Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-13-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR HEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious, Shaheen PIJBLIC 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 January 23, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Wetl moved, Pontlous seconded to approve the consent calendar. carried 5-0. Motion PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Use Permit 88-30 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MS. SUSAN RIDDLE AND MS. JUDY BUDZENSKI C/O INCHES AWAY 18302 IRVINE BLVD. #110 TUSTIN, CA 92680 CARVER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 13891 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 13721 NEWPORT AVENUE #15 IN TUSTIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 AUTHORIZATION TO LOCATE AND OPERATE A FITNESS PARLOR/HEALTH CLUB IN A PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-30 by adopting Resolution No. 2564, subject to the conditions contained therein. Presentation: Bernard Chase, Planner Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1989 Page two Commissioner Baker asked if Exhibit A, Condition 1.5 included clients of the business. Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the business could ask clients to sign a statement agreeing to park in a particular area, but it would be questionable if that agreement would be enforcable. The Director noted that the signing of the statement is more of an acknowledgement that they had received the notice and a monitoring device. The public hearing was opened at 7:07 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were any plans for signage. The Director noted that Condition 1.7 requires that the applicant abide by the Tustin Plaza Master Sign Plan. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Well seconded to approve Use Permit 88-30 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2564 with the conditions contained therein. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Use Permit 89-01 APPLICANT: DR. JEFFREY GOMES 13042 MARSHALL LANE TUSTIN, CA 92680 OWNER: GEORGE A. BROOMELL 5250 WEST CENTURY BLVD. #307 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 LOCATION: 17331 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET (FRENCH QUARTER SHOPPING CENTER) ZONING: COMMERICAL GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) REQUEST: TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 1,656 SQUARE FOOT VETERINARY CLINIC IN A TENANT SPACE WITHIN AN EXISTING RETAIL CENTER. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Staff indicated that the applicant had withdrawn the application. OLD BUSINESS 4. Code Enforcement Activity Presentation: Jack Light, Planning Technician Commissioner Well asked staff what type of data management program was being utilized. Staff responded that dbase was being used. Planntng Commission Minutes February 13, 1989 Page three Commissioner Le Jeune noted that this was a good enforcement policy and asked about sign code violations. The Director noted that co~lalnts are on the list, but that there has not been a Citywide inventory taken. Staff would like to co~lete the Sign Code prior to conducting a Citywide inventory. Commissioner Pontlous noted that this report was very much appreciated. Commissioner Baker noted that he also appreciated the report and thanked staff. The report was received and filed. 6. Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan Presentation:: Laura Cay Kuhn, Senior Planner The report was received and filed. At 7:20 p.m. the Planning Commission recessed to the Board of Appeals (See attached minutes). At 7:33 p.m. the Planning Commission reconvened. NEW BUSINESS 5. DESIGN REVIEW 88-53 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P. O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 SAME TUSTIN RANCH GOLF COURSE; LOTS 29 AND 30 OF TRACT 12870 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - GOLF COURSE IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 85-2, FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ON MARCH 17, 1986 WITH ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDUMS, ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION WILL BE PREPARED APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A CLUBHOUSE, DRIVING RANGE, MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS, BATHROOMS PARKING LOT AND OTHER RELATED FACILITIES FOR THE TUSTIN RANCH GOLF COURSE It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. or revised. the Environmental 2562, as submitted Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1989 Page four It is recommended that the Planning Commission either continue the matter to permit the applicant to submit revised plans or elevations addressing any remaining design concerns of the Commission or Approve Design Review 88-53 by adoption of Resolution No. 2561, subject to the conditions as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubln, Senior Planner Brad Olson, representing the Irvine Company, spoke in favor of the project. He indicated that the Company was well ahead of the fiscal commitment agreed to with the City. He indicated that the Company had spent much longer than normal (approximately 3 months longer) in City review of this project. He stated that the golf course is due to open July 4th and that he is proud of East Tusttn and the golf course. He noted that since the Company had no commitment to build a clubhouse, they would like to build the proposed project as designed. Since the only concerns on the project remaining are not public health and safety issues, design approval should occur this evening. Roger Settz, representing the Irvine Company, added that they had done their professional best and pushed to provide an outstanding addition to the community. He indicated that the clubhouse has a "classic style" and has its own character. He showed a brief slide presentation. He indicated that the Company had heard comments at the workshop and had agreed to many changes to accommodate the wishes of the Commissioners and staff. He also indicated that he felt that the clubhouse should be built as it is designed. He agreed to add windows over the doors. He indicated that the cart bridge uses strict engineering discipline, thin, smooth and graceful, which will be poured in one day and done very carefully. Commissioner Well asked if blacktop would only be in the staging area. Mr. Seitz indicated that blacktop would only be in the area adjacent to the clubhouse and that the cart paths are concrete. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for more information on the canopies. Commissioner Baker asked the proposed height of the bridge. Mr. Settz indicated that the bridge is 16'1" from the curb, 15'6" at the curb and arches to 16'3". He also noted that the cart path "bridge" will be between the lOth green and the 11th tee, located at the entry off Tustin Ranch Road, it will be symetrical from the road. He indicated that earth mounds will flow into the wrought iron fence and that the retaining walls are also curved. It will be all poured concrete, lightly sandblasted to a smooth finish, the retaining walls will have a slight texture. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be adequate ventilation of the basement cart storage area, questioned the placement of the fuel tank and if the driving range was too close to the parking area. Mr. Settz noted that the golf carts are electric, the fuel tank is proposed to be in the maintenance area in an open space and well beyond the clubhouse area, and the driving range will aim the balls away from the parking lot. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the package of information supplied by the Company show the structure only and asked if there were any other options for the canopy. Planntng Commission Minutes February 13, 1989 Page ftve Mr. Settz noted that there were options but they would be detrimental to the first impression. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for elaboration on the landscaping. Mr. Seltz noted that there will be two large Morton Bay fig trees as canopy elements to the entry, a monument entry sign, ornamental shrubs and ground covers with annual flowers along the walls. Mike Ellis, representing the Irvine Company noted there were several concerns with the conditions of approval of Resolution No. 2561. He also noted that there are many areas where there is agreement. The Director provided responses to a number of issues previously brought up by the Company. The Company had indicated that there was a three month additional design review time frame for this project when in fact the project has been designated as a high priority and has been fast tracked with 14 - 21 day reviews when submittals were made by the Company. Staff, in design review, represented to the Company that all issues need not be resolved before Planning Commission consideration of this item. Issues would be raised and discussed with the Commission. The project has been brought to the Commission without the benefit of revised plans, representing the City's good faith effort. She pointed out that under the Zoning Code requirements for design review, public health and safety issues is not one of the criteria. She summarized the criteria from the Ordinance as listed in Resolution No. 2561 C. 1 through 12. She also noted that the entry bridge was in plan check. She indicated that with the level of pre-planning that often occurs by the Company, if they wished to fast-track, they must submit a letter, accepting any changes that the design review process may dictate upon Planning Commission action on a project, accepting all risks for any modification to the design including exterior alterations made by the Commission. The Department is in receipt of this letter. Staff noted the following changes to Resolution No. 2562: In title line 4 delete "WITH THE ADDENDUM ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 1, 1988" and replace with "AS MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDA" Staff noted their requested changes incorporated in the following motion). Resolution No. 2561. to Resolution No. 2561 (which will be The following discussions are pertaining to Commissioner Well asked for clarification on page two item 11 regarding "future structures" and asked that it be deleted. The Director noted that this is a part of the Code. Lois Jeffrey, noted that the beginning of this section states that "In making such findings, the Commission has considered ..." and this item has been considered. Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1989 Page six Mr. Ellis, thanked staff for making corrections resulting from earlier discussions. He responded to the Director clarifying that the Company was not blaming staff for all of the delays, that there was a lot of time contributed to this project both from staff and the Company. Regarding the fast track and plans for the bridge, the Company understands that they are taking a calculated risk, however they feel that it is necessary to go through the plan check process as soon as possible. He noted his surprise in the concerns over the bridge attributing it to a possible communication breakdown. He asked that the roof spires not be removed but be shortened to 4" He stated that page 3, Item I be deleted. He stated that in the conditions many items were referred to as awkward, which he felt was editorializing and asked that those editorializing comments be removed. Regarding Item P, the cart bridge, he asked that the Commission approve the cart bridge as proposed. In item 4.9 he took issue in renaming the club. He noted that the Company feels that "Golf Club" should be approved. