Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 01-04-82TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting December 21, 1981 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, December 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 Mr. Hoesterey and the invocation was given by Mr. Edgar. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Sharp, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli None, Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director William Huston, City Manager Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner, Recording Secretary Alan Burns, Deputy City Attorney MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held December 7, 1981 will be presented in the packet of January 4, 1982. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. USE PERMIT 81-35 APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: Arthur & Zeny Remegio ' 14752 Holt Avenue Guest home for the aged Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar to continue this item as an open public hearing to January 18th meeting. The public hearing was opened at 3:08 p.m. Seeing and hearing no one, the motion was carried 5-0. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli None. None. 2. VARIANCE 81-10 APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: Harry Hong/HO HO Restaurant 17460 East 17th Street Authorization to vary with the sign ordinance After the presentation of the staff report by Mr. Brotemarkle, the public hearing was opened at 3:10 p.m. Seeing and hearing no one, the hearing was closed at 3:11 p.m. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar to approve Variance 81-10 by the adoption of Resoluion No. 2012. Motion was carried 4-1. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Edgar, Hoesterey, Saltarelli Kennedy None PUBLIC CONCERNS None -1- CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW - Northwest corner of Myford and Walnut Avenue. Mr. Brotemarkle explained that according to Irvine Industrial standards an industrial user should have no more than 50% office space. If this building were modified as shown, the floor area for office could be considerably more than 50% based on the parking provided. Mr. Saltarelli commented that this could defeat the precedent of creating industrial districts and could create 58,000 square feet of office space in one approval. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that the issue is what constitutes R & D (Research & Development) as opposed to pure office use. Mr. George Seitz, architect for the project, informed the Agency that they are not proposing a change but rather upgrading the building and parking areas. He stated that they are aware of the 50% limit on office space. Mr. Brotemarkle commented that in the industrial complex some of the smaller units have converted to all office space and this could be a problem in the future. This particular proposal is undivided space and would probably be nipped at the tenant improvement stage to forestall any over use of office space. Chairman Sharp informed that he would like staff to work with the developer to berm the parking area to screen cars similar to the Steelcase development. Mr. George Seitz explained that they would not exceed the office capacity but are trying to provide enough parking for the future user. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey to continue this item to the second meeting in January (18th). . ~ Mrs. Kennedy commented that she did not understand the difference between R & D and office. Are they the same? Mr. Brotemarkle stated that the staff is not sure whether R&D is high technical or office use. R&D should be associated with an actual manufacturing process and not be a service type use. The above motion was carried 5-0 with the stipulation that staff will study the office uses in the industrial complex so that a decision can be made with a better understanding of what can be allowed in the future. OLD BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE 81-9 Moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy to adopt Resolution No. 2011 which approved Variance 81-9. Motion carried with a 5-0 vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: SHARP, EDGAR, HOESTEREY, KENNEDY, SALTARELLI NONE. NONE. STAFF CONCERNS. None AGENCY CONCERNS Mrs. Kennedy requested that staff check into a possible mosquito problem in the downtown area of Second and Third Streets. Mr. Saltarelli requested that he would like to see an outline for the uses in various zones - similar to the chart on development standards. -2- 3. Chairman Sharp requested information regarding Senate Bill 1160 which pertains to senior citizen residences on R-1 lots. The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting. CHAIRMAN SHARP MaryAnn Chamberlain, Associate Planner TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of 7:30 Meeting December 21, 1981 The Planning Agency was called to order at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Others: SHARP, EDGAR, HOESTEREY, KENNEDY, SALTARELLI NONE MICHAEL BROTEMARKLE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER CHARLES THAYER, POLICE CHIEF BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ALAN BURNS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ~' DONNA TREAT, RECORDING SECRETARY CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1. USE PERMIT 81-31 APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: Mangano, Messenbrink and Decosta 14722 Newport Avenue Authorization to operate an electronic game arcade Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report on Use Permit 81-31. It is a request to operate a 45 unit electronic gaming center in conjunction with a restaurant on the Northeast corner of Sycamore and Newport. At the previous meeting there were two questions on which the Agency requested additional information: 1) The Police Department concerns for this type of use. There is a Police Department report attached. 