Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-10-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~MISSIOM REGULAR MEETING APRIL 10, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious, Shaheen 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 March 27, 1989 Plapnlng Commission Meeting and March 27, 1989 Housing Element Workshop Commissioner Well noted that on page three of the Housing Element Workshop Minutes, paragraph fi~e, next to the last line should read "ruling of eminent domain, that the City does not have the right to tell people that their...". Commissioner Wetl moved, Ponttous seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Amendment to Use Permit 84-20 and Variance 89-03 APPLICANT/ OWNER: PACIFIC BELL 177 E. COLORADO BLVD. PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91105 LOCATION: 1452 & 1472 EDINGER AVENUE (S/W CORNER OF RED HILL AND EDINGER) ZONING: (M) INDUSTRIAL ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 15301e.2 (CLASS 1) AND 15311a (CLASS 11) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1989 Page two REQUEST: APPROVAL TO: (1) CONSTRUCT AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING COMPRISED OF A MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM {2,720 SQ.FT.) AND AN EMPLOYEE FITNESS CENTER (5,280 SQ.FT.) AT AN EXISTING OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AND (2) INSTALL TWO 50+ SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGNS (ONE ON EACH BUILDING). Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2579, approving an amendment to Use Permit 84-20, subject to the conditions contained in Exhtblt 'A', attached thereto, as submitted or revised; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2580, approving Variance 89-03, subject to the Conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubln, Senior Planner Commissioner Wetl asked if it was correct that one of the conditions required Pacific Bell to landscape the unimproved area west of the building. Also, if the applicant will be removing a fire hydrant, or is the City requiring an additional one. Staff replied that when the project was originally developed there was a requirement that the applicant landscape the subject area within one year. The landscaping was never installed and the City is asking the applicant to complete this requirement with this addition. An additional on-site fire hydrant may be required and will be determined by the Fire Department at plan check. The Director noted that the Fire Department does an on-site check once they have construction drawings on the project. Commissioner Ponttous asked if the preliminary elevations show Phase I only. Staff replied that the entire shell would be built in one phase. Then the mechanical equipment areas would be completed and finally the fitness areas. The public hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. Ms. Patty Hamilton, Pacific Bell, 525 B Street, San Diego: Landscaping of the open areas was not part of the original budget for the plan. There are future plans to possibly build both buildings and Pacific Bell would find it prohibitive to landscape 4+ acres to the degree that the City is requesting. They feel it is too expensive to landscape to that degree when they may be removing it within 12 months to two years for parking areas for the new buildings. They would like an extension of time until the plans do materialize, or discuss landscaping that would not be as expensive. The public hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune wanted to know the estimated cost of the landscaping as requested by the City. Ms. Hamilton replied that it would cost at least $150,000 for flat ground cover such as grass with rainbtrd-type sprinklers and weekly mowing. This, however, does not meet the requirements set by the City. Plannlng Commission Minutes April 10, 1989 Page three Commissioner Pontlous noted that a maintained grass area wou]d be acceptable. She a]so asked regarding the signs: wtth the tnsta]]atlon of the third building, would the stgn be moved from the front bul]dlng to the back building. Commissioner Baker asked tf the two signs would be un]tghted, vlstb]e only during the daytime. Hs. Hamtlton replled that there wou]d be one slgn on the bui]dlng fronttng Red Ht]] and one on the bul]dlng fronting Edlnger and that they would be un]1ghted. Commissioner Wet] noted that Paclflc Be]l has done a beautlfu] job maintaining the lot tn a weed-free manner. She fe]t that the City should sho~ some understanding and a]]ow them to matntaln tt as tt Is. She felt that tt wou]d be a waste of money, which, since tt Is a public uttllty, wou]d u]tlmate]y fa1] to the taxpayers. She would ]ike to see Paclflc Bel] re]leved from the orlglna] conditions and given an extension of at least two (2) years. