Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-12-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING C01q~ISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 12, 1989 CALL TO OROER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGXANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CRLL: Baker, Pontious, Le Jeune, Shaheen, Kasparian 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.) Minutes of the May 22, 1989 Plannin9 Commission Meetin9 Commissioner Ponttous moved~ Le Jeune seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-O. PUBLIC HEARINGS e Use Permit 89-19 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SUNG CHUN CHIANG 18861 DEEP WELL ROAD SANTA ANA, CA 92714 COLCO PROSPECT L.P. 17320 RED HILL AVE. #190 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 17582 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, UNIT 105-A PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS I AUTHORIZATION TO SELL GENERAL LIQUOR CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE. FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit B9-19 by adopting Resolution No. 2616, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page two The public hearing was opened at 7:06 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that the hours of operation, as required by the use permit, would be from 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. and asked the applicant if they were adequate. Mr. Chian~, the applicant, replied affirmatively. Commissioner Pontious moved, Kaspartan seconded to approve Use Permit 89-19 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2616 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Variance 89-5 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS INC. 833 N. ELM STREET ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 671 EAST FIRST STREET C-1, RETAIL COMMERCIAL THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13511 (CLASS 11). TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF A 140 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN WHEN THE TUSTIN SIGN CODE PERMITS A MAXIMUM AREA OF 75 SQUARE FEET. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Con~nission approve Variance 89-05 by adopting Resolution No. 2621 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached thereto; authorizing a maximum 125 square foot tenant identification sign. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Pontlous asked how large the original Sav-On sign was prior to being OSCO Drug. Commissioner Kasparian asked if, since this was an application for a new permit, it would abrogate the original incorrect permit for a larger sign. He wanted to ensure that the decision would not compound an error that might be illegal. Staff replied that the original sign should have had a variance since it was over 75 square feet. The issuance of the permit made the sign non-conforming. Now, with a new application, they are required to have proper variances. The Director noted that the building permit for the existing 125 square foot sign was issued in error, but that does not make the sign legal. The City is not legally responsible for errors made at building permit issuance stage, but the new application for a sign of 125 square feet does warrant a Variance. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page three Commissioner Baker asked the Director to explain how the 75 square foot limitation was derived from the sign code. The Director and staff noted that the sign area is calculated from maximum height by maximum horizontal distance; the area of the sign cannot exceed 15% of the building face or a maximum of 75 square feet. The public hearing was opened at 7:14 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that considering this was a cornerstone of the center, and since this was one of the few centers without a monument sign at the street listing all of the tenants, he was in favor of the 125 square foot sign. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Variance 89-05 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2621 subject to the conditions comtained in Exhibit A attached thereto, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. e Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 (Donahue-Schriber) APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. J. LUIS CABALLERO DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 MS. CHRISTINE M. LAMPERT LANG LAMPERT ARCHITECTS 9272 JERONIMO ROAD, SUITE 123C IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 14901 HOLT AVENUE, COURTYARD SHOPPING CENTER THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FREESTANDING CENTER IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN WITH A NEW FREESTANDING CENTER IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN. 2) A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE PERMITTED AMOUNT OF CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ORIENTED TOWARD HOLT AVENUE FROM ONE SIGN TO TWO SIGNS. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 by adopting Resolution No. 2619, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Commissioner Pontious asked if the present sign is not considered an identification sign. Staff replied that it is considered an identification sign, but that there is not variance on record to allow two signs. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page four Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a visual available to the Commission for the small tenant identification signs. Staff replied that the small signs were not a part of the Variance application nor do they require Planning Commission review. These signs will be required to conform to a certain height and will be approved by staff. Commissioner Shaheen commented that the positions of the stores need a digression from the straight line between Mervyn's and Sav-On. The new signage seems to be an effective way to encourage people to use the courtyard area. The public hearing was opened at 7:24 p.m. Christine Lampert, architect, noted that the plan is to clean-up the area, draw customers into the courtyard area, help the merchants, and make it a lively area. The public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian questioned whether in Exhibit A, 1.3, if it should read, "...unless all building permits..." He also asked if a building