2) Information concerning the actions of other cities and especially concerning parking. Basically, staff's finding of automobiles is much less of a concern. This would be more than adequately parked. The concern with the congestion in other communities is primarily with Moped and bicycle parking. As with the previous application, staff's recommendation, based on the Police report and on staff's findings and conclusions, would remain the same, that the request proposed is inappropriate for the location suggestd due to the adjacent hospital facility, the nearby school facilities and due to the fact that this particular intersection is institutional and residential in nature. Mr. Saltarelli asked how many units in the building is this proposal taking up? Mr. Brotemarkle responded that it is taking up predominately 6,000 square feet, approximately 3,000 restaurant and 3,000 entertainment center. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:46 -3- Chris Tolend of Stewart Development, Newport and Sycamore and also speaking for tenants in the building opposed due to the juvenile delinquency problem and potential drug problem which has been observed in like facilities. Indicated that they have experienced a few break-ins in their building. There are a lot of kids and a lot of apartments in that area. He feels that this facility would simply contribute to the problems. Also concerned over night time activity with their clients in their building. Helen Edgar read to the Agency an article in the L.A. Times from the Letters to the Editor entitled "Kids Spending" which discussed kids putting money into video games instead of comic books. John Zier, 1152 Mirror Lane. Opposed. Reported observations of other like facilities. Concerned with petty larceny. John Harrison, 14802 Newport Blvd., President of Sycamore Gardens Homeowners, spoke on behalf of the association and some of the residents. Presented the Agency with a petition listing the reasons opposing this arcade. Obtained 40 signatures in opposition on grounds of potential parking problems on Sycamore. Incompatible land use, potential robbery and traffic concerns were mentioned. That intersection has only one crosswalk and is very dangerous. Most people using this project will be coming on their bikes. City would need to install improved lighting which is a cost consideration. 7-11 next door sells packaged alcohol which could lead to problems. Checked into revenues related to one of the machines. $500-$600 per week per machine. Divided 1/2 by owner and operating that is quite a revenue. This is likely the source of revenue the applicant is looking at. If the number of machines is reduced it may not be such a problem. Mr. Messenbrink, V.P. of MDM and one of the principles, said the City is under a gross misunderstanding. We are being called an arcade and a gaming center that is unmanaged. That is an unfair comparison. Presented slides in hopes of clearing up the misunderstanding. . . The name of the restaurant is Parcheesy. Purpose is to provide family entertainment center. Seating capacity is 44 persons. The entertainment center would include: 1. Large screen T.V. 2. Tiny Tots play area. 3. 45 electronic games. 5. Intend to sponsor sporting events. 6. Birthday party for groups. They feel the staff report has a number of errors in it. It is composed of accusations and unfair comparisons to other establishments. The basic problem is that they are concerned about loitering. The image of electronic games is that they draw youngsters. Chief Thayer's report compares them to Tustin Lanes Bowling Alley. That is an establishment which occupies 4 times the size of building we are talking about. Their problems cannot be applied to our restaurant. According to Lt. Foster, Tustin Lanes has always been a problem, that doesn't necessarily relate to the video games. Called other police departments in other local cities to find out the kinds of problems they are experiencing. In summary, they do admit problems with arcades, but in restaurants containing video games they do not experience the same type and amount of problems. They propose three ways to control loitering: 1. Token control system. People off the street couldn't walk up to the games. They would have to buy tokens from an authorized person in the restaurant. It gives the restaurant control over who operates the machines. 2. Keep nuisance roster. 