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he agreed and fe]t tt was one of the most beautiful Industrial deve]opments In the Clty. The Dtrector suggested that the Staff wou]d supp]y ]anguage to modtfy Item 6.1 to a]]ow for the extension. Ms. Hamilton replied that the extension of two (2) years wou]d help them wht]e they determine their future plans. Commissioner Wet1 noted that regarding the stze of the sign requested by the applicant t~ere are precedents wtthln the City, such as Steelcase which ts such a large operation. Slnce the applicant has a large establishment at the stte, they should also be granted a larger stgn. Commissioner Baker agreed with Commissioner We11's comments. Commissioner Wetl moved, Pontlous seconded to approve the proposed amendment to Use Permit 84-2(~ by the adoption of Resolution No. 2579, subject to the conditions contained In Exhtbtt A wtth the following modifications: In Exhibit A, Item 6.1, the first sentence should be changed to read: "Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for all areas immediately surrounding the proposed building, consistent with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Submittal Requirements. and add "6.4 The unimproved southwesterly portion of the subject property shall be installed with landscaping as originally committed to by Pac Bell in Use Permit 84-20 within two (2) years from the date of this Resolution." Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Pontlous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Variance 89-03 by the adoption of )~esolution No. 2580, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1989 Page four 3. Variance 89-01 APPLICANT: EUGENE F. TUTT P.O. BOX 461 TUSTIN, CA 92681 EUGENE F. TUTT 1501 NISSON ROAD AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE I-5 FREEWAY C-1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW DOUBLE FACED BILLBOARDS AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 65 FEET REPLACING THREE EXISTING, SINGLE FACED BILLBOARDS AS A RESULT OF THE I-5 FREEWAY WIDENING. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Variance 89-01 by adopting Resolution No. 2578, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Pontlous asked if granting of this variance would require an amendment to the General Plan. The Director replied that granting the variance would be inconsistent with the General Plan. The Commission could approve the variance, but would need to support the decision with findings that justify that approval. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the request had to be approved by Cal Trans, as well. Staff replied that Cal Trans would have to approve it, but they have not yet required an application. Lois Jeffrey, the City Attorney commented that the City received a letter from the Counsel for the applicant insisting that the matter be heard. The City cannot technically require that the applicant receive the approval from Cal Trans. However, the Staff felt that it would be more efficient if the City could review a project already approved by Cal Trans. The applicant's counsel requested that the City move ahead on this matter even though he was aware that the Staff needed the information. Commissioner Baker clarified that the property was annexed to the City. He wanted a c'larificatto~ of Item 6 which stated that all non-conforming billboards be removed by May 1, 1978. Staff replied that there is an abatement ordinance existing. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1989 Page five The Director noted that with new provisions of law on abatement of non-conforming signs, the City would have had to complete an inventory of all illegal signs prior to requesting abatement of a non-conforming sign. As part of the new sign ordinance, there will be a complete city-wide inventory of all signs for compliance. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant's signs fell under a grandfather clause. He also asked if the widening of the freeway allowed the applicant any protection. The Director replied that the applicant is requesting relocation and expansion. She was unaware of any way that this would be "grandfathered." The City wants to insure compliance with current zoning code so as to minimize problems related to the freeway widening. The City Attorney agreed that she was unaware of any way these signs would be grandfathered. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Tusttn Ranch Road interchange was still scheduled to go in both directions. Staff responded affirmatively. The public hearing was opened at 7:37 p.m. Gary Moble¥, 5 Park Avenue, Suite 800, Irvine, Attorney for the applicant, noted that Mr. Tutt's property will now lose 30-35% to the freeway widening; the applicant has resided on this property for nearly 35 years; and the signs have existed since prior to the annexation to the City. - The signs are legally existing non-conforming signs in their current location; they were grandfathered-in by protection of the State of California's Outdoor Advertising Act, Business and Professions Code 5200. Section 5412 of the ordinance provides that any legally existing non-conforming sign may remain in its location and cannot be abated unless the City or local government is willing to pay just compensation for removal. - Because of the existing nature of these three structures they believe