permit was tied into the startin~nd/or ending of construction. The Director affirmed and added to the end of the sentence: "and substantial construction is underway." Lois Jeffre~ replied that the reason for requiring a time limit on a permit is to ensure that people do not apply for a permit then leave the property unfinished or vacant. The City requires applicants to renew their permits if they have not achieved substantial construction within a year. Commisioner Le Jeune moved, Ponttous seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2619, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached thereto, with the following revision to Exhibit A: change Item 1.3 to read "Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless all building permits are issued within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway." Motion carried 5-0. General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) and Zone Change 88-03 APPLICANT: CONSULTANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: MR. MICHAEL G. PADIAN IRVINE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 MR. CHRIS MARTIN CDC ENGINEERING, INC. 15520-B ROCKFIELD BLVD. IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDINGER STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page five REQUEST: 1) A REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO I (INDUSTRIAL). 2) A REQUEST TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO PC-IND (PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Adopt Resolution No. 2625 certifying the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) and Zone Change 88-03; Adopt Resolution No. 2617 recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02(b); and Adopt Resolution No. 2618 recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change 88-03. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner The public hearing was opened at 7:31 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:32 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen commented that it was the best use of that piece of property and that it enhances the tax base of the City. Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to certify the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) and Zone Change 88-03 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2625 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval to City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2617 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Pontious moved~ Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change 88-03 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2618 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. ® General Plan Amendment 89-02 (C), Zone Chanl)e 88-02 and East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01 APPLICANT: GENERAL LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 SECTORS 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AN ADDENDUM TO EIR 85-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED A CHANGE IN THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, ZONING PLAN MAP DESIGNATION AND EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN SECTORS 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. CERTAIN TEXTUAL CHANGES TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ARE ALSO PROPOSED TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGES IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page six Recommendati on: actions: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following Approve Addendum 89-01 to the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR-85-2 and recertify Final EIR 85-2 and all subsequently adopted Supplements and Addendums by adoption of Resolution No. 2629. Recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-02{c) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2630, as submitted or revised. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 88-02 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2631, as submitted or revised. Recommend to the City Council approval of East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2632, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the consolidation of the parks. The Director replied that the community park is being relocated; there was a significant amount of negotiation in preparing the Memorandum of Understanding with the Irvine Company; requiring the Irvine Company to provide more area since the City was being asked to relocate the 16 acre site. Commissioner Baker noted that it appeared that the City had lost 16 acres but gained 20 acres. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m. Commissioner Pontious noted that she felt it was a very equitable solution. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to approve Addendum 89-01 to the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR 85-2 and recertify Final EIR 85-2 and all subsequently adopted Supplements and Addendums by adoption of Resolution No. 2629 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-02(c) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2630 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Zone Change 88-02 by the adoption of Reso)ution No. 2631 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to recommend to City Council approval of East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2632 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page seven e Tentative Tract Map APPLICANT: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P.O. BOX 'I' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 PARCEL MAP 88-315 - LOTS 7 & 8, TRACT 12763 PARCEL MAP 88-316 - LOTS 15, 16, 17, AA, Y & Z TRACT 12870 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15 1) REQUEST TO RECONFIGURE 2 LOTS IN TRACT 12763 TO CREATE 2 NEW NUMBERED LOTS; AND 2) REQUEST TO RECONFIGURE 3 EXISTING NUMERED LOTS AND 3 LETTERED LOTS IN TRACT 12870 TO CREATE TWO NUMBERED LOTS. Recommendation: actions: It recommended that the Planning Commission take the following Recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-315 by adoption of Resolution No. 2627, as submitted or revised; and Recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-316 by adoption of Resolution No. 2628, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development The Director made a number of corrections, following