3. Use uniformed security officer. Have on-site during hours of operation. -4- Chairman Sharp questioned what the hours of operation are. Does the game area operate at different hours? Don Mangano, one of the principles, stated the hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Friday and Saturday to 11:00 p.m. Sunday is undetermined at the present time. Chairman Sharp questioned if the restaurant and game area are both open umi)~Ti-6-~-t~ours. Don Mangano responded affirmatively. Mark Wiggins, interested party, not a resident, spoke favorably for the restaurant and gaming center. He added that the games themselves are not harmful only the minority of people who abuse them. Suzanne Zier, 1152 Mirror Lane, wondered if the principles would still want to open the restaurant with fewer machines. Mr. Messenbrink responded negatively. The rent and expenses of operating the restaurant would be too high. The games are not a primary source of income but they give a posture different than other pizza parlours in the area. Don Mangano, Jr., said that according to the Orange County Lighting District there has been a light proposed for that corner. He spent a total of 6 months on the corner 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. observing different traffic and kid patterns. They are proposing almost $200,000 worth of improvements to this site and don't want to jeopardize the investment by allowing delinquents in this place. John Harrison, commented on 44 seats in the restaurant and 45 machines proposed. The machines would be the money center for the restaurant. makes the difference is the number of machines~ .45 machines cannot be considered subordinate to 44 seat restaurant. What High density area much more prone to crime. The uniformed guard surely would not be able to patrol neighboring areas. What happens when the juveniles leave the restaurant and don't want to go home? Those individuals concern us. The largest concentration of this type of machine in the area will act as a magnet. Chairman Sharp asked the audience for further input but to restrain it to fresh ideas. Gigi Broaden, 14930 Newport Avenue, has seen children on the corner at 12:30 p.m. on school d~s. She is concerned with where the children will get the money to play the machines. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:32 P.M. Mr. Hoesterey moved for denial of the use permit. With 44 seats and 45 machines he could not find that it is predominantly restaurant. (13 square feet per machine for 600 square feet with 45 machines) Mr. Edgar seconded the motion. Mr. Saltarelli offered a counter viewpoint. If we had someone here today putting in a bar no one would complain. As long as the adults have someplace to go no one complains. As soon as anyone wants to do anything for teenagers, it is a bad place. Should allow the business to go in and put safeguards in so that if it does become a problem we can close it down and revoke the use permit. In favor of a modified proposal. Give a permit on a temporary basis. if these people can operate the venture for the betterment of the community. See Mr. Edgar seconded the motion based on 45 being an excessive number. 45 is more than all three of our establishments put together. I cannot say I won't accept a smaller number of machines. -5- Mrs. Kennedy asked for comments from Chief Thayer on his report. Chief Thayer responded that they read his report wrong. Not against the machines. If we had a business with a 150-200 foot set-back from the street no objection. Most of the places that have large number of machines have a large set-back. Many cities are drafting ordinances for the control of video games including the hours of use. Tustin Lanes has not caused problems with their machines. The kids cause problems with the machines. Suspect the management of this establishment will be the ones to call us. The problems will be crowds blocking parking areas and access to the building. The signal light next year will help somewhat. Security people cannot enforce the law. The police department will have to be called. I estimate having to hire another police officer. 1.5 - 2 kids per machine during evening hours will outweigh the security persons ability for control. My concern is with safety. Chairman Sharp asked for any questions. Mrs. Kennedy admitted that the video games do have a value however after visiting Sears' arcade and noticing the resemblance to a gambling casino she wonders about putting age limitations on the machines. It is a new business in our society and we should be sympathetic. Consider an ordinance regulating the machines. Oakland is banning use by anyone under the age of 18. Cannot support the location because of R-3, R-1 and three schools and a church within 1,000 feet. Mr. Saltarelli commented he would like time limits. Put controls to protect the surrounding people but give the venture a chance. Mr. Brotemarkle discussed the City of Costa Mesa report. They did a truancy sweep and brought in 200 students who were playing the games. Most other cities are in the process of getting CUPs. Leaning toward putting them in community shopping centers and restricting them from small neighborhood centers. The problem of combining uses by the restaurant and video games is a fairly new use and does not seem to present as large a problem as the arcades. Nothing evil with the machines. The problem is when it spills over into the adjacent neighborhoods. The fence at the hospital was installed for burglary problems on the cars. Chairman Sharp stated we have a motion and a second to deny, however most of the conversation is hinging on control. I assume the other cities control measures you have pointed out help alleviate the problems. Mr. Brotemarkle questioned if this is a suitable location. If it is, then the matter should be shifted to the License and Permit Board. Mr. Hoesterey