Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-21-81 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting October 21, 1981 The planning Agency held a regular meeting Wednesday, October 21, 1981, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sharp at 3:06 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mrs. Kennedy and the invocation was given by Mr. Edgar. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp None Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director William Huston, City Manager James Rourke, City Attorney Maria Ivory, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held October 5, 1981, were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None PUBLIC CONCERNS: None OLD BUSINESS Extension of Use Permit 80-21 Applicant: Location: Request: Cal State Associates, Inc. 1651 Mitchell (Windsor Gardens) To extend Use Permit 80-21 for a period of six months Moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy to approve extension of Use Permit 80-21 for a period of six months. AYES: NOES: Kennedy, Edgar, Hoesterey, Sharp and Saltarelli None NEW BUSINESS Definition of Underground Parking Mr. Brotemarkle commented that this concern was instigated by motion of Mr. Saltarelli. Mr. Brotemarkle said staff had discussed the terms subterranean, semi-subterranean and partially submerged and there was no clear definition of the terms except a definition to control overall height. He said in his opinion underground means completely underground. There was a lengthy discussion concerning adopting a general definition of what grade is and grade level, and whether a ground level parking area was considered part of the total stories of a building. Mr. Brotemarkle said it appeared that the terminology that presents a problem was semi-subterranean or partially submerged and did these terms mean a minimum of four feet or two feet or what. Moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy to direct staff to come back with a proposal to quantify the terms semi-subterranean and partially submerged, and also subterranean. Planning Agency Minutes October 21, 1981 Page 2 AYES: NOES: Edgar, Hoesterey, Saltarelli, Kennedy and Sharp None STAFF CONCERNS: None AGENCY CONCERNS: Chairman Sharp reported that based on his motion the County referred the whole problem of finding a hazardous waste transportation station site to the Steering Committee and that it be included in the Long Range Study. He said he would furnish the Planning Agency members with copies of the Minutes of the meeting. He commented that the Committee sent letters to the Board of Supervisors and also to the EMA regarding this matter. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy to adjourn to the 7:30 p.m. meeting. AYES: NOES: Edgar, Hoesterey, Saltarelli, Sharp, Kennedy None TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of 7:30 Meeting October 21, 1981 The Planning Agency was called to order at 7:30 p.m. and all were present. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. EIR 81-2; USE PERMIT 81-29 Applicant: Location: Request: Cal Pacific Properties Newport Avenue between Main Street and E1Camino Real (formerly Laguna Road) To develop the subject property for commercial, retail and office use. Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report and informed the Agency that presentations had been made by the Architect to the Chamber of Commerce and other interested citizens and there was a public meeting workshop on the EIR on October 5, 1981. In addition the EIR was distributed to a number of organizations. He said this was a two phase public hearing on the EIR and the Use Permit and the reponse to the Agency's concerns were summarized in staff's report. There was one additional item submitted by the Orange County Transit System which indicates they have additional routes which need to be considered, and there was need for additional lay over spots for buses. He said staff would like to come back on those concerns because they were not specific to this project but were specific to the entire area. At the present time the EIR does provide for temporary measures for transit. Staff's conclusions were that the basic proposal does conform to the General Plan and Zoning. Chairman Sharp commented that on Exhibit "A" was a list of persons and agencies who had received draft copies of the EIR and all the concerns of Exhibit "B" had been addressed in the EIR Report. The Public Hearing portion on EIR 81-2 was opened. Mr. Greg Butcher, representing Cal Pacific Properties, stated that he would respond to any specific questions. Planning Agency Minutes October 21, 1981 7:30 p.m. Page 3 Mr. Edgar asked that the record show the Certification of the EIR merely acknowledges that the Agency had discussed all concerns that relate to impact but doesn't imply an approval or disapproval of the project. Kathy Well, 1702 Summerville, Tustin, speaking in favor of the EIR and the proposed development, said she had spoken to many people about the project and most of them were excited about the movie theatre and restaurants and in her opinion would be a positive impact economically on the City of Tustin. She said her prime concern was that not enough attention has been paid to traffic. Morris O. Iverson, 13452 Cindy Lane, commented that he had come into the meeting late, however, he and a number of his neighbors had not been aware of what the project encompasses. He said there were three articles in the Tustin News but he has seen nothing in the Register. He said the articles he had seen were in relation to traffic on Newport and the traffic would be raised by 2 or 3 percent and he wanted to know what the streets were capable of holding and how did the Engineers reach their figures. He also commented on the height of the buildings and said he was under the impression the maximum building height for the City of Tustin was three stories. The traffic engineer for the Cal Pacific Properties, explained that based on the capacity formula, the impact of traffic would be less than normal traffic growth expected on area streets and highways over the period of time when the project would be developed. The Engineer said basically what the calculations indicate was that if a car came up to an intersection in peak hour traffic and the light was red and turns green, no matter where the car was in the line of traffic, it will make it through the intersection. Yvonne Johnson, 13412 Cindy Lane, said she was concerned about the kind of restaurants and movie theatre that would be in the development. She was also concerned with how many people would be working in the total project and the effect of traffic, lack of stop lights, alternate routes, and whether the street would have