Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-23-89HINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COIIqISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, lg89 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Pontious, Baker, Shaheen, Kasparian Absent: Le Jeune 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 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 October 9, 1989 Planning Commission meeting 2. FINAL PARCEL MAP 88-315 APPLICANT/ OWNER: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN MINISTERIAL EXEMPTION REQUEST TO RECONFIGURE 2 LOTS IN TRACT 12763 TO CREATE 2 NEW NUMBERED LOTS Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of Final Map 88-315. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar. carried 4-0. Motion Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page two PUBLIC REARINGS 3. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 89-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-35, AND VARIANCE 89-07 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: BRIAN BENNETT 1122 EL CAMINO REAL TUSTIN, CA 92680 IVAN HALAS 6341 VIA COLINITA RANCHO PALOS VERDE, CA 90274 14401 FRANKLIN AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION VI.C OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FOR THE IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX TO ADD AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE AND REPAIR AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE AND REPAIR, AND A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FROM 54 SPACES TO 32 SPACES AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Certify the Final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of Resolution No. 2689; Recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 89-01 by adoption of Resolution No. 2690; and Approve Conditional Use Permit 89-35 by adoption of Resolution No. 2691 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher Jackson, Associate Planner Staff made corrections and an addition to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2691, as moved. The Director noted that the Code amendment permits automotive service and repair provided that the use occupies an entire building, lot, or parcel, and the applicant has indicated that tenancy E could be leased for future automotive uses; the City would like to ensure that the entire building was for automotive related uses, or if the use permit lapses, they may want to add additional language to indicate that other uses authorized by the Irvine Industrial Business Center Standards may be permitted. Commissioner Kasparian asked if that should exclude exclusions; asked for a clarifi- cation of Item 1.C of Resolution No. 2690; and noted that 1.3 of Resolution No. 2691 indicates that all permits should be obtained within one year, but that others allowed 18 months. Staff replied that it would only apply to that particular complex. The Director replied that a Conditional Use Permit must be obtained within 12 months, and Design Review within 18 months. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page three Commissioner Baker asked if there was a condition to have sidewalks installed. Staff affirmed. The public hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m. Ron Bennett, representing the applicant, noted that the applicant had received a document from Cal Trans on October 16 stating that the applicant must be moved off of the existing property by November 8; they asked Cal Trans for more time, but were denied due to construction of the freeway; they have agreed with everything that has been required of them; however, they are not sure that installation of the public sidewalk is in the best interest of the project. He noted that the tenant in Unit E is under the control of the tenant in Unit C (via electric boxes), implying that the owner of the facility would have control of the type of tenant in the other units. They intend to make this a model facility that the City would be proud to have. Commissioner Baker asked if the operation would be completely inside at all times. Mr. Bennett replied that they would be indoors at all times; that the three existing doors used for the Pac Tel fleet would be landscaped to deter use. They operate on an appointment basis only, and do not want drop-in business. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there would be other sidewalks along Franklin Avenue. The Director replied that there are other sidewalks; there have been sidewalks estab- lished with renovations, and on an intermittent basis; the industrial park was designed without sidewalks. The City Council has adopted a policy to require side- walks with any new construction so that the City avoids any liability that might be incurred by pedestrians walking along the street. Mr. Bennett noted that there is not a sidewalk along the entire length of that side of the street, except at the corner of Walnut and Franklin. They would lose three (3) mature trees, but would be willing to accept the sidewalk if they must. Commissioner Baker asked if they would be able to be out of the old location by November 8 and into the new facility. The Director replied that the City could not issue building permits until the zoning ordinance was adopted; the applicant was aware of that; the applicant has the right to submit for plan check and the City will provide courtesy corrections and plan checking of the structure. Mr. Bennett noted that it was virtually ready for occupancy on a temporary basis; it is well-ventilated; and that they have met with Mr. Lazarro, plan checker, and the Orange County Fire Marshall and fire engineers for information about what was needed so that they could begin operation on a temporary basis. Commissioner Baker asked if that meant that the applicant could move at this time. The Director replied that he could not technically move into the building until the zoning ordinance is adopted. The public hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page four Commissioner Baker noted that the present location across from the high school is a clean operation; and they would hopefully create new business in the industrial area. His concern was mechanics shops that tend to leave torn down engines in the parking lot, and test drive vehicles on the streets, but was not aware of any activ- ities of that nature associated with this business. Commissioner Pontious felt that this type of business in the industrial area would provide a convenience to the people working in the area. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to certify the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2689. Motion carried 4-0. Commisisioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 89-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2690 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-35 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2691, revised as follows: Change Condition 1.3 to: 1.3 Use Permit 89-35 shall not become effective until City Council approves zoning code amendment 89-01. The Use Permit approval shall be come null and void unless all building permits are issued within one year of said date. Failure of City Council to approve said zoning amendment shall cause Use Permit 89-01 to become null and void. In case of approval by the City Council, extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission if a requrest is received by the Community Development Department thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Add Condition 1.5 as follows: 1.5 The entire building shall be utilized for automobile service and repair. No automotive body repair shall be permitted. Motion carried 4-0. 4. VARIANCE 89-15 AND EXPOSED NEON SIGN APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DIGITAL EAR 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 BURNETT EHLINE PROPERTIES 2050 SOUTH SANTA CRUZ, SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CA. 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 SIGNS FOR AN EXISTING RETAIL STORE Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page five RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Plannning Commission: approve the requested Exposed Neon Business Identification sign by minute order; and deny the requested advertising sign by the adoption of Resolution No. 2695, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to continue the public hearing on Variance 89-15 and exposed neon sign to the November 13, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 4-0. 5. USE PERMIT 89-34 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: TOKYO LOBBY 927 K. E. LAS TUNAS DRIVE SAN GABRIEL, CA 91776 TUSTIN RETAIL LIMITED 2100 S. E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 400 IRVINE, CA 92714 13951 CARROLL WAY, SUITE D C-1; RETAIL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 AUTHORIZATION TO SELL BEER AND CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE WINE FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 89-34 by adopting Resolution No. 2685, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Baker asked if the restaurant will change any of the parking re qu i rement s. Staff replied that parking has been detailed to accomodate 80 seats. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there was a reciprocal parking agreement between Mimi's Cafe and the center. Staff replied that there is driveway access between Mimi's and the new portion of the center. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Wilej/ Hi~uchi, attorney for Tokyo Lobby, agreed with the conditions of the Resolution. Commissioner Baker asked if the hours of operation would be adequate for the applicant. Mr. Hi~uchi replied that since the restaurant stops serving alcohol at 9:30, the time limits are adequate. The public hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page si x Commissioner Shaheen felt that since it is a sit-down restaurant, serving of beer and wine was appropriate. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-34 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2685. Motion carried 4-0. 6. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13788, DESIGN REVIEW 88-65 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-37 APPLICANT: OWNER: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES 630 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 IRVINE PACIFIC P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 LOCATION: LOTS 26, LL, JJ, AND KK OF TRACT 12870 ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 4 NUMBERED AND 5 LETTERED LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES; 2. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING 170 APARTMENT UNITS; AND 3. APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2686; Approve Design Review 88-65 and Conditional Use Permit 89-37 by adopting Resolution No. 2687, as submitted or revised; and Recommend City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 13788 by adopting Resolution No. 2688, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Staff made corrections to the Exhibit A of Resolution 2687, as moved. Commissioner Shaheen asked how large the units were; and if the builder intended to convert them to condominiums as they are built. Staff replied that, as noted in the Statistical Summary, the sizes ranged from a studio unit at 566 square feet to a three-bedroom unit which was about 1,300 square feet. Also, that the tract map gives the builder that option. To date, none of the Irvine Pacific apartment projects have been converted. The tract map provides financing incentives, and provides an option for the future, but it does not appear that there is an intent for the immediate future. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the parking requirements for apart- ments versus condominiums. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page seven Staff replied that the East Tustin Specific Plan requires apartments to provide one (1) space for a studio, one and one-half (1 1/2) spaces for a one-bedroom, and two (2) spaces for two- and three-bedroom units; the variation is in how many of the spaces have to be covered. In an apartment project, only one of the two spaces has to be covered, whereas, both would have to covered in a condominium project. As apartments, this application is meeting the requirements for apartments, and are not providing any additional coverage for condominiums, at this time. Conditions have been provided that construction details for the future carports be reviewed at build- ing plan check. Upon conversion, they will be required to build the additional carports. Commissioner Shaheen asked if a conversion would have compensation plans and notifi- cation requirements. Staff replied that they must satisfy the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Commissioner