Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-26-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~ISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Le Jeune, 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 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 DISCUSSE!) AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the June 12, 1989 Plannin9 Commission Meeting Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Amendment to Use Permit 88-23 APPLICANT/ OWNER: PACIFIC BELL 177 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91105 LOCATION: 14451MYFORD ROAD ZONING: PC-I, PLANNED COMMIJNITY INDUSTRIAL: IRVINE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301(e.2) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT 88-23 TO CONSTRtJCT AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH AT PAC BELL'S FIELD OPERATION CENTER. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1989 Page two Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the amend- ment to Use Permit 88-23 by adopting Resolution No. 2633, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the categorical exemption from the Environmental Quality Act included the washing materials, including solvents, that would be used on the vehicles; if the new parking lot was in the northwest or northeast corner of the project; and why the time restriction for washing the vehicles was imposed. Staff replied that the CEQA provisions dealing with categorical exemptions are based on the scope and scale of the facility. The types of soaps being used are not addressed under these provisions. It would not be unreasonable to require them to use biodegradable materials. The applicant is required to satisfy the requirements of the Orange County Sanitation District by installing a rectifier for collection of the drainage so it does not go into a storm drain. The conditions of approval state further details required by building and plumbing codes. The parking lot is in the northern half of the site, towards the northwest, and will provide overnight parking for their vehicles. The reasoning for the time restrictions of operation of the car wash was due to the issue of visibility from Myford Road. Commissioner Baker was concerned with the visibility of pulling onto Myford Road if there would be mature trees planted along the berm; if the issue of the block wall versus the chain link fence across the back of the property was resolved; and asked for a numerical equivalent to "occassional, intermittent use" of the car wash during the daytime hours. Staff replied that the trees are set back on the berm and there is a sidewalk of at least five feet in width which should eliminate any visibility problems, but staff can pay particular attention to the placement in the review process. The fencing was left as an option based upon the requirements of the Irvine Industrial Complex Standards. Since the requirements did not require a block wall, the fencing will be chain link. Staff deferred the question of intermittent use to the applicant. The public hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. Patty Hamilton, Pacific Bell, replied that "intermittent use" might be six times per hour, if that. They would like it to be available for installers who might return during their lunch hours, etc. She wanted to commend staff for the fine job they did in working with the architect, and are pleased that they have come to an amenable solution to the problems. The public hearing was closed at 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that he felt that Pac Bell should also be commended for working so well with the City to meet the stringent requirements that were set. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to approve the amendment to Use Permit 88-23 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2633, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1989 Page three 3. Use Permit 89-21 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JOHN CHAMPION CHAMPION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 100 OCEANGATE BOULEVARD SUITE 600 LONG REACH, CALIFORNIA 90802 13662 NEWPORT AVENUE AT MAIN STREET. PC-COMM - PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. TO CONSTRUCT A 1~,200 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER ON A 1.49 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE AND MAIN STREET. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2634 as submitted or revised; and 2) Approve Use Permit 8q-21 by adoption of Resolution No. 2635 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Commissioner Shaheen asked for a clarification of the parking requirements, as he thought it should be four (4) parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of building space. Staff replied that it should be five (5) parking spaces to every 1,000 square feet of building space. Commissioner Kasparian asked staff, regarding page four of the staff report, if 75% of the project was to be retail, what the remaining 25% could be. He asked if the traffic department has reviewed the traffic flow based on exiting the project onto Main Street. Should a person intend to return to the City by way of the Bryan Avenue "Y" intersection, it might create a dangerous back-up of traffic. He also asked if the land to building ratio which was noted as 2.58 should be 3, and if it made a difference to the staff. Staff replied that 75% of the project should be sales tax generating, and the remain- ing 25% could be service oriented (dry cleaners, insurance office, etc.); that the traffic issues, both existing and proposed, have been addressed with this project. The Engineering Department studied the entire project and has considered changes with the channelization of Main Street to facilitate movement. Their review indicates that the traffic generated by this project would not create a substantial increase in traffic. A left-turn into the project from Main Street will not be allowed as it will create a hazard. Also, that the land to building ratio was not critical, but could have the applicant change the figures. Commissioner Baker asked if the tenants had to deliver their trash by carrying it in front of the shops and around to the bins; if the alleyway is sufficient to support trash pickup; if the apartments that are being removed are considered "low-cost" housing; how many units are being eliminated; will it affect the Housing Element; and if this project was outside of the Cultural Overlay District. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1989 Page four Staff replied that tenants did have to carry their trash out in front of the buildings; the alleyway is 30 feet wide, which is sufficient for trash pickup; twelve (12) units will be removed; these are not Section 236 housing units that were developed with Federal money, they are merely apartment units, so the Housing Element will be unaffected; and it is outside the boundaries of the Cultural Overlay District. The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Elizabeth Springer, 1056 Andrews Street, commented that she owned lots 14 and 15 directly across from the proposed project. She owns two (2) rental houses on each lot. Her main concern is the existing traffic situation. Exiting and entering Andrews Street is very difficult, as the drivers do not heed the "Keep Clear" section painted in the intersection. A tenant's car was recently hit in the intersection. She suggests a traffic light be installed, even though it is very near Main Street, to solve the traffic problems for the tenants as well as the new patrons of the center. San Remo Market needs a red curb in front of the store, as trucks and cars park right up to the corner making it impossible to see oncoming traffic. The housing should not be considered low-cost. Peter Murtou~h, 1046 Andrews Street, believes that the amount of traffic that will increase due to the new center will have a great impact on the difficulty entering and exiting Andrews Street. There is a day care center located behind San Remo Market. The tenants of the street are careful to watch for people crossing with their children, however, he feels that shoppers will not be as aware and may hit a child as they are turning the corner (i.e. teenagers going too fast on their way to lusic Plus). He feels that the center should not have an entrance on Andrews Street, or at least install a traffic signal, even though it would create traffic backup. Louis Drapac, 13636 Estero, property owner, noted that the traffic on Andrews is a major issue. He felt that the location of the handicapped stalls at the entry to the center would create a stacking situation, and suggested that they be moved else- where. He asked if there has been an independent traffic study done. He felt that the condition regarding the auto parts shop should stay as written. Staff replied that an independent consultant has reviewed the proposal, but has not done an independent traffic study of the project. John Champion, applicant, noted that: - the handicapped stalls can be easily moved; - the project was designed for ingress and egress in front of Music Plus, and that over time, the left-turn lane will not be the preferred access. - the opening from Andrews Street to Main Street will provide residents with easy access to Main Street; - will provide a "Children at Play" sign, or some other caution, to prevent a tragedy; - the auto parts store that is proposed will be of the highest quality to attract a high clientelle; and - a signal would be close to Main Street, but he would be willing to listen to any mitigation proposed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be a problem with odor from a fast-food type restaurant that might affect the residents; if the examples of tenants indicated firm tenants, and if any of the other locations were leased at this time. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 19~9 Pa §e f i ve Mr. Champion replied that his location did not qualify for a fast-food restaurant in terms of parking; Music Plus is a firm tenant, but the other names listed are for identification purposes only and are not firm. Commissioner Shaheen noted that Chief Auto Parts on Sycamore has signs posted outside noting that installation of parts is prohibited. Mr. Champion commented that he would be willing to include a provision in the lease noting that no on-site installation is allowed. Commissioner Kasparian requested a clarification of the applicant's comment regarding the local residents' use of the property for traffic use; the residents already have access to the alleyway; and crossing the property does not hurt or help if they want to turn left onto Newport. Mr. Champion replied that as it is a public parking lot, and since most of the tenants do not open until 10:00 a.m., he felt that the local residents could use his property to cross over to Main Street; there is an easement for the residents located just east of the center. Staff comnented that a traffic engineer looked at the proposed uses versus the exist- ing uses of the project. The morning traffic will be substantially reduced by the reduction of the housing units. There was not a determination that it would substan- tially increase the traffic and warrant a full traffic study. Commissioner Baker asked what the use will be now compared to when it was a gas station. He also noted that Newport Avenue traffic is very heavy in the morning and evening. Staff replied that there were six (6) driveways for the whole site, and there will now only be two (2) which facilitates movement by providing better visibility. Also, regarding the day care center, State law requires that parents escort their children to and from the facility. If they are being negligent, the City will remind the parents and the day care center, if this is a problem. She agreed that the traffic on Newport is bad in the morning and evening, however, the stores will typically not be open during the morning rush hour, which might alleviate some concerns. Commissioner Shaheen asked whether the City would be involved financially in the redevelopment. Mr. Champion replied that the City was not involved. Ms. Springer comnented that the proposed traffic light would be close to the Main Street signal, but compared to the three (3) signals located on Red Hill at E1 Camino Real and Santa Ana Freeway, she felt that this would not be any closer. Even without the center, a signal would solve a lot of traffic problems. Commissioner Baker asked if someone could review the parking problem in front of San Remo Market. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1989 Page six Staff replied that the traffic engineer can review the feasibility of posting another "Keep Clear" sign, painting more red curb areas, and work with the day care center to remind the parents of the traffic problems. Since applicants are often required to help pay for traffic signals, the need for signals is reviewed at every opportunity. Based upon information provided by the traffic engineer, there is not substantial information to warrant the applicant or anyone to install a traffic light at that location at this time. Based upon the proximity to Main Street, the right turn movement from Main Street south onto Newport would make a traffic signal at that location difficult, if not dangerous. Mr. Drapac asked for a reassurance that the suggestions made this evening would be implemented. The traffic problem is not just in the morning, but also in the evening. He would like to see something more than a discussion of a possible study being done. Staff replied that since the traffic engineer was not present, she could not guaran- tee that the items suggested were feasible. She could insert conditions to the resolutions identifying the concerns; this would facilitate the staff's ability to study the items at the Commission's request and would ensure the residents that the staff would try to do something for them. Staff would add items 1.8 and 1.9 to the resolution, as moved. Staff would report back to the Commission and to any interested party as to the determination of the investigation. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a staff traffic engineer and traffic engineering firm; has this been reviewed by the traffic engineer; and does the Commission receive a status report on any further studies. Staff replied that there were conditions imposed, (i.e. channelization of Main Street and the right turn movements). The applicant is being required to redo the pavement markers along Main Street to prohibit left turn movement into the center and require a right-turn-only exit. The Commission will receive further status reports on the traffic issue. Commissioner Shaheen asked how many parking spaces would be allocated for the center along Andrews Street. He felt that no matter what is placed on this site, traffic will be a problem, and that it is the City's responsibility to ensure that safety factors are installed and maintained. He commented that it is an attractive center and commended the applicant for his independence in financing the project. Mr. Drapac noted that the restriping of Main Street to prevent a left-turn into the center will only worsen the left from Newport. He feels that the Commission should require a more in-depth study of the traffic problems noted. Commissioner Baker noted that Main Street being a single-lane after the location of the alleyway should be included in the study to be striped as two lanes at least to Red Hill. He feels that since the center will provide additional traffic along that section, as well as the present traffic and parking alon§ the street, there may be increased hazards which should be addressed. Staff replied that the reason that Main Street is not presently striped for two lanes is that there is not enough room for two lanes and parking. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1989 Page seven Commissioner Baker commented that along Bryan past Red Hill the on-street parking has been eliminted. He realizes this would create difficulties for the apartment users, but, with the additional traffic, he feels that this should be considered. Staff replied that there are other issues related to the restriping of Main Street and prohibitin§ on-street parking. However, without the Public Works Department approval, she could not include that as a condition of the project. She could approve red striping of the curbs with the condition that the applicant possibly pay for paint and signs. Commissioner Kasparian asked what the mix of people were on the lot; were most of the people working or retired; and if there was any problem when the gas station was located there. Ms. Springer noted that there are 13 buildings with three- and four-plex tenants; she felt that most of the tenants worked, and that there were quite a few children living in the units; there was no problem when the gas station was there, but since San Remo Market moved to the corner, they have had visibility problems. She noted that the "Keep Clear" sign painted in the intersection does not help. The public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that enough issues had been raised this evening to warrant further traffic review of Andrews Street. Commissioner Kasparian con~ented that he agreed with Commissioner Le Jeune and that he rejected the idea of looking at this project as an isolated incident without considering the surrounding aspects. Commissioner Shaheen disagreed. He felt that they would be holding up the project, and regardless of what the study shows, the project, obviously has to go through. He felt that the applicant should be allowed to pursue the project while the traffic study is being done. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt that the study would provide something positive and would let the residents understand the study, be a part of it, and make sure that they agree with the findings. He also asked if there would be a master sign plan for this center and if Community Development would be approving it. It was his understanding that the Planning Commission was to review master sign programs for complexes. Staff replied that the Planning Commission would review requests of larger complexes with major issues like pole signs or free standing signs. For smaller centers, staff reviews the requests, but it could be brought back to the Commission for review. Regarding the traffic issues, CEQA states that the Commission cannot base approval upon a further study. However, staff suggests adding a condition that would identify the specific issues to be addressed and specific mitigation that would appease the issues raised by the residents. Based upon the Public Works Department's determina- tion that there is no impact from the project, this is the recommendation that the staff has made. A traffic study identifying further mitigation would require the project to be continued. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1989 Page eight Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he was not looking for an in-depth traffic study, just a response to the specific items that were addressed this evening; he felt that in the future it would be helpful if the traffic engineer was present at meetings with potential traffic problems. Staff commented that the traffic engineer's comments are all included in the condi- tions of approval. Commissioner Baker asked if item 13 on the Environmental Initial Study Form was strictly pertaining to parking on the site. Staff replied affirmatively, and identified wording for items 1.8 and 1.9 to be added to the conditions, as moved. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it would be better to leave the handicapped spaces at the entrance to the center since they are typically free; and if the City requires an applicant to pay for paint and safety items. Staff replied that they are typically free, however, as handicapped people may have more difficulty easing into a spot, it might create a stacking situation; and if an improvement is required as part of a specific project, the applicant may be required to pay for items such as a traffic signal, signage, etc. Staff also noted that the time frame of this project is important to the applicant; if, however, the Commission is so moved as to not go forward with the project, staff can report back to the Commission with other options. Commissioner Baker asked if the fuel tanks being removed have indicated any prob)ems with the soils as yet. Staff replied that soils reports completed about a year ago did not indicate any leakage, however, the final results will not be known until the tanks are removed. If there are any problems, the site will have to he remediated before building permits could commence. Commissioner Le Jeune reminded staff of the issue of the sign regarding children being present. Staff asked the residents if the parents did, in fact, assist the children across Andrews Street. Commissioner Baker asked if there was an off-site parking area for the day care facility. He commented that the City knew that this was a difficult corner, and that he was not surprised at the amount of discussion regarding this project. The residents replied that the parents did assist the children, and that there was no off-site area for parking for the day care center. Commissioner Baker asked counsel if there would he right of appeal by the residents if there was ever a question of safety factors involved. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1989 Page nine Lois Jeffrey replied that a use permit could be appealed to the City Council for any reason. One of the findings that should be made when approving a use permit is to determine that there would be no adverse affect on the health and safety of the residents. In this case, there was already an existing traffic problem at the intersection of Andrews Street and Newport Avenue. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2634 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Use Permit 89-21 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2635 revised as follows: Exhibit A, page 1, 1.4c, line 2 should be changed to read: retail auto parts sales (excluding specialty accessory installation, schools or" "repair or general parts sales) or Exhibit A, page 2, add the following: "1.8 The southerly handicap parking spaces shall be moved further north on the site to avoid vehicle stacking problems." and "1.9 The Public Works Department shall investigate and install, where appropriate, red curbs along Andrews Street, west of the southerly access point, along the south side of Andrews Street adjacent to Newport Avenue and along Newport Avenue both north and south of Andrews Street. Additionally, the investigation of the installation of one "Keep Clear" sign on Newport Avenue south of Andrews Street and one "Caution Children" on Andrews Street just east of Newport Avenue shall be conducted by the Public Works Department. The results of the investigation shall be presented to the Planning Commission and the cost for any and all work shall be borne by the applicant as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Director." Motion carried 4-0. NEW BUSINESS 4. Use Determination APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JEROME BUCKMELTER ASSOCIATES, INC. ON BEHALF OF L.A. CELLULAR TELEPHONE 23534 AETNA STREET WOODLAND HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91367 662 'B' STREET, UNIT 'B' PM (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL) THIS ITEM IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROJECT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. A DETERMINATION OF USE TO CONSIDER IF A CELLULAR TELEPHONE CELL SITE (A PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITY) SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE PM (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT). Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1989 Page ten Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission determine that a cellular telephone "cell" site, a public utility facility, is a permitted use in the PM District by Minute Motion. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Commissioner Kasparian wanted assurance that there would be no interference on TV; and if it is in need of repair or maintenance, would there be any time restrictions. Staff replied that it would have to be repaired or maintained during construction hours which are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were any photographs of the structure for review. Staff replied that the photos supplied were of a whip antenna, which is not the same as this structure. This has a base, with a triangular platform, and antennae which are flat. Commissioner Baker asked if this was in the Cultural Overlay District. Staff replied negatively. Jerome Buckmelter, representing L.A. Cellular Telephone, noted that this would be a monopole with a triangular platform on top. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant had a picture of the pole with microwave dishes; and if this antenna would be the same design as the one located next to Tustin High School football field. Mr. Buckmelter replied that since that was a competitor's antenna, he did not know its design. He provided a sketch of a monopole with microwave dishes. Ite noted that although the company did not need the microwave dishes to operate their facility, they were requesting them as part of their emergency plan. In the event of a major earthquake, for example, if the phone lines were down, the microwave dishes would allow cellular telephones to remain available. The microwave dishes would not be installed for about another year when the main facility is connected. In the case of a catastrophy, the City would not want to be without communications. Regarding the size of the antennas, the largest panels available are 22 inches high and are inobtrusive. A radome could be put up as a screen to block the view of the wires, etc. Commissioner Baker asked what size earthquake the tower was able to withstand. Mr. Buckmelter replied that he did not know, but that it was designed to withstand hurricane force winds up to 120 mph for a two hour duration. The poles are anchored into the ground with concrete and steel bars. Commissioner Kas~)arian asked about the radio frenquency (RF) interference; how the service would be performed on the antennae; and if the pole was rigid or hinged. Planning Commission ~linutes June 26, 1989 Page eleven Mr. Buckmelter replied that they operate at 825 MHz, and as far as he knew, the cellular system has not had any bonafide interference problems. According to the RF engineers, they depend on a very precise transmission reception. Each cell site has 27 fail safe systems to prevent drifting. He noted that if anyone in the city was having interference problems, they could consult with the company to determine the source of the interference. Some of the poles have a pulley system, some have steps; this pole is rigid. The poles are regularly maintained about every six (6) weeks for about 45 minutes. .Most work needing to be done is on the equipment which will be housed in an office suite which they are leasing on a long term basis. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to determine, by Minute Order, that a cellular telphone "cell" site, a public facility, is a permitted use in the PM District. Motion carried 4-0. 5. SB 547 Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Buildings Recon~nendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Lloyd Dick, Building Official Commissioner Shaheen noted that in the City of Lon~ Beach, there are buildings that have mortar which can be easily removed. He wondered if we have any buildings in the city which are in this condition. He also noted that he would like to be included in the meetings on this subject and possibly help some of the people with their financing, since it would be expensive to rehabilitate the buildings. He also wondered if there was a program, besides eminent domain, to remove old buildings that should be demolished due to their condition. Mr. Dick replied that there is one City-owned building, the Water Department building, that has poor mortar joints; there were no programs for demolition of such buildings. Commissioner Baker noted that item 3 of the staff report stated that buildings owned by the local jurisdictions are not exempt, and he assumed that this program would affect the Water Department building. He asked if there were any tilt-up buildings that were of concern. Mr. Dick replied that tilt-up buildings that were built prior to 1973 may he lacking some of the design criteria used today. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be any problem with compliance by January 1, 1990. Mr. Dick replied that all that was required by January I was a list of buildings that were located within the City, and the adopted ordinance. When it is time to pursue the project, they could work with the community for determination of a time frame for completion. Commissioner Shaheen asked if every building in town was subject to being checked and rated. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1989 Page twelve Mr. Dick replied that only the pre-1933 unreinforced masonry buildings, which are mainly in the downtown area, were subject to this program. At this time, there are currently 8 buildings, some with multiple tenants on their list. The report was received and fi led. OLD BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 6. City Council Action of June 19, 1989 Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Lois Jeffrey introduced the Deputy City Attorney, Tom Nixon, who would be assisting her and sometimes replacing her at the meetings. CO~ISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Kasparian noted that there was a piece of metal sticking up in the park- way at the southwest corner of Yorba and Santa Clara and was concerned with the City's liability. Commissioner Le Jeune noted concern over the awnings at Fat Freddies. Staff responded that there is a current code enforcement action being taken at this 1 oc at i on. Commissioner Baker asked when an update of the code enforcement status report would be coming back to the Commission and when a joint meeting with the Planning Commission, City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission would be held. Staff responded that a code enforcement status report would be forthcoming as soon as the code enforcement position was filled and that the Executive Coordinator in the City Manager's office would be working on setting up the joint meeting. Commissioner Shaheen questioned the status of the Nisson property, the widening of the corner and the signal at the corner of Red Hill and Walnut. He also asked the status of the property between Tustin Meadows and Peppertree. Staff responded that work to correct the intersection is underway and that there have been permits issued by the Building Division. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, noted that this item was in liti§ation and she did not have the current information, however, she would look into the matter and inform the Commission of the status. She also noted that the Community Development Director was in charge of the item of the property between the two subdivisions and she would need to report back to the Co~nission regarding the status. Commissioner Baker reiterated that something should be done about Main Street between Newport and Red Hill; possibly stripe it so there are two specific lanes. Planntng Commission Minutes June 26, 1989 Page thirteen Staff replied that the Public Works Department could identify this as a problem, but it could not be a condition of the proposed Champion project at the corner of Newport and Main Street. AD~IOURI~tEIIT At 9:08 Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 10, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 4-0. Chairman Secretaryey -- ~