there is authority, notwithstanding the provisions of the current sign ordinance, to grant them a legally recognized status. - Relocation is solely by reason of Cal Trans condemnation of the property. Initial project did not affect these signs. Red Hill expansion will now impact adversely on the three (3) signs. - The condemnation of the substantial amount of property should qualify as the acceptable type of circumstances that would justify a variance. - The sign company has agreed to waive compensation for the third sign if approval is given to relocate the other two signs. There will be no taxpayer funds involved in the removal of the three structures and relocating them onto two. - Counsel does not agree with the Staff report stating that this would create an increase in adverse conditions relating to the signs. There is a reduction of signs, not an increase. Planntng Commission Mtnutes Apr11 10, 1989 Page slx - Not granting of special prlvelges: 1) only applying for protection of existing signs; 2) moral obligation to provide a forum for communication of free speech. - There is precedent for the City allowing freeway oriented signs, notably, Tustin Market Place and Tustin Auto Center. Requesting the same for applicant in an off-premises sign rather than an on-premises sign. - Cal Trans approval is required before signs are installed. However, since the applicant has been requested to remove the signs and vacate the property, it may be more appropriately handled as a condition, so as to eliminate any possibility of prejudicing the application once the signs are down. He is currently working with Cal Trans and the Department of Transportation. Due to the lack of time allowed, he felt it was not inappropriate to go through both channels at the same time. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the counselor was mentioning relocating signs, but ~h~t he actualTy meant new signs that were substantially larger. He requested clarification from the staff on this matter. He also asked if the Planning Commission has the privy of entering into any relocation agreements. Mr. Mobley replied that was correct, but that there is a difference. Cities are empowered to enter into relocation agreements, which means taking down an old structure and putting up a new one. He noted that they are, in fact, intending their proposal to be an application for relocation and would like to amend the application as needed. He also noted the wording of Section 5412 and stated that based on that, there is no question that the applicant is proceeding under a relocation. The Director replied that the Staff did not view the proposal as relocation but as new construction. Section 5410 does not mandate, require, or supercede any local control in terms of existing zoning requirements. She noted that they have reviewed the sections, but have not concentrated on that issue. They do not feel obligated to respond to that provision of law and have not. The City Attorney noted that the Planning Commission does not, but could recommend such to the City Council. The Staff feels, however, that the applicant has not submitted a proposal for a relocation agreement. She feels that there is an issue of whether there is application for relocation of existing signs or proposal for two new signs. Also, certain findings would still have to be made as to whether or not the proposed activity was in conformance with the General Plan, which seems to be a problem with this application, before the City would have the authority to enter into such an agreement. Eugene Tutt, applicant, 1501 Ntsson Road, Tusttn, noted that this issue should be looked at in the light of fairness and fiscal good sense. They have occupied the property for approximately 35 years; 20 years ago they annexed to the City. Since then, the attitude has changed pertaining to the signs. Cal Trans is condemning over 1/2 acre of property. Department of Transportation will be required to compensate for the signs, but Cal Trans is running out of funds to accomplish the widening project. They are asking for allowance to relocate two signs and elimtnte one so as to save Cal Trans between $2 and $3 million dollars payable to the applicant and the sign company. The Billboards exist legally. If signs cannot be relocated, it will cost the tax payers a lot of money. Planning Commission Minutes Aprtl 10, 1989 Page seven Commissioner Baker asked how high the present signs are and if the application was for 65-foot high signs. Mr. Tutt replled that the current signs are about 40 feet htgh. Increase tn helght Is due to the reconflguratlon of the Interchange at that point and the elevation of the free~ay grade. Commissioner Well noted that Mr. Martin said they were not Increasing the square footage, but that they will be double-facing the structures, thereby creattng four faces tnstead of three. Mr. Robert Martin, Martin Communications, 780 Cedar Point Place, noted that the increase in height was due to the grade level of the freeway being about 25 feet from Mr. Tutt's property. Therefore, they are asking for