Baker asked how the apartment parking was divided up to equal one and one-half spaces per apartment; and upon conversion, does the tenant get entitlement to a space or just the right to use it. Staff replied that there has not been a problem in the past; and that the condominium owner only gets a right to use a space. The Director replied that apartment parking was unassigned, except for the covered spaces. On a condominium project, the space is included in the diagramatic plan of the project, which provides ownership in a covered unit. Condominiums are required to provide two covered parking spaces for a two-bedroom. Commissioner Kasparian noted that in calculating the parking spaces, the staff must consider the worst case. The Director replied that the space has to be there for the covered parking areas; the turning radii and the setbacks must be verified on the site plan even though the applicant is not installing them at this time. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Joe Francis, Western National Properties, noted that they have worked out the worst case for parking; and have designed-in placement of the future carports on the site plan. Commissioner Baker asked if there were any gates on the project. Mr. Francis replied that there was one gate on the project that goes into the park area, between Gallery and Rollins. Commissioner Pontious asked if the wall would be made of similar construction as the other walls in the vicinity. Mr. Francis affirmed. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the applicant had an idea of the rental prices. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page eight Mr. Francis replied that the rents would be similar to Rancho Tierra and Rancho Madera, but was not sure of the range. The public hearing was closed at 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian commended staff on a nice job, and felt that the project was straight forward. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to aprove Environmental Determination for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2686. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review 89-65 and Conditional Use Permit 89-37 by the adoption of Resolution 2687, revised as follows: Page one, Item 1.3 should be changed to read: unless "all" building permits are issued within eighteen (18) months of the date "of this Resolution." Page one, add Item 1.6: "The subdivider shall record a deed restriction prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, restricting the use of the mainten- ance building for storage of maintenance vehicles/supplies and maintenance activities only. It shall not be utilized as living or sleeping quarters at any time. Page one, Item 2.1: add to the end of the first line "the following shall be requi red" Page two, Item 2.2: delete "Consideration shall be given to" and add "shall be installed" after Rough plumbing. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 13788 by adoption of Resolution 2688. Motion carried 4-0. 7. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13735, DESIGN REVIEW 88-46 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-32 APPLICANT: REGIS CONTRACTORS, INC. 5160 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OWNER: IRVINE PACIFIC P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 OWNER: IRVINE PACIFIC P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 LOCATION: LOT I OF PARCEL MAP 88-315 ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST: 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE SIX (6) NUMBERED AND EIGHT (8) LETTERED LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES; 2. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING 238 APARTMENT UNITS; AND 3. APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page ni ne Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2692; approve Design Review 88-46 and Use Permit 89-32 by adoption of Resolution No. 2693, as submitted or revised; and recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13735 by adoption of Resolution No. 2694, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Staff made corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution Nos. 2693 and 2694, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the type of gates required. Staff replied that they would be secured gates so that people could not cut through the site for access to the school. The Director replied that this condition was imposed on the Rancho Tierra and LDM projects, and would only have to be installed in the event of the high school's construction. Commissioner Pontious noted that the gates are required on the recommendation of the Public Works and Police Departments. The Director commented that the applicant was not aware of the gating requirements. Commissioner Kasparian asked if this was a gated ingress. Staff replied that no security gates were proposed on this project; and that these gates would be placed at the entrances off of Myford Road and Heritage Way. Commissioner Pontious reiterated that the gates were required only if the high school is completed. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the location of the gates. The Director replied that they would be installed so that they were consistent with the Fire Department's and Public Works' requirements for stacking. The applicant would have to submit plans which would have to meet Fire Department standards. Commissioner Kasparian asked how the gates would be operated. The Director replied that they would either be rolling or swing-open style. Staff replied that they would be operated by a remote or a keypad. Staff noted that Item 1.6 would be added to Exhibit A of Resolution 2693, as moved. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the three-story apartments were located over garages; and if there were any units with three-stories. Staff replied that the three-story units were a three-story stack; there is only one level with units above the garages; and that they are three-story buildings, not units. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page ten Commissioner Kasparian asked what the configuration of the other units in the vicinity would be in comparison with this three-story project. Staff replied that across Myford Road, Rancho Tierra was a two-story project. The Director replied that there was a similar project on lot 14 on the north side of Irvine Blvd.; and that this was the densist project proposed; but it was within the limits for density of 25 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Kasparian asked if this project would be incongruous with the surround- ing projects. Staff replied that the architecture was compatible with the area; the three-story units step down to a two-story building which helps to reduce their mass; the build- ing walls are multi-planed, creating interest in the building; and feel that it will work well with the surrounding units. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he felt that the line they were trying to promote was low, and hesitates to see a lot of three-story buildings in the City. The Director noted that the development standards for East Tustin permit 40 foot high buildings in the medium-density category; if the guidelines are met there is very little discretion for changing the heights proposed. Commissioner Baker noted that the previous item on the agenda proposed two-story buildings at 30 feet high versus 34 feet for three-stories for this project. Commissioner Pontious asked if consideration has been given for additional sound attenuation for the units backing-up to the high school site; and if there was additional landscaping planned for that area. Staff replied that there is a condition requiring the subdivider to prepare a noise study specifically regarding those units to ensure compliance of 45 dba for interior units. The applicant is required to notify the tenants of the potential of the high school site being located on the adjacent property. The Director noted that the landscaping plans propose a fairly heavy buffering of plantings along that boundary, as noted in Item 6.1B of Exhibit A of Resolution 2694. Commissioner Pontious noted that the sound testing was being done while the high school was not in operation. The Director replied that the noise report would consider similar circumstances and use the asumptions based upon field conditions. Commissioner Baker asked if there were sidewalks around the project. Staff affirmed. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page el even The public hearing was opened at 8:18 p.m. Jim Gill j/, Regis Contractors, noted that there is currently a continuous six-foot high fence along the perimeter of the project, which would deter any foot traffic; the project is not fenced on its exterior, and foot traffic would merely bypass the gates; and the gates would have minimal effect on students walking through the project. Commissioner Pontious noted that most high school students drive to school and that the drive-through traffic would be significant. The Director noted that it was not only the foot traffic, but the special event traffic that would affect the security aspects of the project. The Police Department views it as a significant policing problem which raises servicing costs. Commissioner Pontious asked if it would be possible to also include additional fencing to alleviate walking around the gate. Mr. Gillj/ asked if a compromise could be made whereby they would address the issue if it becomes a problem. The Director replied that a compromise has already been made by only requiring a gate at the entry location, and not fencing around the entire project; given the condi- tions imposed upon projects which are a further distance from the high school, staff does not feel that this imposes an undo hardship. Commissioner Pontious appologized for Mr. Gilly not being aware of this condition before this evening. However, she felt uncomfortable requiring less of this project than what has been required of the others. The public hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved,.Kasparian seconded to approve Environmental Determination for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2692. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Design Review 88-46 and Use Permit 89-32 by adoption of Resolution No. 2693, as revised: Pa~e one, Item 1.3 should be changed to read: unless "all" building permits are issued within eighteen (18) months of the date "of this Resolution." Page one, add Item 1.6: "The subdivider shall submit information to ensure compliance with condition number 10.12 of Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2694." Page one, Item 2.1: add to the end of the first line "the following shall be requi red" Page two, Item 2.2: delete "Consideration shall be given to" and add "shall be installed" after Rough plumbing. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Page twelve Commissioner Baker moved, Kas. parian seconded to recommend to City Coucil approval of Vesting Tentative T~act Ma'p 1'3735 revised as follows: Page twelve, add Item 10.10: "Prior to the issuance of any permits, the sub- divider shall submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval by the City's Street Naming Committee." Page twelve, add Item 10.11: "Approval of this Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall be subject to City Council approval of Final Parcel Map 88-315." Page twelve, add Item 10.12: Within 90 days of completion of a high school, the subdivider shall install security gates at all vehicular entries. Plans for said gates shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation." Motion carried 4-0. COI~ISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Shaheen asked if the City had an earthquake preparedness plan; and if there was a service within the City that will recharge small fire extinguishers. The Director replied that the City has an emergency plan; but that there is no City- provided service for fire extinguishers. Commissioner Baker asked if the City provided water heater security kits for earth- quake safety. The Director stated that the City does not, however, a building permit is required to install/replace a water heater and that the Uniform Plumbing Code required strapping of water heaters. She also indicated that the Police Department has Earthquake preparedness information that is available to citizens free of charge. Commissioner Baker asked if the wood yard on E1 Camino Real would be removed with the Cal Trans widening project. The Director affirmed. ADJOURNMENT At 8:35 p.m., Commissioner Baker moved,.Shaheen seconded to adjourn to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on November 13, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Penni Foley Secretary Chairman