Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 11-16-81 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Workshop Meeting October 27, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. The Planning Agency held a workshop meeting, Tuesday, October 27, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 Cen- tennial Way, Tustin, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Sharp Absent: Saltarelli Also present: Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director William Huston, City Manager 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. Chairman Sharp informed the public that on October 21, 1981 at the regular Planning Agency meeting there had been a public hearing on EIR-81-2 and Use Permit 81-29. At that time the Agency did open the public hearing and after testimony from the public, the Agency did ap- prove certification of EIR-81-2. The purpose of the workshop was to consider additional concerns of the public on Use Permit 81-29 for the proposed development of the Tustin Town Center project. He stated that staff would not reiterate their report which was presented on October 21, lg81 but were present to answer any specific questions. The developer was also present to answer any questions. · The public workshop was opened. Bob Walton, stated he was a resident of Tustin for 20 years and wanted to know why the proposed development (Tustin Town Center) was good for the community. He said he foresees two highrise, 6 story buildings with over-crowded roads, noise, congestion and the loss of the atmosphere which brought him to Tustin in the first place. Mr. Brotemarkle responded that in analyzing the project and looking at the General Plan of the community, some of the major points of the General Plan which were adopted in the 60's was to attempt to obtain a distinguishable community identity related to community pride and co- hesiveness of political, social and economic factors; to revitalize the economic health of the Town Center area; and upgrade the economic base and reputation of the community based upon the quantity and quality of professional office space in commercial centers. This particular project fits into those particular goals of the community. Betty Truit, questioned why they needed the concept of Town Center in Tustin and what was the ultimate plan for downtown Tustin. Chairman Sharp asked staff if the development was in keeping with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance or was this something new and different from what they had done before. Mr. Brotemarkle referred again to the General Plan and said additionally the property was in conformance with zoning established for it. The Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1976 and zoning derives originally from the General Plan. Mrs. Truit mentioned the 10 story Senior Citizens Development of several years ago and said she was under the impression at that time the Council adopted a regulation limiting height of buildings in downtown Tustin. Mr. Brotemarkle remarked that the question had been asked at the last meeting and there was no highrise restriction or policy adopted by ei- ther the City Planning Agency or Council restricting structures to three stories based on the Senior Citizens proposal. Greg Butcher, California Pacific Properties, 17941 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, said they have a proposed mixed use development to develop certain amounts of office, retail, financial, entertainment and restaurant space. In doing so they feel the level of development required was extremely important given the economics, and pointed out there was more open space on the ground level because of the height. Richard Fisher, said he was a 7 year resident of Tustin and the indicated there would be a traffic increase of 3 percent. Chairman Sharp said it would depend on the intersection; each inter- section close to the proposed development was measured and its capaci- ty determined and none of the capacities were reached. Mr. Fisher asked what was the criteria used for determining the capa- city and was it based on the population of the office buildings. Jack Greenspan, Traffic Consultant, replied that they base projected future traffic on similar uses of other buildings and the denominator is normally square footage. If you have an office building of so many thousand square feet, you have a traffic generation rate of so many vehicle trips a day for that number of square feet and that is translated into peak traffic hours. Mr. Greenspan went on to describe how the traffic study was conducted and the total number for this project was 9,300 more car trips a day would be added to the entire traffic system which makes the assumption that all the people who come to and from the project are new traffic. The intersection is the key in analyzing traffic because that is where traffic has to stop. Mr: Greenspan spoke at some length about the principle of the "Level of Traffic Service" concept. Mr. Edgar commented that basically there was published record by the Transportation Commission that Intersection I-5 and 1-55 were the worst intersections in the entire County and that pressure has been applied to Caltrans and the County to get the legislation that would create a separate District so that tax money will be used in this community. Perhaps in three or four years those particular intersections can be improved. It is a problem of certain intersections irrelevant of this project and the project has to stand on its own in terms of traffic generation. ' There were additional comments from the audience regarding freeway traffic, the need for additional stop lights and the condition of the streets when the development would be under construction and the streets torn up, impeding traffic. Mr. Greenspan stated that temporary situations were not taken into consideration when computing the traffic studies because those condi- tions were not permanent. There was a question as to whether the office space, either built or planned, would double by 1988 as a result of the proposed project. Chairman Sharp said if the project was approved then it would be a part of the doubling, but if it wasn't approved and subsequently addi- tional projects were constructed, piecemeal or whatever, even on the same site, then by the end of the decade the end result would be approximately the same sum of projected additional office spaces. This project would supply approximately 33% of the projected growth of required office space by the year 1988. Mr. Moses said he would like to know if the City was relying on the traffic engineering of Mr. Greenspan or does the City Street Depart- ment have its own studies that are germaine to this instance. Chairman Sharp explained that where an E.I.R. impact study has to be made, it has to go through a formal process. This is a costly process and in an effort to save money the City causes the developer to produce and pay for it, but that first draft doesn't get to the public until the City's staff has had an opportunity to review it in context with their own planning documents. Since Mr. Ledendecker, the City Engineer, was not present, Chairman Sharp suggested Mr. Moses' concern be recorded for answer at the continued hearing on the validity of the studies that the consulting engineer of