aproximately a 40 foot height. The size of the billboards will be the same, 672 sq. ft. They will be monopole design, instead of the 6 I-beams of the current billboards. He replied that Cal Trans considers units, not faces. There will be one less unit with the new structures. Commissioner Shaheen asked if these billboards were the ones located on Ntsson where the Spanish house was located. He also wanted to know the relation to the other billboards in the vicinity. Mr. Martin replied that these were the ones on Nisson. owned the other boards in the area. He thought that 3M National The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Wetl noted that she agreed with the City Attorney regarding the semantics of moving or removing. She also felt that this was unlike the Pac Bell, Tusttn Market Place, or Tustln Auto Center issues dealing with on-site signs. The applicant's signs would be off-site communications. She feels that the applicant will be compensated at fair market value and that she has no reasoning to base approval for the variance. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed that he could not approve this variance based upon the same reasoning as Commissioner Well. Commissioner Ponttous agreed, as well. Commissioner Baker understood Staff's and the City Attorney's opinion, but had a problem with people being pushed out of their homes or livelihood. He was resentful of the issue, but realized that progress sometimes intervened. He felt that the signs may be attractive, and that as noted by the Auto Center, they would bring tax dollars to the City. However, with the amount of complications with this application, he felt that he would follow Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Wetl added that the subject matter of the signs was necessary, but not in that size. She hoped that in the future, the driving public could be forewarned that the Auto Center exit was approaching, perhaps in more of an information sign, though, at the level of the driver. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1989 Page eight The Director noted that the City has been working with Cal Trans to produce a standard freeway sign noting exiting for the Auto Center. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the applicant had a right to appeal. The Director replied that the applicant should contact Staff for a fee schedule for appeal. They have a seven-day period in which to contact the Staff if they do wish to appeal. Commissioner Wetl moved, Ponttous seconded to deny Variance 89-01 by the adoption of REsolution No. 2578. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Use Permit 89-09 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public heartn~ for'Use Permit 89-09 indefinitely and direct staff to readvertise the hearing prior to consideration by the Commission. Presentation: Laura C. Kuhn, Senior Planner Commissioner Pontlous ~oved, Shaheen seconded to continue the public hearing for Use Permit 89-09 indefinitely and direct staff to readvertise the hearing prior to consideration by the Commission. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Design Review 89-24 APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 1) MODIFICATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR TRACT 12870 TO ALTER THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED COMMUNITY WALL DESIGN. 2) MODIFICATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SECTOR 9, TRACT 12870. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2576; and 2) Approve Design Review 89-24 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2577. Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1989 Page nine Mr. Tosh Nemtnsky, ProJect Manager with the Irvlne Company, 47 Palm Beach Court, Laguna Ntguel, noted that the redcap brtck proposed tn Phase III ts sltghtly larger than used In Phase II due to the fence being slightly higher for sound attenuation. The slightly larger module glves a better elevatlonal treatment and balance to the wall. Regarding block and tempered glass wall, they would like the flexibility of using It where tt would enhance the vlew Into the golf course, but for prtvacy reasons, they would encourage the use of solid wall In locations requiring tt. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the whtte walls seemed to have more of a stark appearance. He asked tf there w111 be more breaks In the wall, or extensive landscaping. Mr. Nemlnsk~ noted that there are fewer builder openings which might account for the longer appearance. They are in the process of completing the landscaping and installation of bougainvillea vines to the walls. There will also be a street tree program to break up the linear effect. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there has been any problem with grafitti on the walls. Mr..