commented the issue is not whether the machines are evil but the relationship between the size of the food establishment and the size of the arcade. What is the intended use of the facility? When you have the arcade being a greater amount of availability than the eating establishment then I interpret the games being the primary purpose of the venture. Chairman Sharp questioned if we could attach conditions to the use permit. Mr. Brotemarkle responded that if the Agency deems the site appropriate a report back from the License and Permit Board as to conditions for the use should be required. Chairman Sharp continued that the Agency should consider the fact that this is a use permit and should not be placed under the gun to come up immediately with a perfect solution to a problem as new as this one. Perhaps it could be beneficial for staff to look further into the conditions which should be placed on a use like this including the condition that if something we find acceptable doesn't work out the use permit could be revoked. Mr. Hoesterey interjected concerning practicality of trying to revoke a use permit after the investment of almost 1/4 million dollars. I think we would then have the attorneys involved. Chairman Sharp not ready to vote in favor or against it. It needs a~ltlona~ thought. -6- Mr. Edgar commented that basically the motion was related to 45 units. It is an excessive number and intends to vote against 45 machines. There may be some other compromise solution. If we are to deny it tonight, would they have to pay additional fees to apply again? Mr. Brotemarkle responded affirmatively. The Agency could refer the matter to the License and Permit Board for operational direction and designate all conditions to be returned for your consideration. Mr. Huston commented that another approach would be to continue the matter for 30 - 45 days. During that time the staff, constituting the License and Permit Board, could research and come back for Agency consideration. At that time, the Agency could approve or deny. Mr. Saltarelli moved to continue for up to 30 days and direct staff to meet with the applicant to see if they can come up with a proposal that will provide the safeguards that the Agency wants in order to protect the people from what they envision might happen. If they can do it great, if they can't, then we can deny it at that time. Chairman Sharp seconded the motion. Discussion? Mr. Hoesterey mentioned that the Agency wants families to continue going out to eat and playing these games all over town instead of a giant congregation on one corner. That is what my concern is, to keep it on the level we have already established. The motion passed with a vote of 5 - O. AYES: SHARP, HOESTEREY, KENNEDY, EDGAR, SALTARELLI NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE PUBLIC HEARING 2. VARIANCE 81-8 APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: Cal State Associates CCLV "A" 14882-14942 Newport Avenue To convert 296 apartment complex to condominiums Mr. Brotemarkle reported that the applicant has two areas of concern to the Agency: The first is that of compliance with zoning provisions of the PD District and conversion ordinance. Secondly, is the problem of an inadequate physical plant and structures in need of major structural revision and modification to stem deterioration and upgrade the facility. They would like to incorporate the vacant school property to the rear into their complex. The site was formerly considered by Six Star Cablevision and the applicant wants to include that as part of their open area. This would bring them to a 49.1% open space or 9/10 of 1% short. They would then ask that the Agency give them credit for the adjacent public tennis courts of that .09% open space bringing them to the 50%. The previous hearing we covered all the points with regard to their parking structures. However, it came to a point that Mr. Hans Vogel, a representative from the school ditrict, was questioned with regard to the negotiations and he was basically unaware of what was going on. It was felt by the Agency this matter should be tabled until such time as solid evidence of the ability to acquire the school property be presented to the Agency. Since that time,they have continued negotiations with the school district. They commenced preparation of a parcel map for the school district site separating the vacant land from the tennis courts. We are in receipt of a letter dated November 24 from Mr Sutherland of the Tustin Unified School District. In summary he says that the school district has to go through many procedures under State law of declaring the property surplus and putting it up for public bid. They are not able to solidify an intent or go into escrow at this time. However, the school district suspects to ultimately culminate a purchase with Cal State Associates as the purchaser. Accordingly, the school district recommends to the Planning Agency to recognize the proposed sale that more than likely will take place and proceed with the review of the condominium project. If the Agency deems that this letter and the fact that the item is in process with an -7- an engineering company for a production of a parcel map is sufficient, then the applicant and staff would request your pleasure in whether or not you wish at this time to reconsider the variance application for the Californian Apartments conversion. Chairman Sharp stated there