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be a sign that stated the course would be open to the public. Butch Fogler representing Jim Colbert Golf, golf course operators, noted that the industry standard has changed to note that "golf club" denotes a course that is open to the public and "country club" denotes a private club. Commissioner Shaheen agreed that this was true. Mr. Ellis presented a color materials board and asked that the board be approved at this time for this project. He made the following clarifications: site and building conditions would be at plan check submittal; requested that item 3.1E be reworded to make the conveyer removable. Mr. Fogler clarified that the conveyer would only be used for 3 or 4 hours a day, in order to wash golf balls. The Commissioners noted concern regarding noise and hours of operation. Mr. Fogler noted that the washer would be no louder than a dishwasher. The conveyer is over the kitchen and would need one person to operate it. The hours of the conveyer would probably be operated from 9:00 p.m. and would only be audible from the service area. Commissioner Le Jeune noted concern about the noise of the pagers from the bar. Mr. Fogler noted that the course will be open from dawn to dusk, the driving range open until ten in the evening, evening banquets will be available. Mr. Ellis regarding Item F noted that the color is a part of the color board that was submitted today. The Director noted that staff has not had the advantage of seeing any of the color board materials to date and feels very uncomfortable recommending approval of colors and materials that had not been previously reviewed by staff or seen in any other light than that of the Council Chambers. Planntng Commission Minutes February 13, 1989 Page seven Mr. Ellis noted that the Company was asking for direction. Commissioner Wetl asked if the off-white color could be identified. Mr. Settz noted that the color is Arizona White, Frazee paint number 558-5880W. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed with staff's condition. The Director noted that a color and materials board was requested on January 23rd and had not been provided until tonight. She also indicated that she had previously specified to the Company that it would be inappropriate to recommend approval of a color and materials board that staff had not had the opportunity to review. Mr. Settz noted that the Company wants a sense as to whether this color is approximately what range of color the Commission had in mind. Commissioner Baker asked if staff and the Commission could review the color board during the day. The Director clarified that the Commission could approve the color, she just wanted to note that she felt uncomfortable in recommending the color prior to reviewing it in the proper lighting. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt there should be more than one color choice. Mr. Settz noted that he was asking for approval of what the Company thinks is proper. Mr. Ellis regarding Item 3.1 G, noted that the Company's intent is to paint the support elements rather than use wood; Item H is agreed to. Rob Qulgle¥, architect for the Company, pointed out that these beams would be wood-clad beams. The Director stated that there should be no problem with those beams. Mr. Ellis regarding Item 3.2 referred to the color boards for the Commission's reference; in Item 3.3 he would like to replace "chain link" with "security"; in Item 4.2 I. he agreed with concept, but also wanted to use the mounding sensitively; and regarding Item 4.11 he felt the asphalt would be more user friendly. Commissioner Well asked to read the following statement into the record: "To my knowledge the Planning Commission's role in Design Review has never been clearly defined and in fact, according to the California Land Use and Planning Law, has been purposely kept vague to allow for our flexibility. The East Tusttn Specific Plan supplies us with a bit more direction when it says that "Public Buildings should be of contemporary design, which is related to current California Planning Commission Mtnutes February 13, 1989 Page etght architecture..." The plan calls for "tile or clay roofs; use of arbors and shade structures that direct pedestrian traffic; masonry columns where feasible; large exposed wooden beams; large expanses of window glass where appropriate and conforming to good energy conserving design practices; stucco or wooden siding." At the April 15, 1987 meeting of the East Tustin Policy committee, further clarification of our latitude of Architectural Review was stated: "The intent of the policy committee is to advise potential builders, at the earliest stage possible, that the City expects great attention to detail and will be reviewing early submittals accordingly. These design reviews will address objective criteria such as quality of materials and construction techniques as established by industry standards."-- Nowhere in my research did I see any reference that our state-given Police Powers included our right to dictate architectural concept or taste. In fact recent court rulings have emphasized the rights of the private property mm owners. "The document we have before us tonight is not design review, it's a redesign-an attempt to impose the opinions and taste of the staff onto the Irvine Company. I feel this is a serious case of tampering with private property rights. Whether or not we "like" the project is totally arbitrary and beyond the parameters of our job. Our job is to determine whether or not this project will fit in with the surrounding community,-- as seen FROM the surrounding community. Does it blend?? YES it does, with it's red tile roof, its off-white exterior, and it's extensive landscaping, which is basically what you'll see from the edge of th golf course where the project abuts the rest of the community. What's more, the project, as submittd, complies exactly with 95~ of the guidance given the Company, and us, by the East Tustin Specific Plan. What difference does it make if the Irvine Company wants a spire, or