HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 10-21-81TUSTIN PLAJ~NING 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 Secretar~
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 Kenned~ 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 mean~ con~letely
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 ~hat 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 s~aff to come back
with a proposal to quantify the terms semi-subterranean and partially
submerged, and also subterranean.
Planning' Agency Minutes
October 21, 198!
Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
Edgar, Hoesterey, Saltarelli, Kennedy and Sharp
Hone
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:
HOES:
Edgar, Hoesterey, Saltarelll, Sharp, Kennedy
Hone
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 81-2g
.Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Cal Pacific Properties
Newport Avenue between Main Street and E1 Camino 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 Zoni. ng.
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 E!R 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.'*
P1 ann1 ng Agency Mi nutes
October 21, 1981 7:30 p.m.
Page 3
t4r. 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 pf
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 d~crease 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 co, lex such as the one proposed when they have so many
e~ty retail stores and businesses that have "for lease" signs in the
windows.
John Stevens, 1345 Charlona Drive, Tusttn, said his concern was
regarding the height of the buildings also and he had settled in
Tusttn 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 Tusttn 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 lnq~act to Santa Aha Freeway and
55 Freeway hasn't been addressed; and the i~ect 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 8~-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.
Grey 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 ~nd community goals by
incorporating that into the project. He felt the development Was
unique for Tustin.
Planning Agency Minutes
October 21, [98[ 7:30 p.m.
Page 5
Mr. Dave Klages, 3[98 Airport Road, Costa Mesa, Architect, presented a
presentation of slides showing aerial photos of the proposed site and
model for the Tusttn Town Center project.
At 9:10 p.m. Agency broke session to inspect a miniature table model
of the proposed ~evelopment. 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 tf the
buildings were lowered would the project sttll 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 fn height. He said a project of
that type was dffficult 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 [342 Overland Drive, stated he was against high rise
buildings in Tusttn. He said he appreciated what the developers tried
to do In capturing the character of Tustln but felt they dtd not
succeed. He felt it was wrong to put a parkfng 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.
Elatne Kwat, 1161 Lady Lane, felt the architect could still make a
beautiful project tf the buildings were lowered. She said she could
accept 3 or 4 stories but not 6.
Margaret Blrd,.satd 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.
Morrts [verson, 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 acquatnt the greatest number of pecple 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
AOJOURNMENT:
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.
Marie/Ivory
Recording Secr~
Chair ma , s ~. ~na~p
OF '~ ~EFE~OPM~T ~C~ ~
'r"K CIT~ O~ TGSTIN, ~T-T~OE~IA
October 21, lg81
I, ~A.T.T. TO
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sharp at 3:25 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California.
Agency Members Present:
Agency Members Absent:
Others Present:
Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Shat9
None
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
william A. Huston, City Manager
Mar~ E. Wynn, City Clerk
Mike Brotemarkle, Com. Dev. Director
Ken Fleagle, Planning Consultant
Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer
Royleen White, Community Services Director
Eva Solis, Deguty City Clerk
Approximately 15 in the audience
3,. ~l:~i~ OF MINOT~
It was moved b~ Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the minutes of
the October 5, 1981, meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
4. ~Mge~O~ A~]E B~ ~
~O[/]T[OI~ NO. ~81--12 - A Resolution of the Tustin Coa~aunity Redevelop-
ment Agency of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECI-
FICATIONS FOR NEWPO~ AVENUE BIKE TRAIL BE~M CURB REPLACEMENT
It was moved b~ Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to adopt Resolution No. RDA
81-12.
Council/s~aff discussion followed relative to amount of use by bicyclists,
justification to continue the bike trail, cost of removal vs. cost of
replacement, City liability if it were removed, and design of the bike
trail.
A substitute motion was made by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to continue
the matter to the November 2 meeting with staff to monitor usage and
re~ort back to Council. Carried 5-0. 86
None.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to adjourn at 3:35 p.m. to
a 7:30 p.m. Workshop ~ October 26, 1981, and thence to the next regular
meeting on Nov-mher 2, 1981. Carried 5-0.
OF ~E TOSTIN C~T~ COONCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 Centennial Way
October 21, 1981
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Sharp at 3=35 p.m.
Councilpersons Present:
Counoilpersons Absent:
others Present=
Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli,
Sharp
None
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
William Ao Huston, City Manager
~y E. Wynn, City Clerk
Mike Brotemarkle, Comm. Dev. Director
Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer
~yleen White, COmmunity Services Director
Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk
Approx/mately 15 in the audience
None
Item 6 was removed from the consent Calendar by Saltarellt for ~is-
cusston in Executive Session. It was then moved by Kennedy, secon-
ded b~ Edgar, to appz~ve the re~ain~er of the Consent Calendar and
continue Item 6 to the evening session (see Page 7). MotiOn carried
5-0.