are substantial findings that there is a variance required and asked if there is a hardship. Mr. Brotemarkle replied affirmatively. The only variance request is for permission not to tear down existing patio covers in the complex. If they were willing to do that, they would have filed a use permit request because they would be asking for credit under use permit for the adjacent tennis courts. It is the request to leave the patio covers; that is the reason for the variance. Mr. Edgar asked for clarification on the patio cover use amounts to 2% of the open space. Mr. Brotemarkle responded that it adds up to something more than 2%. Briefly they have, not including the patio covers, an open space of 45.2%. That moves slightly up with the patios. The major portion is the school district property which is 4.7%. The patio covers themselves represent less than 1/2%. Mr. Edgar commented that if we assume that the school district property is acquired and that the patio covers don't count, you are saying it is 49.9% and our standard is 50%. They are 1/10% short. Mr. Brotemarkle responded that was correct. They are asking to be given credit for that 1/10 of 1% open space due to the fact they abut the permanent open space facility. Mrs. Kennedy commented that one of the important parts of this project is the fact that we aregoing to have to put parking structures up on both sides of the complex; on one side we have the Sycamore Gardens and on Carfax, R-1 homes. Mr. Brotemarkle responded that some area where the Carfax homes abut would have the parking structures removed and be converted to an open area. The very last single family lot would abut a portion of the parking s~:~ructure. It is proposed that if this parking structure were to be approved that it be constructed of decorative masonry material subject to staff review of those materials and any parapet wall on the second level be sufficiently high enough to protect privacy of people residing to the north in Sycamore Gardens and the residential area. To the rear along the bulk of the single family homes, it would now become open space. Mrs. Kennedy asked how high the parking structure would be? Mr. Brotemarkle responded it would be approximately 13 1/2 feet high. Mr. Saltarelli asked if there is any way they can get the required parking without building parking structures? Mr. Brotemarkle responded that it has been researched by a number of people. This project has been thoroughly gone over the last five or six years. It is not felt they could achieve the required parking without the structures. The other problem is that if they put all the parking on one side of the project it would make it almost unmarketable. It would put the parking extremely remote from the rest of the units. The only other solution is elimination of units. Mr. Saltarelli asked if it is still remote. Mr. Brotemarkle responded affirmatively. There is still some difficulty. They do have a parking assignment plan and that is a required aspect of any potential approval of this project. The applicant in addition has submitted a letter stipulating in very general terms the improvements they intend to make. Staff concurs with them that a lot of the improvements that are going to be necessary are going to have to await removal of items so that we can see exactly what conditions certain aspects are in. They have given a general statement that they will comply with all necessary requirements to bring the roofs, the water system and the structural deficiencies all up to current code in addition to complying with all of -8- the improvement necessary for new sale. As a condition to that, Staff has recommended that the applicant be required at his own expense to obtain a licensed deputy state inspector to conduct a continual examination and inspection of the premises because our limited staff would not be able to provide the service necessary to insure all the improvements are in compliance. Further, staff recommends we withhold final tract map approval until sufficient sureties and activities have taken place to assure compliance with all of the necessary elimination of deficiencies in that complex. They would not have a final subdivision map with which to go to the Department of Real Estate until all necessary assurances of these improvements were achieved. The tenants' chief concern was that if it was approved, how would the city be able to verify that everything was accomplished. Our mechanism would be to use the subdivision map as the controlling condition. Mr. Hoesterey questioned the turf block in the plans and asked if that is considered part of the open space. Mr. Brotemarkle responded the turf block is considered part of the open space. The only reason for provision of grasscrete or turf block is to allow an emergency vehicle to have access if absolutely necessary into that area, but it is not meant for any other vehicles. It is merely a hard surface. Mrs. Kennedy asked if the subterranean parking had been looked into or anything else to cut the height of the structure abutting Sycamore Gardens and R-1 at Carfax. Mr. Brotemarkle responded not at this point. It is proposed as at-grade, covered with a second deck above. Since utilities are in the driveways, submersion had not been considered. Mrs. Kennedy commented we should all be sensitive to the fact that Sycamore Gardens has just gone condominium and that the R-! at Carfax is one story. I