Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 01-04-82 (3)TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting December 7, 1981 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, December 7, 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 3:03 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Saltarelli and the invocation was given by Mr. Hoesterey. ROLL CALL Present: Sharp, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli Also present: William Huston, City Manager Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Alan Warren, Senior Planner James Rourke, City Attorney Maria Ivory, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held November 16, 1981, were ap- proved as submitted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Height Limitations Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report. He said it had been realized that multiple unit apartment projects were not subject to the same approval as condominiums. Ordinance No. 862 would require any multiple projects two stories or greater specified distances of R-l, RA or E-4 districts be subject to the same review, standards and action by the Planning Agency as PD, condominium projects. The matter was continued from October due to the Agency's concern on "how heights are measured". Staff recommends the adoption of Resolution No. 2005. Under Ne~ Business, item #3 staff will discuss such height parameters within the Zoning Code. Mr. Saltarelli questioned if it wouldn't be simpler to say: "anything over two stories including parking would have to have a review". He said they have been getting two stories with parking which are actually three stories. Mr. Brotemarkle said PO requires anything over one story come in for a review therefore, the restriction is at 20 feet in this regard. Any- thing over that would be subject to review. The public hearing portion on Ordinance No. 862 was opened. There be- ing no one to speak the public hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO. 2005. " .......... A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 862, AMENDING THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICTS .... .." Moved by Kennedy to adopt Resolution No. 2005. The motion was seconded by Edgar and carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Edgar, Hoesterey None None Planning Agency Minutes December 7, 1981 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. USE PERMIT Applicant: Location: Request: 81-33 Colonial Bible Church 13601 Browning Ave. (Utt School) To permit church worship facilities and the operation of a private school. Mr. Brotemarkle presented staff report and said the application for a Use Permit was filed upon written authorization of Tustin Unified School District that Utt School be utilized for a church and school. The proposed uses are compatible with existing use conducted at the site. The only issue staff felt was a concern is adequate parking and recommend that additional parking be required within a 6 month period and in the interim be allowed to use the playground area for parking. The public hearing portion on Use Permit 81-33 was opened. Mr. Larry Ahl, 35 Farraget, 1trine, Ca. said he was representing the Colonial Bible Church and school and would answer any questions or bring in any information in addition to what staff has reported. Mr. Saltarelli asked did the church have sufficient funds to assure the building of the parking lot. Mr. Ahl replied they were in the process of acquiring funds and have received pledges. Mr. Hoesterey asked if there would be any impact on the sports activi- ties which were being conducted and how long was the lease. Mr. Ahl said those areas would still be used for public use and most of the time those activities do not occur on Sunday and the lease was for 3 years. The public hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO. 2010. " ........... A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING USE OF THE C. E. U1-F INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL SITE FOR A CHURCH AND PRIVATE SCHOOL FACILITY ....... " Moved by Edgar to adopt Resolution No. 2010. The motion was seconded by Kennedy. Under discussion Mr. Saltarelli felt there should be a bond required for the parking improvements and did not think they should give a church any different requirement than would be placed on a private de- veloper and they could be certain the money would be there to con- struct the parking. It was agreed by Edgar and Kennedy to amend the motion to require a bond as a condition of approval. The motion as amended was carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Hoesterey, Edgar None None 2. VARIANCE 81-9 Applicant: Location: Request: Graham Electronics/Beyer & Warden 15520 So. "B" Street Authorization to construct 43 residential condominiums and to vary with Zoning Ordinance for open space and density requirements. Planning Agency Minutes December 7, 1981 Page 3 Mr. Brotemarkle presented staff report and stated this request is a new submittal on property previously considered under a variance re- quest. At that time there were 36 dwelling units. A major amount of time has passed and that variance has lapsed. New owners have