~mtnsk~ replied that there has only been one place in Phase I on the split face wall. The only remedy was to heavily sandblast the wall. The material had allowed for penetration of color. After the sandblasting, the wall was found to have a discoloration of texture and color. This lends support to a painted wall, which, in the case of grafitti, allows repatnting as necessary. Commissioner Baker asked if the Homeowner's Associations would be responsible for maintaining the ~alls. Mr. Nemlnsk¥ noted that was correct. Commissioner Well asked if it would be painted slump stone, not stuccoed, as a fully-stuccoed wall requires more to maintain appearance. Mr. Nemlnsk¥ replied that it would be a "sac-finish" of cement rubbed on, then pain~d. A slump wall with the sac application lends itself to any repairs that might be made in the future. Commissioner Baker asked Commissioner Le Jeune if his concern was that the walls were long lines without breaks or nttches. He can appreciate that the Commission does not want the area to look like one long tenement. Commissioner Le Jeune replied that he was concerned that the vertical breaks are hardl~ visible. Mr. Nemtnsk¥ noted that the pilaster are 60 foot on center, and that the brick caps also step down along with the contours of the project, creating an up-and-down motion. Trees planted in a tight condition, as in nitches, have been known to create problems with the wall structure. The Director noted that there is grade variations creating undulating movements of the bermtng along the lots. There will be meandering sidewalks providing visual relief to break up the linear effect of the wall. The public hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1989 Page ten Commissioner Well wondered if this change will affect the remainder of the project. She wanted to know if the wall would continue, as changed, into Phase IV. The Director noted that everything to date would be covered with this action. There would be a future action on Phase IV and there will be continuity of the wall into Phase IV. Commissioner Well moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the Environmental Determination Ybr the object of adoptibn of Re§oulutlon No. 2576. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Wetl moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Design Review 89-24 by the adoption of Re~olution 2577 with the following revisions: Exhibit A, Item II. A, add to the last sentence: "provided that the Community Development Department can approve minor substitutions on the locations where any combination of approved materials will be used." Motion carried 5-0. Public Workshop on Proposed Amendments to the Housing Element of the Tusttn Area G6neral Plan Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Direct staff to transmit the 1989 Draft Revisions to the Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment; and 2) Schedule a public hearing for formal consideration of the revised Housing Element on June 12, 1989. Presentation: Laura C. Kuhn, Senior Planner Commissioner Pontlous and Commissioner Shaheen noted typing errors: Pg. 62, Item 2 ~hbuld be ":..The factor having the greatest impact..."; Pg. 77, Item 7 should be "...cost of housing for their employees.";Pg. 87, Item 2 should be "Senior Citizen Housing Needs."; Pg. 95, Item 8 should be "...and rent control is believed...'" Commissioner Pontlous asked for a clarification of Equity Sharing on Page 94, Item 3; and of Basic Housing units on Page 104, Item 11. Staff replied that equity sharing was adopted for a specific project that was initially converted to condominiums. The owner's share the equity in the land. Also, regarding the Basic Housing units, at the design review stage, there is a basic checklist item that allows for possible later inclusion of room additions as needs of homeowners change. Commissioner Shaheen noted that this equity sharing program may be where an individual applies the down payment and the buyer continues to make the monthly payments and then split the profits 50-50. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1989 Page eleven Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the paragraph on Page 94 regarding granny flats indicated that construction of granny flats would now be allowed in an R-1 zone. Also, if the granny flats were required to be in the rear of the lot. Staff replied that in the R-1 zone there is authority with a conditional use permit to build a full second unit or guest room. A granny flat is allowed in the E-4 zones. Granny flats are defined as a second residential unit on one lot with a maximum of 950 sq. ft., which did not necessarily have to be placed at the rear of a property. As the lots in the City are typically narrow, though, there are few lots that could accommodate a structure to the side of the original structure. Commissioner Well asked if the Programs beginning on Page 74 would have page numbers referencing the location of their descriptions. Staff replied that a statement was inserted on pages 69 and 70 indicating the location of the existing and new Program descriptions. Commissioner Well also wanted to know the outcome of the discussion on allowable uses being amended to include second story residences over existing businesses. The Director noted that in the Planned Community District, there are provisions