am sure that possibly you can take a look at.putting subterranean on this side and being sensitive to the impact on those homes. The other side by the railroad tracks would make a wonderful sound buffer. Chairman Sharp stated he has always felt most comfortable when we are hearing something as complex as this that we are hearing it under use permit action rather than a variance application. I have noticed your Resolution 2012 seems to have a number of conditions in it. Would you comment on the comparable flexibility you might have to manage a better project if we had it under CUP rather than variance. Mr. Brotemarkle stated there is no difference. The applicant has indicated he feels his project would be better designed if they were permitted to keep the covered patios. If it were decided by the Agency to deny the variance for the open space, their alternative would then be to tear the patios down and then it would be a use permit. If you wanted, you could direct that by condition the patios be taken out. Their feeling is that the project was originally a design award winner that has run into problems of old age. Many of the tenants who would want to purchase their units, would like to retain the patios. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPE#ED AT 9:46 P.M. Craig Kelford, architect, explained the difficulty in digging up present parking facilities and replacing it and clarified the two story parking structure. Compared the two story parking structure to the structure presently on the east end of the building where they are going to build a small park. With the school district property, the park would be increased by another 1/3 acre. Projecting a 625 foot parking structure on the north and 1625 foot parking structure on the south. We have provided in the plans a 13 foot high wall even though the structure itself is only 10 feet. The wall would serve three purposes 1) a 4 hour fire wall; 2) provide a continuous noise attenuation wall; 3) random automatically irrigated planting units along the hand rail 3 1/2 feet above the structure so that it softens up and cascades down on both sides. Mr. Edgar noticed that the resolution indicates the structure 28 feet high on the northern wall and most of the conversation tonight has indicated that you will need something less than that. Mr. Brotemarkle explained staff wanted to make three minor corrections on the resolution one being this, also the word structure in the same sentence, also item J needs a modification to read "replace with one central for each building or cluster of buildings similar to condition I above". If you were to take action tonight I recommend we bring this resolution back with these changes. Mr. Edgar clarified it is 13 1/2 feet rather than 28. Mr. Saltarelli asked if it is possible to do a design configuration providing the necessary parking without having a two story parking structure on the Drayton Way side. Mr. Kelford responded No. It didn't pencil out. We had to eliminate about 35 units to provide sufficient parking. Mr. Saltarelli asked wouldn't it take only 10 or 15 units if you had a parking structure only on the railroad side or made some other use of the school district land. Mr. Kelford responded affirmatively. We worked at great length in that regard. We found that the parking assignment was just a disaster. Some people had to go over 400 feet to their car. Staff told us they couldn't live with it and could not recommend it for approval. Mr. Brotemarkle commented initially they looked at a parking structure towards the rear of the site which due to location of the single family was totally undesirable from the standpoint of the R-1 properties backyards directly against the fence. So, it ended with two double story structures half way down the property. Their push and shove on this is between open space and parking. Mr. Hoesterey asked what the contingency plan is if the school property does not go through. Would you not do the project? Mr. Kelford responded he couldn't answer that because it would not be good ethics on his part. The owner's representative could answer it. Chairman Sharp asked for further comments from the audience. Greg Carroll, 1142 Drayton Way, opposed the parking structure because it would be right at his backdoor. 13 feet is unacceptable. The 8 foot wall barely allows any sunlight now. Steve Anert, 1162 Drayton Way, complained about pool getting dust and soot from alley. With a parking structure twice as high it will double the soot. The noise is also a problem. Julie Carroll, 1142 Drayton Way, backdoor is 15 feet from the garages. Complained about carbon monoxide and lack of privacy. Easy access to backyard for burglary. Not opposed to the condominiums, but is opposed to block wall or giving up air space. Steve Price, 14918 Newport, a tenant at the Californians for over 5 years. Happy with conversion. Submitted a favorable petition for conversation which was circulated in the last 4 to 6 weeks. Pete Rozales, 14894 Newport Ave., interested in the time frame in bringing the apartments up to code. Mr. Brotemarkle stated a use permit is effective for a maximum of one year. The basic problems are the heating, water circulation, roofing and deterioration due to these systems. Mr. Kelford explained they discussd the parking concern on Drayton Way with the people here and have come to a compromise. By extending the southerly parking structure