taken over the property and are proposing 43 dwelling units which would con- stitute 60.5% lot coverage. Mr. Brotemarkle further said the project at present was substandard units and they would temporarily be reducing housing but would be upping the housing stock in total number of units. Discussion was held on the three story height, no access to Newport Avenue, floor plans and sound attenuation. The public hearing portion on Variance 81-9 was opened. Mr. Michael T. Collins, 18004 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, Ca. represent- ing Graham Electronics said he felt staff's report was comprehensive. Their original submission was based on misinterpretation of the open space requirements and they now accede to staff's recommendation that the building to the east be eliminated which will improve open space. He said he felt the plan makes optimum use of a site that was very difficult to work with. In his opinion the revised plan to incorpor- ate the suggestions of staff would be a significant improvement for the City. The public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Edgar to approve Variance 81-9 with modifications proposed by staff; that the CC&R's be approved by the City Attorney and that the security aspects of the project be assured in the conditions. The motion was seconded by Saltarelli. Under discussion was whether the rendered elevations would be included as part of the documentation of the Use Permit as approved. Mr. Huston said they would and in the future the Planning Agency would be getting plans which would show height, colors, etc. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Saltarelli, Edgar, Hoesterey and Kennedy None None By common consent of the Agency it was agreed to that Variance 81-9 be effective for 6 months and become null and void from final date of approval if construction has not commenced. PUBLIC CONCERNS: None OLD BUSINESS 1. Design Review - 150 E1Camino Real Mr. Brotemarkle presented staff report and stated that the applicant, by removal of the metal seam roof, requests a modification for the project on reduction of a five foot height in favor of an enchanced brick motif. Roof top equipment will be screened with a material of compatible color and only visible from a great distance. Motion by Kennedy to approve the requested revisions by applicant. The motion was seconded by Edgar. Planning Agency Minutes December 7, 1981 Page 4 Under discussion was the difference between a brick motif and true brick. Mr Brotemarkle indicated this would be a facade treatment. The question was called for and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Saltarelli, Edgar, Hoesterey and Kennedy None None 2. Design Review - Burnett Ehline/S.E. Corner Holt & Irvine Mr. Alan Warren, Senior Planner presented the staff report and stated this review is required under Use Permit 80-3 approved in March 1980. The changes proposed are minor in nature but they do affect the appearance and some parking is reduced. The major requirement was that building not exceed 46 feet and in order to do that the designers would have to enlarge the building area. This increased the footprint to maintain their desired gross square footage. Parking has been modified for footprint enlargement and was accomplished by increasing compact spaces from 20% to 32.2%. The design does meet minimum standards and setback for the area. He said they were not recommending any continuous planting between rows of parking and those would remain tree wells. Mr. Hoesterey expressed concern about the building being inco~atible with surrounding buildings because of the large.amount of glass. Chairman Sharp said he would like the architect to study a cornice and spandrels of the same material as the base and would prefer bronze glass to black glass. There was a'general discussion concerning architecture and Mr. Saltarelli pointed out the architecture of the building was approved a year ago and it would not be fair at this time to i~ose rigid material changes. He was satisfied with the building design. Mr. Saltarelli said he felt there needed to be another exit on Holt. Mr. Leland W. Stearns/Architect, 144 N. Orange St., Orange, Ca. 92666 said he was surprised at the Agency's concerns over the architecture because they had gone through that thoroughly two years ago. They originally came in October 1979 with a higher building and the building was finally approved at 46 feet with this design. They have a combination of black glass and reflective glass which breaks down the mass of the building and is a visually interesting composition. He said he was not sure of making the changes to bronze because they thought they already had something approved. As far as the parking the access as it is now is per requirements of the City Engineering staff. They did have another access on Holt but were reduced to one access, apparently to make for better safety. Mr. Edgar asked Mr. Ledendecker to explain the parking access in terms of width. Mr. Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer replied that the proposed width was two feet wider and from staff's viewpoint they would feel more comfortable with one access to control traffic rather than having more traffic. There will be no left turn from Irvine Boulevard. P1 anning Agency Mi nutes December 7, 1981 Page 5 Mrs. Kennedy questioned if there was any information on Don Jose's restaurant and the flower shop. Mr. Richard J. Ehline, 2050 So. Santa Cruz St., #100, Anaheim, Ca. 92805 stated Mr. Frazer the owner of Don Jose's was in a fatal plane accident about a month ago. In talking with representatives of Mr. Frazer's estate they indicated that particular site was a good site and will remain operating. With respect to the flower shop they still do not have a final result with the tenant but are hopeful the lady will become a tenant in the new building al though it is possible to build the project without the use relocating. It is their number one priority to work things out. Mr. Saltarelli said the Planning Agency should review any adjustments to the plan if it was determined they cannot work things out with the flower shop and not to have staff review an adjusted plan if the flower shop was to stay. Motion by Saltarelli to approve by minute order the modifications as requested by the applicant and any change in use, i.e. allowing flower shop to remain, to have a design review by the Planning Agency. The motion was seconded by Edgar. Under discussion Mrs. Kennedy said she could not support the motion as she felt the architectural design was inappropriate and the density was too high. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Saltarelli, Edgar and Hoesterey Kennedy None NEW BUSINESS 1. Tentative Tract 11050 RESOLUTION NO. 2009. " ........... A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11050 ...... " Motion by Saltarelli to approve Resolution No. 2009. The motion was seconded by Edgar and carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Hoesterey and Edgar None None 2. Design Review - N.E. Corner Holt & Irvine Mr. Alan Warren presented staff report and said the project met all district requirements in setback, parking, etc. There was a slight deviation in parking where the applicant was requesting that the compact stalls be of a slightly different configuration and staff feels that would work. The architecture was similar to other buildings on Irvine Boulevard and staff has notified the architect of the City's concern regarding the second floor window on view into residential areas. The property to the north will continue to be used and zoned residential. Motion by Kennedy to approve Site Plan for the Northeast corner of Holt and Irvine Blvd (Professional District). The motion was seconded Planning Agency Minutes December 7, 1981 Page 6 by Saltarelli and carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Hoesterey and Edgar None None 3. Presentation and Graphics on Zoning Heights Mr. Brotemarkle explained there were only three districts in which height was restricted by stories and in all others by a maximum height in feet only. He further explained six feet above grade constituted a story and how such factors only affect the U.B.C. requirements, i.e. whether a building would have to be sprinkled, etc. and it would not affect zoning as long as the building doesn't exceed the height in feet. Mr. Brotemarkle reviewed the subject of "grade" by use of graphic presentations showing and comparing buildings with and without subterranean floors. He stated that height was measured from the average grade along the length of the building and a grade is only established on the property where the building was going to be built. Mr. Saltarelli said he felt they should require a Use Permit for anything over two stories to protect the residential integrity of the community. But two stories could include a subterranean parking facility if it was substantially less than a full story. There was a lengthy discussion on parking and Mr. Brotemarkle informed the Agency that almost all parking is semi-subterranean and that subterranean parking was very unusual because it was very expensive. Mr. Brotemarkle said in regard to multi-residential districts they would have to define what was meant by a story because there were a lot of homes which have lofts and were not really three story homes. They could establish a height limit with provision that no project would exceed two stories in height and define what is meant by story. But they could not have three "full" stories above grade. Mr. Edgar commented that it would be difficult to write everything into the code for every eventuality because they are going to forget something but they do want to find a way to elimimate unorthodox structures. Mr. Brotemarkle suggested they pursue initially the residential level and impose height restrictions on residential with a maximum numbe~ of stories so they are not dealing with three "full stories" but dealing with something in between. Chairman Sharp said the members would give it some thought and give staff specific direction at a later date. 4. Final Tract Map 11477 RESOLUTION No. 2008. " .......... A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT 11477 .......... " Motion by Kennedy to approve Resolution No. 2008. The motion was seconded by Edgar and carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Hoesterey and Edgar None None Planning Agency