspection as a condition of escrow. Commissioner Baker asked if a unit could still be purchased "as- is". Ms. Jeffrey replied that that was no longer lawful and that full disclosures must be made. Commissioner Shaheen asked if they are just unavailable or have said no. ~ommis~ioner Le Jeune asked if an inspection is done now, but a unit is not sold for five years, what is the relevance. CQmmis~ioner Baker asked if this exercise is to protect the City from any potential liability; and that sound attenuation and other items have already been waived. Commissioner Le Jeune replied that they were trying to comply with the law. Staff recommended that regarding Condition 8: staff will investigate the issue of window locks with the Community Services Officer to determine the nature of the locks required; if inadequate, then just require the applicant to provide the locks. Commissioner Baker asked if 9274D.2 related to window locks or security lighting. Staff replied that it the same as Condition 8. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page twenty-five Commissioner Le Jeune determined that the Commission concurred on the six (6) month extension. Commissioner Baker asked if the Commission has the capability to remove the condition requiring window locks, since 9274D.2 states that they are required. Staff replied that the Commission has the authority to grant a variance to that provision of the conversion ordinance. Commissioner Baker stated that assuming the City assumes no liability from granting that variance, he had no problem removing it. ¢o~missioner Kasparian noted that he was against requiring locks. Commissioner Shaheen concurred. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for concurrence of Item 9. Staff suggests that the building inspection reports be recorded concurrent with the Certificate of Compliance as a notification; and the City will cite any building code violations noted in the report. Ms Jeffrey suggested the Commission formalize the time extension, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked when the six (6) months starts. Ms. Jeffrey replied that she is proposing that the Commission adopt the Resolution just approving the time extension and that the other items be dropped out of the Resolution and be brought back. ~ asked for a continuance of these items so that they could comply with the public hearing requirements; and requested a continuance to a specific date. Staff replied that they did not intend a new noticing unless a variance needed to be processed. Ms. Jeffrey felt that they were asking for a variance from the Security Ordinance, and that they might have to be noticed; but if there is a way to proceed without noticing, they would. Staff replied that the notice that was done noted an amendment to this condition; that requested amendment would absolve them from having to provide window locks; and that it would be continued to December 11. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page twenty-six Commissioner Baker moved. Shaheen second~ to approve the six (6) month extension of Variance 88-10 with a new expiration date of May 14, 1990, by adoption of Resolution No. 2705 with all reference to Amendment to Variance 88-10 removed. Motion carried 4-Q. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to direct staff to bring back a resolution on the consent calendar of the December 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting to: (1) require recording of building inspection reports; (2) require the Association to clear all common areas of pests and that the Association address pest control in a building at the time that a unit is sold in that building; (3) ask the City to cite Building Code violations; (4) clarify that no releases will be made until Building Code violations are corrected; and (5) remove the requirement from Condition No. 8 to provide window locks in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9274 (d) (2) unless there is a legal constraint, by Minute Motion. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 12. Actions of the November 6. 1989 City Council Meeting Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner No Commission action necessary. 13. Holiday Schedule for second Planning Commission meeting in Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to cancel the December 25, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 4-0. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Shaheen requested further information regarding the City's Earthquake Plan; and team captains in neighborhoods. Lois Jeffrey replied that an emergency preparedness plan is being prepared. Staff replied that the City has an Earthquake Plan that is being revised and they are setting up plans to enact a mock drill; the 1985 plan is being amended with assignments for simulation; and will bring back status of plan to next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 1989 Page twenty-seven Commissioner Kasparian asked for the status of the sign code; would it be passed out to the Commissioners; and can the Commission react on an individual basis prior to a workshop; and if staff knows who is certifying the test equipment for Protek. Staff replied that it was in the finishing stages, but was not yet scheduled for Planning Commission review; but a workshop will be scheduled; the test service name is not yet known, but the Commissioner could contact the AQMD. Co~Lmissioner Le Jeune noted concerns regarding past Commission action for the sign at the Mimi's Plaza at 17th Street and Carroll way and a similar sign that was placed next to the sidewalk at Currie School on Sycamore. Staff noted that the City has no jurisdiction on School District property and clarified the action taken by the Commission regarding Mimi's Plaza signs. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff had received the cassette tapes of the conference in Monterey. Staff reported that the tapes had been obtained and that they would provide them to the Commission. Commissioner Kasparian also noted the desire to hear the tapes. ADJO~ At 10:40 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved. Le Jeune seconded to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on Monday, November 27, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 4-0. ~ Chairman P~nni Foley Secretary