a few feet and going to tuck under parking on the north side with a partial structure circumventing the location of the utilities and leaving it the way it is on the north side. Chairman Sharp questioned the difference between a letter of intent from the school board versus an escrow action. -10- Robert LaScala, counsel for developer, addressed the letter of intent versus the escrow and stated it is as far as they could go with the school district at the present time because they have to comply with state rules and regulations. We are the only realistic user for this property because of its location and size. However, they cannot say they will sell it to us before going through their procedures. There is no reason to suspect anyone else would be willing to pay what we are paying for the property. Chairman Sharp asked for anything new from the audience. John tuck foot Harrison, president of Sycamore Gardens Homeowners, questioned the under parking and if it would include all the parking hidden by the 8 wall. Mr. Kelford responded there would be no change. The top portion of the wall would act as a screen and that would be acceptable. Mr. Brotemarkle stated the Staff recommended that any new wall would be subject to show any amenities such as texture, design and planters to mitigate any visual impact upon the neighboring project. Staff would be reviewing the texture and design. John Harrison, commented any increased noise is also a concern due to the additional ramp. Would like a condition for the wall to extend beyond the ramp area. Richard Brooks, employee of architect on project, said the wall would extend beyond the ram area. As to the soot in the swimming pool, we do hope to cut down on that with the open space and unit development. Almost the entire site now is paved and we hope to make it lawn and plant areas so there won't be as much dirt and carbon monoxide generated. The 4 foot wall should provide a sufficient screen for noise. The sound would travel up from the elevated area. Harry Hudson, V.P. of Cal State Associates, recently saw an old magazine article naming the Californian as an award winner. We are putting a great deal of thought and effort into this project. We can make this a project Tustin can be proud of. Richard Horton, 14916 Newport Avenue, spoke in favor of project. CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION AT 10:18 P.H Mr. Saltarelli, this was one of the projects being approved in the late 60's, early 70's that caused some of us to run for City Council. They became too dense and brought a lot of impact. It wasn't really good for the surrounding community and maybe we have an opportunity here to do something. In my view, this is one of those classic examples for a need for a variance on the part of the developer to make it economic for them to make changes in the project to lessen the impact that is al ready there. As an idea, let me suggest that we should give a variance on the open space and not require them to buy that land from the school district. If they paid $10 per square foot for the land, 14,000 square feet, $140,000. The profit on one of the units is maybe $10,000 or $20,000. Maybe you could take that profit out and remove "x" number of units and create more of an open space atmosphere in the center of the project, cut down the need for more additional parking and still end up with the same number economically on the project. Reduce the parking structure height allowing them to spend some of the money otherwise put into the open space. Expend the money to get down underground enough with the parking structure so we take the impact away from the surrounding residents and end up with a better project for everybody. Less density, more open space. That would require a variance. Mr. Hoesterey was concerned with the manner in which the open space is used in this project. The intent of open space in the project is for the purpose of reducing density in a conversion from a tenant situation to an owner situation. In the layout of this project, the open space is really just an appendage to the project that by design only a very few people would ever use and we still have the massive density of the entire project that exists now by design. Also concerned about the parking garage against the units currently there. Although there are some mitigation measures to -11- help minimize the impact, I really think it would be a problem for the people there. Maybe should look at removing a couple of units so that we have useable open space on the project as opposed to having a nice green area that by design very few people would use. Mr. Kelford stated they didn't want to buy the property next door, although the school district is working with them. Realize the density problems, however, can salvage the project. Would like to come to a subsequent hearing with some alternatives that make more sense in light of the discussion. Mr. Saltarelli moved that the item be continued to January 18, 1982 for rethinking and be brought back to the Agency when the applicant and staff can draft alternatives that would handle the concerns of the neighbors and what the Agency has expressed. Mrs. Kennedy seconded. Motion carried 5 - O. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: SHARP, HOESTEREY, SALTARELLI, EDGAR, KENNEDY NONE. NONE. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. to the next regular meeting. JAMES CHAIRMAN -12-