Minutes December 7, 1981 Page 7 5. Design Review - Maurer Development - 14811Yorba Mr. Brotemarkle said staff had been working with the building designer to attempt to furnish employee recreational amenities. The applicant is proposing racquet ball courts and sauna. This has been accomplished without detriment to the architecture of the structure. The only concern is that some specimen trees would be required to mitigate the loss of any mature trees due to construction. Motion of minute order by Kennedy to approve the site and architectural plans as presented. The motion was seconded by Edgar and carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: NOES: Sharp, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Hoesterey and Edgar None None STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Brotemarkle said the department had received a request from Far West Savings to conduct a Holiday Safety Campaign with a large pink panther atop the 25 foot bank building. Mr. James H. Delaby, 5304 Seashore Drive, #A, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663, representing Far West Savings and SafeCo Insurance Co. presented the large pink sign on safety but said the pink panther was too large to bring to the Council Chambers. Mr. Dela~y said the campaign would be from December 22 to the end of December. He pointed out that SafeCo was a national insurance company and the pink panther was used throughout the United States. Mr. Brotemarkle said the Planning Agency could act on it as a "special exception" and grant a temporary use permit subject to a stipulated period of time. Mrs. Kennedy asked if it could be considered a banner. Mr. Brotemarkle replied it could not because of the height. Mr..Hoesterey said it could fall under the same auspices as a tempor- ary sign for a new development. Motion by Edgar to grant a Temporary Use Permit exception waiver for the period specified by Far West Savings in the interest of public safety. The motion was seconded by Kennedy and carried unanimously. AGENCY CONCERNS Mr. Hoesterey commented on the trains which cross Walnut. He said he would like staff to investigate the signal at that location. ADJOURNMENT At 5:12 p.m. upon motion of Saltarelli the Agency adjourned to the 7:3Q p.m. meeting. The motion was seconded by Kennedy and carried unanimously. Planning Agency Minutes December 7, [98[ Page 8 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of 7:30 Meeting December 7, 1981 The Planning Agency was called to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Edgar and Hoesterey Absent: None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1. USE PERMIT 81-29 Applicant: Cal Pacific Properties Location: Newport Ave. between Main and E1 Camino Real Mr. Brotemarkle reviewed the staff report and advised the Agency there were three areas of concern at the October 27, 1981 workshop which are outlined in staff's report. Attached to staff's report is a memo from Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works/City Engineer which states that the traffic analysis is adequate and in conformance with available data. With regard to the height, the applicant and architect will be presenting slide presentations and discussing the marketing aspects. The public hearing portion on Use Permit 8[-29 was opened. Mr. Greg Butcher, 17941 Mitchell Ave., Irvine, Ca. representing Cal Pacific Properties said he would like to address three areas of con- cern: density, traffic, and the building height. In reviewing their studies and market data they propose not to change the density of the project. The office co,orient was an extremely in~ortant segment and produces an economically viable project. The traffic hasn't changed because the density hasn't changed. He said traffic was a difficult issue for anyone to understand but their analysis shows traffic has not been substantially impacted. They have found an alternative to the building height and can reduce the height and not completely sacrifice the open space and courtyard concept. They were suggesting the two six story buildings be reduced to five stories and the other buildings remain the same. Mr. Dave Klages, Architect, 3198 Airport Road, Ca. presented slides of the project. He said the alternatives they were proposing were something they could live with, however, they preferred the cascading six (6) story version. Mr. Klages explained the height would vary depending on the structural system they use and until they get into further details of which system it would be they would like to hold back and say at the lowest it would be 68 feet 6 inches and the highest would be 74 feet at parapet in the five (5) story building. The continued public hearing was opened. Ms. Betty Iverson, 13452 Cindy Lane, Tustin, Ca. said she has lived in Tustin since 1965 and was not representing any organized group. She was speaking in opposition to Use Permit 81-29. She stated a group of citizens against highrise buildings had attended the past meetings Planning Agency Minutes December 7, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page 9 but did not feel the Agency members were getting their message. They decided to have an informal poll and drew up a paper recommending