the presentation, as moved. The public hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m. Steve LeFever, Irvine Company, made an additional correction to Resolution 2627, Exhibit A, page 6, item 7.6 should have deleted "on property within the map units." The public hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m. Commtsisoner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-315 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2627 with the following revisions to Exhibit A: Item 4.1 B. 3. b. to read "Elimination of any sheet flow between lots and ponding."; Item 4.1 B. 3. d. change "contributory" to "tributory". Item 7.6 delete "on property within the map units,"; Item 7.9 is changed to read "The cumulative number of units for which certificate of occupancy may be issued shall not exceed the number of units permitted in the East Tustin Specific Plan and the cumulative total of square feet of occupied revenue generating uses or equivalents as shown in the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement." Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-316 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2628 with the following revisions: Item 4.1 3. b. to read "Elimination of any sheet flow between lots and ponding."; Item 4.1 3. d. change "contributory" to "tributory". Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 12,' 1989 Page eight e General Plan Amendment 89-02(d) (Land Use Element) APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN, COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02{d) LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for this project by approval of Resolution No. 2622; and Recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02(d), amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adoption of Resolution No. 2615. Presentation: Beth Schoemann, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:53 p.m. The Director noted that this approach has been discussed with the City attorney and that it was in response to numerous recent court decisions; many other cities are taking an approach of establishing building intensity with a maximum floor area ratio; staff believes this in the interim in Tustin would potentially intensify development thereby, requiring more enthusiastic environmental analysis of the General Plan Amendment which is inappropriate at this time, since the City is to undertake within the next fiscal year a significant amendment to the General Plan; sraff's recommended approach will put the City in a position of having a General Plan that is legally defensible. Commissioner Ponttous noted that since there will be a full review of the General Plan forthcoming, she felt that this approach was acceptable. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to certify the Negative declaration as adequate for this project by approval of Resolution No. 2622 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02(d) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2615 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. e General Plan Amendment 89-02 (a) (Housing Element) APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(A) - 1989 REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page ni ne Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for this project by approval of Resolution No. 2623; and Recommend approval of the 1989 Revisions to the Housing Element to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2624. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the City had a problem with the HCD requirements pertaining to the homeless when projecting future growth; if this would be done unilaterally or a support activity; he asked if the comments applied to low and moderate income and seniors. Staff replied that housing for homeless is a regional issue which is supported on a county-wide basis through the Homeless Issues Task Force; in analyzing the services in the City, there is not a severe problem within the City; the approach is to identify that there are needs, and that it is mostly a transient population; the City supports county-wide efforts and will provide mechanisms should someone wish to establish a shelter in the City, via zoning capabilities; the Element identifies the needs of special interest groups, as well as low or moderate income families. The Director noted that the definition of "homeless" in the element extends beyond the normal definition: it includes transients, those put in a position of being homeless by abuse (ie. women and children); the community has a number of temporary shelters like Laurel House. Commissioner Baker noted that the City was fortunate not to have a great problem, but that there is still a need. Commissioner Pontious asked if, in Chapter 3, page 359, regarding the height and density restrictions, it would be appropriate to mention that the impact on traffic congestion was the reason for the height and density restrictions. Staff agreed to make the notation. The public hearing was opened at 8:06 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 8:07 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for this project by approval of Resolution No. 2623 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to recommend approval of the 1989 Revisions to the Housing Element to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2624 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page ten OLD BUSINESS 10. Amendment to Use Permit 88-23, Pacific Bell Field Services Center - Carwash Recommendation: meeti ng. Continue the Public Hearing until June 26th Planning Commission Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue the public hearing on this matter to the June 26, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 11. Status Report for East Tustin Residential Projects Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development No Planning Commission action necessary. NEW BUSINESS 12. APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: Permit to Operate a Large Family DaN Care Home JORGETA TAHTAWI 1661GREENMEADOW TUSTIN, CA 92680 SAME 1661GREENMEADOW TUSTIN, CA 92680 PC-R-1 SINGLE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PLANNED COMMUNITY) AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Recommendation: It is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a protest, and then accept any protests submitted. If a protest is lodged, then the matter should be continued to the next regularly sched- uled Commission meeting in order for staff to evaluate the protest. If a protest is not filed, the Commission should approve the subject application without further discussion by Minute Order subject to compliance with all requirements of Ordinance 991. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Commission was able to request fire extinguishers and alarms in the home. Commissioner Baker asked if there was a pool on the premises. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the State has approved this already; if there are requirements of certain square feet of yard space per child, etc. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page el even Staff replied that the fire department required the applicant to install an addi- tional smoke detector; the applicant is in complete compliance; there is no pool on the premises; the State does not permit the facility until the City provides a form of approval, if required; in the case of residential uses, there were no certain square footage requirements, but there were requirements of fence height, location of yard, Social Service approval of facility, etc. Commissioner Kasparian asked about the size of the home; he could not imagine a home providing sufficient safety and facilities for 12 children. Staff replied that through the State, large family day care agencies are not under the jurisdiction of local agencies; the City recently adopted the guidelines as noted in the staff report which note that the City can only review the application for certain things; the State considers day care of up to 12 children in a home to be a residential use of property, and cannot be considered differently. The Director noted that for provisions of State law, the City has been advised that the Commission has no discretion if the applicant complies with the standards presented; the Commission is being asked to make a request for any protests. Lois Jeffrey commented that on such an application, there is no hearing required; a public hearing is triggered by protests from someone within 100 feet of the home; the protests are usually based upon a disagreement of accurate findings of the City (i.e. noise nuisance); the State has pre-empted this and is forcing local communities to approve these projects due to the need for day care. She agrees with the Commissioners' frustration regarding the lack of discretion. Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the subject application, by Minute Order, subject to compliance with all requirements of Ordinance 991. Commissioner Baker requested protests from the audience; no protests were waged. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the subject application, by Minute Order, subject to compliance with all requirements of Ordinance 991. Motion carried 5-0. 13. Sector Landscaping Concept Plan for Sectors 10, 11 and 12 APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY PROJECT COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2 AND ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDUM) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATION OF CONCEPTUAL SECTOR AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLANS FOR SECTORS 10, 11 AND 12 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission 1) approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2626, and; 2) approve requested modifications, by minute motion. Presentation: Christine A. Shtngleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue this matter to the June 26, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page twelve STAFF CONCERNS 14. Action Agenda of June 5, 1989 Citj/ Council Meetin~ Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development C~ISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Baker asked about the status of the relocation of the Browning Corridor; ~d the status of the field trips to the homes in the Racquet Club area. Staff replied that the City of Irvine formed a task force to address noise problems related to certain routes flown by the Marines in and out of Tustin and E1 Toro bases; Browning Corridor is not under discussion for relocation; the Irvine Corridor, which is for flying from E1 Toro into Tustin, was suggested to be relocated further to the north bringing the flights into the lower-density areas of the Tustin Ranch area; the land uses were specifically designated from Irvine Blvd. south, over high- density and non-residential areas. Staff attends the monthly task force meetings, and based upon noise studies conducted, there is not enough justification to relocate the Irvine Corridor. The Marine Corps will not instigate changes without justification. The Director responded that the field trip would be in the later part of July. Commissioner Ponttous commented that Mayor Kennedy was arranging the joint meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff what kind of discussion the City Council was having regarding appeals of Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. Commissioner Shaheen asked the status of the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he would like to see that the meeting have no time constraints. He asked the status of the Sign Code and also asked that the topic of the Water Works be included on the agenda for the joint meeting. The Director also noted that an item to be addressed at the next meeting is regarding the unreinforced masonry law changes that will affect local property owners. Commissioner Pontious asked if there could be actions taken with the new laws to deal with the foundations of the older homes; could the City create a program to assist people in upgrading foundations; she also noted that she would be unable to attend the June 26, 1989 meeting. Co~mtssioner Le Jeune noted that prior to sale, many of the older homes in the Old Town section have had to reinforce their foundations. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1989 Page thirteen Lois Jeffrey commented that Civil Code now requires extensive reporting and disclosure by sellers. AD,.IOURIIdlENT Commissioner Shaheen moved, Pontious seconded to adjourn to the next meeting of the P--~nning Commission on June 26, 1989 at--~O p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 5-0.