oversized pillars, or a curved wall - it's THEIR project! Most of the changes that staff is requesting in the conditions here are details that will only be seen by people who are standing close to the building, on the golf course property. Traditionally decisions on such details have been the right of the property owner. Though this may be a quasi-public building, somewhat like restaurant is a public building it is being built with private funds, not public funds." "I have sat here for the past couple weeks listening and watching. Frankly, I'm very worried about the direction in which staff is leading us. I don't feel our job includes the level of scrutiny that staff is recommending. Furthermore nny research has not found any authority that gives us, or them the RIGHT to exercise such a detailed level of Police Power. Commissioner Ponttous indicated that there is a fine balance between overall public good and the property rights of the individual and perhaps we have overstepped our bounds. Lois Jeffrey, noted that she would like to comment that it is up to the Commissioners to have their own views as to how much they want, what types of regulations they wish to impose on private property. But from a legal standpoint, there is nothing unconstitutionaly about the provisions of the Tustin Municipal Code that allow the Commission to do design review that it is conducting tonight and the criteria that it is allowed to consider in doing that design review. She was not aware of any court decision that had overturned a design review decision using such criteria. There have been some Supreme Court decisions about zoning and land use relating to Planntng Commission Minutes February 13, 1989 Page ntne conditions, but she is not aware of anything that would preclude the Commission from adopting any of the conditions that have been imposed here. Again that is a question of what you would like to do as Commissioners, what the Commission's public policy position is, there is certainly no legal barrier to their doing what has been proposed. Commissioner Shaheen stated that he felt staff's intentions were proper. He stated that he wanted to make the project comparable with similar architecture to that of the area and to maintain the characteristics of the entire area. The Director noted Exhibit A, page three, item D, the Company wants to reduce the size to 4", staff recommends that the item remain as proposed by staff. Commissioner Well stated that the 4" spire should be approved. unanimously agreed. The Commission The Director noted, Exhibit A, Item E, the conveyer belt, that the Company's request was not a problem. The Director noted, Item F, the exterior stucco paint color. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the paint color would delay issuance of building permit approval and if not could the color be decided at a later time. Then Director noted, after confirming that it would not hold up the permit process and that she would be comfortable with bringing the color approval back to the Commission at a later date. Mr. Ellis felt that he would not like to leave this as an open issue, but would be willing to work with staff. Commissioner Shaheen asked if this issue could be resolved by staff, Commissioner Baker agreed. The Commission agreed to leave item F as proposed by staff. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the Item could be eliminated, Commissioners Well, Baker and Pontious agreed. The Director noted regarding Item 3.1, P, would eliminate "materials, textures and", Commission agreed; Item 3.3 "security" is acceptable, Commissioners agreed; and Item 4.9, C. Golf Club instead of Golf Course, Commission agreed to use Golf Club as long as it was advertised as a public course. Mr. Fogler noted in Item 4.11, that from a liability standpoint the asphalt was much better than the concrete. Commissioner Well approved of the elimination of this item, the Commissioners agreed. Mr. Settz asked regarding Item 4.9 that "B." be reworded to state "Incorporate features to make it compatible with the clubhouse on the entry sign." and that Item D. eliminate "redwood" and replace with "wood". The Director noted no problem with those items. Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1989 Page ten Mr. Seitz explained the color board. The Director stated that if the Commission finds no problems with the material board they could take action to solidify what they are approving in items F and 3.2 by eliminating "subject to the Community Development Department" and indicate "subject to the Planning Commission approved material board" presented this evening. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the Commission had not seen the colors in the daylight. The Director noted that this was the first time staff has seen many items on the material board and that she felt uncomfortable in assuming the responsibility of approving the colors subject to the Director's approval and would prefer a stronger direction from the Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune recommended that the color board be agendized. The Director suggested that these items should be reworded to reflect "subject to future material board approval by the Planning Commission" Commissioner Well moved, Pontlous seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2562. Motion carried 5-0 Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Design Review 88-53 by adoption of Resolution No. 2561 subject to revised conditions as follows: Title - line 5 - after "RESTROOMS" insert ", ENTRY BRIDGE, ENTRY WALLS, SIGNAGE"; Item I. A., line 2, Replace "14,280" with "18,038"; Item I. A., line 6, after "lot," add "entry bridge, entry walls, signage" Page 2 II. line 2, replace "14,280" with "18,038" and at the end of line 5 add ", entry bridge, entry walls, signage"; Exhibit A, Page 1, Delete top line "RESIDENTIAL BUILDER MAPS"; Item 1.1 - line 2, after "1988" add "and subsequently