that the buildings be no higher than 50 feet overall and urged the City Council to set that standard. They picked areas to poll at random and concentrated on the area around the proposed project. They found 90% of people contacted wanted the project modified or don't want it at all. Ten percent approved it as is and said it would be good for the City. Of the ten percent who approved of the project they found the majority of the reasons were job related. Ms. Iverson said they had obtained 758 signatures and she shared some of the main objections that people had to the project. In conclusion she felt a ~jority of the people favor a modified plan. Ms. Elaine Kowalik, 1161 Letty Lane, Tustin, Ca. said she has been a resident of Tustin for 12 years and was one of the participants of the poll. She said the people she talked to had the same feelings. Of 100 people, 93 felt they liked a low key place and don't want highrises and they also felt Tustin does have a traffic problem and this project would increase that problem. She said she also talked with realtors who were very concerned especially with the traffic. One realtor said there was a 33% vacancy factor in office property. Ms. Betty Kaufman, 106 S. Portola, Tusttn, Ca. said she was very much against the buildings. She felt a lot of buildings were sitting non-productive. She felt they need more shopping centers and places for people to live. Mr. Loren Webb, student, 13421 Cindy Lane, Tustin, Ca. speaking in opposition to the Use Permit because he felt the traffic would affect him while going to school every day. He said Redhill was the main way he went to school and did not want to fight traffic. Another student asked what would happen to the existing bike path. Mr. Brotemarkle responded that as pa~ of the proposal one condition would be sufficient expansion of Newport right-of-way to include the bike path. The bike trail will be the same continued South from Main to Laguna. Mr. Brian Richard Morehead, 1722 Mitchell, #75, Tustin, Ca. speaking in opposition said he bought a house in Tustin because he liked the way things were here. He said he was concerned about the traffic and high rise buildings. Mr. Bob Ledendecker, Public Works Director/City Engineer informed the Agency that at the present time the traffic counts don't warrant addi- tional widening. When traffic reaches a count of extreme congestion they would meke a recommendation that parking would be removed. At this time the streets are adequate for the traffic they are carrying. He said he has taken the opportunity to review roads such as Grand Avenue and Tustin Avenue and the peak hours are the point of congestion. Mr. Stanford Burrows, 1322 Andrews, Tustin, speaking in opposition said he has been a homeowner in Tustin for 14 years, and were the only choices were the plans proposed by the developer and the only trade off was highrise vs. open space. Mr. Burrows pointed out the architecture in San Juan Capistrano and Old Town Tustin had consistent architectural themes. The proposed Town Center was not in keeping with Tustin. Mr. Jack Miller, 1352 Parker Drive, Tustin, said he has lived in Tus- tin since 1963 and believed Tustin should be a City of homes and not highrises. Planning Agency Minutes December 7, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page 10 He said they did not need more crowding, crime, congestion, cars and the problems of big cities. He urged the members to vote against the project to protect the quality of life. Mr. Edward J. Diehl, 13331 Coral Reef Road, Tustin, speaking in oppo- sition said the residents of Tustin prefer a rural atmosphere. He doubted that the City would benefit from any revenue after it pays for increased police and fire protection, and those were only two of several required services. Ms. Kathy Well, 1702 Summerville, Tustin, speaking in favor of the use permit said she felt the city engineering department could cope with the traffic. She said the majority of people she talked to are in fa- vor of the facilities that would be offered. She felt Tustin was go- lng to grow one way or the other and what worries her is that if de- velopment was turned down a developer of much less stature will come along. Commercial property was very expensive and the only way a de- veloper can profit is to build up and not out. She personally would rather see the buildings go up and have more ground space. She didn't think it was realistic to keep Tustin a sleepy little village and she objected to forcing residents to shop outside the City. Chairman Sharp asked if there were any statistics on occupancy rates. Mr. Brotemarkle replied that in the immediate Tustin area vacancy was less than 10%. In Mission Viejo and E1 Toro it was over 33% vacancy. The current market seems to be better for offices oriented to larger uses are which are designed for a unique market. Mr. Jeffery J. McElderry, 10351MiraVista Dr., Santa Aha, Ca. 92705, spoke for the Chamber of Commerce for the City of Tustin. He read a letter from the Chamber in which at their regular meeting of the Board of Directors on December 4, 1981 they recommended and adopted unanimously a position of support for the Tustin Town Center. Mr. Jeff Hill said he lived