under the conditional use permit procedures that foster mixed-use incentives if that is the direction a particular developer wishes to take. Under the zoning designations for C-2 and C-1 zone, there is flexibility for the Commission to allow mixed-use on a case-by-case basis. The Staff noted that on Page 93, Item 1, the reference to "residential" has been deleted thus allowing the paragraph to include mixed-use of commercial, as well. Commissioner Le Juene asked how the Cultural Overlay related to the mixed-use zoning. Staff replied that the Cultural Overlay District is a district that overlays the existing zoning which is R-1 in the residential areas. The mixed-use zoning affects the areas that are Planned Communities of which there are very little in the Old Town area. Commissioner Shaheen noted that even if buildings are beautifully-designed, you cannot just build upper levels for residential use unless the building is properly designed. Loans for this type of accommodation would also be difficult to obtain. The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. Steve Le Fever, The Irvlne Company, Newport Beach, noted that the Irvlne Company has reviewed the document and feels that no written or formal response is necessary. He noted, however, that although the Irvine Company fell short of the goal to provide 600 affordable housing units in East Tustin by 1988, the total they will be providing by the end of this fiscal year will exceed the original number. Commissioner Baker asked how the City maintains affordable units as such. if there was a deed restriction on what the units could be sold for. He asked Steve Le Fever noted that the affordable housing in East Tustin is all provided through the rental program. Other than the units being funded through a bond program, the affordable units are being maintained through market-rate rents. Planning Commission Minutes Apr11 10, 1989 Page twelve The Director replied that unless public funds are committed to a project, those obligations are not mandatory and they are very hard to monitor. She noted that Staff recetves an annual publication from HUD that defines the rent In market rent levels for sale and rental units. Each of the developers provide published Information agalnst which those published rents are measured. The public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. The Director noted that at the Planntng Commissioners' Institute in Monterey she was Informed that most of the cities are 1gnortng the transmittal date that was defined by law. Therefore, Tustln lsa lot further along than most cttles. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Well seconded to direct staff to transmit the 1989 Draft Revisions to the Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment; and to schedule a public hearing for formal consideration of the revised Housing Element on June 12, 1989. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 7. Report on Actions Taken at the April 3, 1989 City Council Meeting Presentation: Christine A. Shlngleton, Director of Community Development COMMIS$IOM COMCERMS Commissioner Le Jeune noticed the vacancy of the building in the Marshall's Center that sold RV's. He wanted to know if it would be possible to stipulate that banners were not allowed at that location for the future tenants. He asked if the balloon at the Auto Center was approved for a 30-day period, if at all. The Director noted that since this building is impacted by the freeway widening, this will not be a problem in the future. She replied that the balloon was unauthorized and code enforcement action is being pursued. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if other papers than the Tustln News were given notices b~ publi6"h~aring. He thought that another paper, such as the Register, might provide a broader audience, especially for important issues. The Director replied that the Tusttn News is the paper of local circulation and is the only required publication that they use. The Register is allowable, but is much more expensive. Although, the City is only required to provide one notice, they post on the property, mail to everyone within a 300 foot radius, and advertise in the local newspaper. Commissioner Well noted that on the campaign for Chuck Puckett, they polled the public as to where they obtained their information. There was a surprising amount gained from the Tustin News, which probably has greater coverage than one might think. Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 1989 Page thirteen Commissioner Baker asked if the City was able to do anything about the noise provided by "boom boxes" (i.e. stereos in cars and houses). The City Attorney noted that it was difficult to pursue as a noise abatement problem. She suggested that it might be easier to consider it a "nuisance" and file a complaint as though it was a public nuisance. ADJOURNMENT At 9:15 p.m. Commissioner Wetl moved, Ponttous seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on April 24, 198g at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman " Secretary