approved revisions"; Item 2.1C. place parenthesis around "consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans"; Page 2, Item F. 3. add "or as otherwise permitted to be classified as determined by the Building Official and Fire Department pursuant to the respective building and fire codes."; Page 3, change the following items to read as follows: Item C. "Utilize a hand troweled stucco finish or alternative stucco application/texture as reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department." Item D. "Reduce metal roof spire dimensions to 4 inches." Item E. "The conveyor for loading golf balls into the roof top storage area shall be internalized or made removable so as not to be visible from outside the building when not in use." Item F. "Revise the exterior stucco paint color from white to a darker off-white hue or more muted tone subject to future approval of any proposed color by the Planning Commission." Item H line ~, change "wood beams" to "wood-clad beams"; Delete Item I and re-letter the remainder of 2.1; New Item I, line 2, after comma should read ~tve foot wide by 3 foot high window"; Item K, line 4 after "parking lot" add "on the east elevation"; Page four, Item 0., line 2 delete "textures and materials" and end sentence after "clubhouse" in line 3, eliminating the remainder of Item O; Item 3.2 line 2, change Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1989 Page eleven "Director of the Community Development Department" to "Planning Commission" and on line 3 change "noted" to "notes"; Item 3.3 line 1, change "chain linked" to "security"; Item 3.4, line 2 after "The screen shall be" add "landscaping treatment or" and at the end of the second sentence add "as approved by the Community Development Department"; Item 3.5 at the end, add "unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department"; Page 5, Item 4.2 A. should be changed to read "A combination of planting materials must be used"; Delete Item B. and re-letter the remainder of 4.2; Item F. line 2, replace "on plan check drawings." with "as appropriate and consistent with applicant's recommended landscaping/hardscape concept for the project."; Page six, Item K, eliminate the last two sentences; Item 4.4, line 3 after "used" replace with "to reinforce pedestrian circulation through the parking lot." Page seven, Change numbering 4.9 should be 4.6 and 4.10 should be 4.7; Item 4.6 delete first paragraph and add the following: The project sign program shall be revised as follows: A. A maximum of one freestanding 32 square foot monument sign shall be permitted at the project entry pursuant to Section 9394 (a) of the Tustin City Code.; B. Incorporate treatment on the entry sign to make it compatible with the clubhouse.; C. Sandblasted wood directional signs shall be stained to match wood elements of clubhouse, or other alternative color or texture consistent with the main building treatment, recommended by the applicant, subject to approval of the Community Development Department. D. Provide a plan showing the location of all directional signs.; Change 4.7 to read as follows: 4.7 Lights to be installed on buildings shall be of a decorative design. Lights shall be designed to reduce glare and negative impacts on adjoining properties. The location and types of exterior mounted building lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Community Development.; Delete Item 4.8 (previously 4.11). Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 7. Report of Actions Taken at the February 6, 1989 City Council Meeting Presentation: Christine Shlngleton, Director of Community Development The action agenda will be provided at the February 13, 1989 meeting. The Director presented "User's Guide to Requirements for Fences, Hedges and Walls" and asked for any comments from the Commission. This will be the first of a series of handouts that the Department would be providing to the public. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he appreciated the Cal Trans report. He also noted that he felt that the Commission was very sensitive to not delay projects. He felt staff did an excellent job on the golf course issue. He noted that if there was any confusion that more direction should be sought from City Council. Commissioner Shaheen also asked for a liaison and more joint workshops between the City Council and the Planning Commission to establish more mutual understanding. The Director noted that she would be happy to transmit that information to the Council again. Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1989 Page twelve Commissioner Well inquired if the area on E1 Camtno Real south of Red Hill will be affected by the freeway widening. Commissioner Baker noted a great deal more noise coming from the Marine base. also asked staff to respond as to where the Browning Corridor actually aligns. He Staff will provide the exact alignment and where it will be considering all of the improvements. Commissioner Baker noted concern of the noise in the newer developments. The Director noted that the sound mitigation for interior noise levels in the new developments is mitigated at 45dBa levels to mitigate for traffic levels. The Irvine Company has reinforced that it is not their obligation to mitigate for aircraft noise, particularly with the Browning Corridor Easement Agreement that is an executed document, as well as the notification requirement for noise that are included in the CC&R's for each project. Staff has identified this as an issue and has reworded their standard conditions to reflect this. AD&OURI~ENT At 10:40 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontlous seconded to adjourn to a Workshop on the Orange County Hazardous Materials Plan at 5:00 p.m. on February 27, 1989 in the City Council Chambers. The Workshop will adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 27, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 5-0. Penni Foley Secretary