in-Costa Mesa and works in Tustin. He felt that businessmen who live in Tustin also want to work here and right now the space doesn't exist for attorneys. The 5,000 square foot office unit doesn't exist in Tustin and the vacancies are the 2,000 square foot offices and he welcomes a project of this size. Ms. Bonnie Perkins, a resident of Tustin, asked if there was going to be a offroad bike trail. Mr. Brotemarkle replied that the requirements of the City would in- clude development of bike trails compatible with the one in existence and that the major parking element would be the four level structure at the rear which would take direct access off Sixth and Main. The entrance on Newport would only serve a two level parking area and not the major bulk of parking. Mr. Bob Ledendecker, Public Works Director/City Engineer stated there will be traffic on San Juan, basically retail oriented going directly into the parking area in the center of the development which is geared for ground floor uses. The driveways on Sixth and Main are geared primarily for parking and these access points were kept on arterial streets hoping people would travel arterial streets to get to them. San Juan is a local street and they do not envision a signal light at this time. Ms. Perkins felt the theatre would bring undesirable people to Tustin from other areas. She said the senior citizens at Tustin Gardens had Planning Agency Minutes December 7, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page 11 felt the project would be better than looking at dirt and debris but didn't realize the development would block their view. She felt there were already enough banks in the area and pointed out that the developer may change their minds at any time during construction and instead put in a business altogether different. Mr. Brotemarkle said any change in the phasing would necessitate an additional hearing of the same nature they are were having now. Ms. Betty Iverson said she felt it was the dream of every person to live near where they work but it wasn't possible. Chairman Sharp questioned if the Tustin Unified School District had followed the progress of the proposal and if they had any input in writing or otherwise. Mr. Brotemarkle stated it was discussed with Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Vogel was on the regular mailing list. It appears their basic position was one of "no comment". Mr. Huston, City Manager, said he had talked with Dr. Ross, Supertn- tendant of Tustin Unified School District and it was the postion of the Board not to take action unless it warrants a comment. Mr. Huston said this cannot be interpreted as support but it is not opposition. Mr. H. Porter Wynn, 2201 Coco Palm Drive, Tustin, Ca. said he has lived in Tustin for 7 years and the population of the City has grown. He said he endorsed this particular project and progress was impor- tant. His feelings were that the project would generate revenue and hoped that would prevent taxes from being raised. Mr. John Jameson, architect and a resident of Tustln said he has spent a good part of his life in Tustin and was in favor of the project and believed the design was of superior quality. Mr. Frank Grienke, 230 South "A" Street, Tustin, Ca. and businessman in the immediate area said he was speaking in favor of the project. Ms. Betty Trult, 1202 Letty, Tustin, Ca. referring to the poll which was conducted said there was not time to talk to everyone in Tustin and if they wanted a fair opinion it would be. necessary to have an election. She referred to staff's repo~ and questioned why they had to add to already bad traffic. Ms. Truit commented that people she had talked to mentioned the Planning Agency, City Council and Redevel- opment Agency were all the same people and that didn't appear right. Mr. Donald C. Morgan, 625 W. Main, Tustin, Ca., speaking in opposition said he understood growth but that also means more traffic. He referred to a traffic accident four years ago and the posted speed limits were being ignored on Main Street especially at Pacific. There was lengthy comment on the senior citizens not being aware that they could have refused the project and did not realize that there will be noise, lights and fumes from the cars. It was pointed out that two indepth presentations had been made to the seniors and their most recent position was an 88 signature petition favoring the project. Mr. Charles R. Meeks, 1211Tiki Lane, Tustin, Ca., speaking in opposi- tion said he felt many people were disillusioned with development in Tustin. Mr. Meeks referred to other projects which he felt were in- Planning Agency Minutes December 7, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page 12 appropriate. He also said that the developers themselves didn't know the actual height at this point and he believed the whole appearance of the project may change unless the Agency makes it perfectly clear that what was being approved was what was expected to be built. Motion by Hoesterey to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Saltarelli and carried unanimously. RECESS: At 9:45 p.m. there was a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Edgar stated it was self evident the City is at the