the applicant has made and the process the City has gone through to validate that. Mr. Hoestery summarized 3 areas of concern: 1) the necessity for the buildings, what market studies have been performed and do the demographics support the need for this, especially in the area of office space, theatres and restaurants (what type and what market would they serve); 2) with regard to height - is a four story building that is unstructured or unbroken and isn't designed in terraces as' imposing on a community as a six story building that is; and 3) is the traffic problem that is imposed on the community changed to a level far worse because of the project or are they experiencing traffic problems whether or not a development goes in. NOTE: Mr. Saltarelli arrived and was counted present. There was a lengthy discussion on the Redevelopment funds the proposed project would generate, how that would benefit the City, where the money would be spent in the community and whether this consideration offset any disadvantages-of the project. There was a general discussion of Tustin's long range General Plan; how the General Plan goals are projected, traffic impacts on Main Street and whether this street would ultimately be considered for wi- dening and/or reduced parking. Also discussed was the method of noti- fying the residents of Tustin about proposed projects. Mr. Huston informed the Agency that the Orange County Fire Depart- ment's fire prevention and protection apparatus, in addition to the proposed project's life support systems built into the building, were sufficient and there was adequate fire fighting capabilities overall. Mr. Butcher was requested by Chairman Sharp to reinvestigate the height of the proposed buildings and inform Council at the continued public hearing whether or not they were prepared to lower the buildings and if so to what extent and to try and furnish the Council with a list of buildings within proximity of accessible viewing, which were comparable architecturally to the size, scale and density of his proposed structures. A petition of 88 signatures of submitted as evidence that the tion, including the table model ly by the development and they the residents of Tustin Gardens was applicant had made a detailed presenta- , to those persons affected most close- supported the project as presented. ADJOURNMENT: The Agency unanimously adjourned the workshop to the continued public hearing at a regular meeting of the Planning Agency on December 7, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, in order to give the appli- cant an opportunity to review the concerns brought up and address those concerns at that time. Chairman, James B. Sharp Maria Ivory Recording Secretary TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting November 2, 1981 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, November 2, lg81, 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 3:07 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Hoesterey and the invocation was given by Mr. Saltarelli. ROLL CALL Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp Absent: None Also present: 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 21, 1981, were approved with the following correction: Page 5, Paragraph 2 should read "Agency" and not "Council" in all places where appropriate. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Ordinance for Introduction An Ordinance to amend the Planned Development Standards and the Multiple Family Resi.dential District(s) Standards of the Tustin Zoning Code. Mr. Bretemarkle presented the staff report and said the issue was concerning height limitations of R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts. The proposed Ordinance has been reviewed at the previous meeting under New Business and modified to ordinance form by the City Attorney. The primary emphasis has been that appropriate Agency review be established on all multiple residential projects not just condominiums. The Public Hearing portion on Ordinance No. 862 was was opened. There being no one to speak the hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO. 2005." ......... A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY RECOb~IENDING 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. Under discussion Mrs. Kennedy asked if the Planned Development District (P-D) as mentioned by name in the Ordinance also includes Planned Community District (P-C). Mr. Brotemarkle replied that it does not include P-C and only applies to residential districts, and his directive from the City Council with R-2, R-3, and R-4 was to make these districts compatible to the P-D district. He pointed out all uses in the P.C. were subject to use permit review. There was a discussion regarding heights as measured from curb grades and Mr. Brotemarkle commented that where there was an undulation or differential they are measured by taking an average of grade, but in flat areas it would be measured essentially from top of curb. He stated this definition of how the height is measured was in the Code. Mr. Saltarelli said he felt it was premature to vote because they had not defined the terms in stating what height means. There was no Planning Agency Minutes November 2, 1981 Page 2 clear definition of underground parking and therefore to approve the amendments to height limitations had no meaning without knowing what height is. Mrs. Kennedy said she did agree there needed to be a consistent measure of height, however, she did not want to wait for everything to be completely perfect because she was afraid of what might get through in the meantime. City Attorney was asked if there was any legal recourse if a building were built higher than what was approved. Mr. Rour~e responded that the question was complex but basically if the City staff issues a building permit and authorizes construction, the property owner was pretty well privileged to build in conformance with those permits issued. If there was a problem with staff following the desires of the Council then that is something which needs to be worked out in-house. The City's position would be difficult in forcing a builder to conform to anything other than the permits and plans approved. Mr. Saltarelli commented that Sections 3 and 4 of the proposed Ordinance were not appropriate. Substitute motion by Saltarelli to continue the matter to the December 7, 1981 meeting for further clarification. The motion was seconded by Kennedy. Under discussion Mr. Hoesterey said he could not support the substitute motion because there was an inequity between building apartments and building condominiums and would like to see the original motion approved with the understanding that they would start amending it to satisfy the original intent that an apartment house does not go up next to an R-1 building so there would at least be a stop gap in the interim. The substitute motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Kennedy, Saltarelli and Sharp NOES: Hoesterey and Edgar PUBLIC CONCERNS: None STAFF CONCERNS: None AGENCY CONCERNS: None ADJOURNMENT: At 3:30 p.m. upon motion of Edgar the Agency adjourned to November 16, 1981 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The motion was seconded by Kennedy and carried unanimously. Chairman, James B. Sharp Maria Ivory Recording Secretary