to be widened. Mr. Brotemarkle said there would be approximately 1,731 additional employees to the area. The development would incur some type of traffic impact but not greater than some other type of project that was put on the property. The EIR points out the project would pay its own way for insuring improvements to solve traffic problems that are identified. Mr. John Stevens, 1345 Charloma Drive, said the numbers in the report meant absolutely nothing to him and did they have comparable figures to a street such as Irvine. Mr. Edgar commented that the impact was incremental activity at the site of Mervyns and other developments and was due to short sight of County highway planners and the solution to the area wide problem could happen if they have alternate routes and when that occurs there would be a significant decrease of the impact on Newport and Redhill. There was a discussion on parking facilities. Lynette Webb, Cindy Lane, said she was concerned about the traffic and also the height of the buildings and she was under the impression there was a limit on high rises in Tustin. Planning Agency Minutes October 21, 1981 7:30 p.m. Page 4 Mr. Brotemarkle stated that he had been questioned if there was an existing policy on height and he was not aware of any limit nor any action to set such a policy. He said in the past there had been approval of 4 or 5 stories. Mr. Edgar pointed out that the standards for buildings were set in feet and not in the number of floors. When there is a planned development the Agency is left to decide whatever height they want. Kimberly Webb, Cindy Lane, said she was a student and had lived in Tustin all her life (17 years). She said she could not understand bringing in a complex such as the one proposed when they have so many empty retail stores and businesses that have "for lease" signs in the windows. John Stevens, 1345 Charlona Drive, Tustin, said his concern was regarding the height of the buildings also and he had settled in Tustin because he did not have to drive by large buildings. Connie Wilson, Manager of Tustin Gardens, said she would like to see the project built, but was concerned about the parking. Eric Wolper, Student of Tustin High School, felt the project would provide jobs for Tustin students and other residents which would be closer to their homes. Moved by Edgar to close the public hearing and certify EIR 81-2. The motion was seconded by Hoesterey. Under discussion Mrs. Kennedy said the EIR was lengthy and very professionally done. However, she said the traffic counts were not realistic, and did not agree that police services would not be increased because there would have to be increased traffic enforcement; the report did not address large amounts of people leaving the area at the same time; the impact to Santa Ana Freeway and 55 Freeway hasn't been addressed; and the impact to include undeveloped land as it will affect other developments. Therefore she could not support certification of the EIR. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Saltarelli, Hoesterey, Sharp, Edgar NOES: Kennedy By common consent of the Members, the Planning Agency adjourned to the City Council for action on the associated item certifying the EIR. The Planning Agency reconvened and all were present. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING USE PERMIT 81-29 Moved by Edgar to include, by reference, testimonies from the EIR, to be included under the public hearing portion of the Use Permit. The motion was seconded by Kennedy and carried unanimously. The public hearing portion of the Use Permit 81-29 was opened. Greg Butcher, representing Cal Pacific Properties, stated he has been working with staff on the project since last October and they had tried to respond to the marketing concept and community goals by incorporating that into the project. He felt the development was unique for Tustin. Planning Agency Minutes October 21, 1981 7:30 p.m. Page 5 Mr. Dave Klages, 3198 Airport Road, Costa Mesa, Architect, presented a presentation of slides showing aerial photos of the proposed site and model for the Tustin Town Center project. At 9:10 p.m. Agency broke session to inspect a miniature table model of the proposed development. Agency went back into formal session at 9:30 p.m. Chairman Sharp said several persons had questioned whether it was necessary to have the buildings at six stories. He asked if the buildings were lowered would the project still be financially feasible for the developers. Mr. Butcher responded that the buildings would lose the stepping back qualities and compress the buildings into more massive structures, probably not exceeding four stories in height. He said a project of that type was difficult because of the mixed uses of space. With regard to office space it becomes critical because it was important for the total project to balance. He said it was the office space they were counting on to make the project economically viable. A resident of 1342 Overland Drive, stated he was against high rise buildings in Tustin. He said he appreciated what the developers tried to do in capturing the character of Tustin but felt they did not succeed. He felt it was wrong to put a parking lot in front of the senior housing apartments. He said Tustin has such firm standards on what size signs should be he could not understand how the development could be acceptable. Elaine Kwat, 1161 Lady Lane, felt the architect could still make a beautiful project if the buildings were lowered. She said she could accept 3 or 4 stories but not 6. Margaret Bird, said she could not believe anyone could approve the project. She co~nented that there have been other movies and Tustin was a place to live, not a place to shop. Morris Iverson, stated he felt not enough people were made aware of the development and he would like to see the matter continued until more people could be informed. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the most appropriate method to acquaint the greatest number of people with the continued public hearing. It was affirmed that the Register would carry a news article including notification of a workshop meeting. Motion by Edgar to hold a workshop on October 27, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers and to schedule the continued public hearing to a regular meeting on Monday, November 16, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The motion was seconded by Kennedy and carried by the following vote: AYES: Kennedy, Saltarelli, Hoesterey, Sharp, Edgar NOES: None ADJOURNMENT: At 10:04 p.m. upon motion of Edgar the Agency adjourned to October 27, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The motion was seconded by Kennedy and carried unanimously. Recording ~ecr~