cross roads between the future and the past. The City Council was in its present mode because of mandates of the State and will of the people to lower taxes and the City cannot do anything they want to do. Mr. Edgar said he was proud of the fact the streets were maintained and they have storm drains and what makes for comfortable living but he questioned how their standard of living would be maintained without funds. He felt the City should pursue directions which would relieve traffic but to relate to a particular project in terms of its traffic because of what is occuring from outside was a fallacy. He felt the developers in good faith had significantly reduced the height of the buildings and he spoke of how difficult it was for developers to invest in land projects which don't pay for themselves. It was extremely important to have restrictive development standards but also to make it practical for business to invest. At the present time people in Tustin have to leave the community in order to find a place to work but many people are actively interested in working full time in the Tustin area. Moved by Edgar to approve Resolution No. 2004 approving Use Permit 81-29 with the amendment that the two (2) five stor7 buildings not exceed 70' at the parapet and the four story buildings not exceed 58'. The motion as amended was seconded by Saltarelli. Under discussion Mr. Edgar said he would like the record to show there were no R-1 properties within 500' of this particular structure. He said he has respect for senior citizens and thought they were very knowledgeable in their favorable review of the project. Chairman Sharp commented on the possibility of staggered work hours for employees being utilized in some areas where complexes were of a significant size and felt it was a good way to spread out traffic. Ms. Kennedy agreed that the land needed to be developed, the project proposed had a great deal of merit and the Company had her respect but she did see problems with the height of the buildings, density and the parking. She felt the developers didn't reduce the square footage because they didn't want to give up a financial point. She spent some time with the City's Traffic Engineer and the accepted formulas used do not acknowledge that there are five lights in a row on Newport. The project has deleted 400 parking spaces because the theatre won't be used at the same time as other businesses. The freeway impact will have a domino effect in the City of Tustin. She said she would like to see a reduction in the square footage and height. Motion by Kennedy to amend motion to reduce the square footage to 200,000 sq.ft and the height to 55' The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Saltarelli said people will continue to migrate to California be- Planning Agency Minutes December 7, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page 13 cause of the climate for many years to come and Tustin's being im- pacted because of their location. He felt the time was coming to pro- tect themselves from traffic not by stopping development completely in Tustin but by other means and perhaps that should be the topic of a workshop. He said he has seen projects approved which don't have the quality this one has and thought a six stow structure would leave more visibility and open spaces. Mr. Hoesterey said that changes in current legislature of both the state and federal government has made it impossible for Cities which are basically residential to finance themselves for the future and they see other cities on the brink of bankruptcy. Mr. Hoesterey explained how the project would benefit the City and wanted to see any revenues they realize spent to help mitigate the problems discussed that evening, i.e, pedestrian overcrossings, a pool set up for signalizing some intersections (Main St. and 6th St.) and not have all the money come out of the Redevelopment funds. He questioned if requiring underground equipment would reduce the height of buildings. Further, they should set up some mechanism to see the money goes to long term benefits for the community, i.e., a senior citizens center in Peppertree Park. Mr. Rourke, City Attorney, in responding to Chairman Sharp's concern about employee staggered work hours stated he hasn't heard of any Agency. imposing such limitations except on a voluntary or cooperative basis. Mr. Brotemarkle stated such staggered work hours could be imposed and based on experience with one conditon allowing the theatre to be restricted to certain hours of operation (re: Staff report 10/21/81, p. 4, item #5). Motion by Edgar to amend the original motion to permit a height of 68 feet 6 inches but allowing a 12" range variation, up or down per floor. The amended motion was agreed to and seconded by Mr. Saltarelli. The question was called for and the motion as amended was carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Saltarelli, Hoesterey and Edgar Kennedy NOne. Ai~OURI~Elfl': At 10:48 p.m. upon motion of Edgar the Agency adjourned to December 21, 1981 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The motion was second- ed by Hoesterey and carried unanimously. Chairman, James B. Sharp Michael W. Brotemarkle Recording Secretary