1. API"rBDFAT~, (~' ~- October 5, 1981' Regular Meeting
2, ~ 0~' ~Bi~8 in the amount of $1,161,800.46
5O
3e
~AF~I~ NO. 81-114 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF ZY~¥~I~I~ ~ Au'£nORIZING
RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (City Hall & Police Depart-
ment Heating and Air Conditioning Systems - Louis Sohme~zer Co. )
Adoption of Resolution No. 81-114 and if no claim= or stop
payment notices are filed within 30 days of t-he ~ate of
recordation of the Notice of Completion, authorize the
release of the bond that has been posted in the amount of
$59,575.00 as reoo.-.~en~ed by the Community Develo~ent
Depa& t~ent. 39
4e
~ ~O~ PA~EINQ ~a~,~e~.(~ (~ ~ A~
Authorize the installation of signing of "No Parking, 6:00
AM to Noon, Monday, Street Sweeping" on the nozWaherly side
of Mitchell Ave. adjacent to 1881 Mitchell Ave. and that
warnings be issued in lieu of citations for the first 30
days after the sign installation as recommended by the City
Engineer. 75
~O[~]TI~ NO. 81--116 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, ~ELATIVE TO ~EGULATING VEHICULAR
TRAFFIC AND PARKING ON CERTAIN PP. IVA'd.:,.Y OWNED PROPERTY (Quail
Meadows, 17522-17574 Vandenberg Lane)
Adoption of Resolution No. 81-116 *as requested by the Home-
owners Association and recommended by Police Department. 75
Authorize ~e follow~g sal~y adjuncts: ~n~ntenance
Worker, Ke~ey Sch~ from Step D, $1316 to Step F,
~inte~ce Worker, Fred L~a fr~ Step B,-$1194 to Step D,
$1316; and A~nistrative Secreta~, Do~a Treat from Step
B, $1399 to Step. D, $1543.
7. D~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~-*D~ ~ ~S: ~-81;
~ ~. 81-26
Deny ~e claim of ~fredo Lo~z B~ce ~ ~co~ended by ~e
. City Atto~ey. 40
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2, 9-21-81
V.
D~"TZOli 1.
2e
O~X~%NC~ N~. 860 -. An Ordinance of ~he City ~ouncil of the City
of Tustin, California, AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 4, P~RT 2 OF
T~ TUSTIN CITY CODE REGARDING THE RE~u~ATION OF AMBULANCES
The City Manager presente~ ~he staff re,ri and recommendation.
Following a ~rief question-and-answer period, it was ~oved by
Kennedy, seconded b~ Edgar, that 0r~inance No. 860 have first
reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0. Following r~ading
of title by the City Clerk, it was moved bF Edgar, seconded b~
Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 860 be introduced. Carried 5-0.
0~.-- ~o 861 ~ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
o5 Tus~in, California, AMENDING A~ICLE 3, C~A~c~ 4, PA~ 2,
The City Manager presented the staff repor~ and recomenda-
=ions. Councilman Sal~arelli objected that this adds a great
deal of burden on the pro~er~y owner ~o re~)ve an illegally
perked vehicle. The City ~--ager responded to Council
questions/concerns in the Police Chief's absence, and. suggested
c~t//~l,~nce .of th~ matter pending the Chief' s presence.
Counoilm---~ers agree~ to consider firs= rea&Amg now and
requested the Police Chief atten~ the Nov--~er 2 meeting to
clarify the ordinance prior to second reading.
It was ~hen moved b~ Kenne~, seconded by Edgar, that Ord3_nance
No. 861 have firs~ reading ~ ~le ~ly. C~ied 5-0. Follo~
~g. rea~g of =i~e ~ ~e Cit~ Clerk, l= was ~ ~ Edg~,
s~d~ by Ke~edy, ~a= 0r~ce No. 861 be ~tr~.
~on c~ie~ 4-1, ~l~relli ~t-sen~g. ~
~T.. (3~ ~,-- None
The C~,xnity Develo~nt Director presented the staff repor~
and reco-~ae~darion, mhd responded' to Council questions. It was
then moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to grant a six-mon~h
ex~ension for Tentative Tract Map No. 11336, as recommended in
=he repor~ ~ated' October 21, 1981, prepared by the Community
Development Department. Carried 3-2, Hoes=army and Saltarelli
dissenting. 99
The Cit~ Manager provided the staff repoz~ and recom~endation.
He indicated that the study conducted at acquisition of the
water Sarvi~ will provide historical data, but will not be
sufficient to assign current value. Following d~scussion, it
was moved bF Edger, seconded by Saltarelli, to authorize an
appraisal of the City, Water' System and approve the expen~iture
of $15,000 free the Engineering Study adored in the 1981-82
Water Capital Improvement Budget; and authorize a physical
inventory of the general fixed assets of the City and appro-
priate $6,000 from the unappropriated reserve of the general
fund for this purpose, wi~h the provision that it be time-phased
and complemented as much as possible with the Engineering Study.
Mo~ion carried 5-0. 5~
p~AT. TC ~ NOTIr'l~q P(]~ICT
Following the City Manager's preeentat~6~ 6f ~he staff ~epoz~
and reco---endation, Council raised concerns re computerization
of a mailing list on City equ~.~peent, penalty for neglect in
notification of affected proper~y owners, reliability of title
companies in supplying mailing lists, graphics of the public
CITY COUNCIL
Page 3, 9-21-8
notice, sunmarization of no,ices, notification of b~eowners'
groups, and utilization of current information for preparation
of mailing lists. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded b~
Kennedz, to continue the matter so that staff can ex~lore con-
cams expressed by Council. The City Manager indicated that any
s'u~arizaCion would apply only to ordinances which would be a
separate ~olicy and that public hearing notices would continue
to be written in ~he same format.
Following further discussion, a substitute motion was made by
Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to a~prove the recommendation con-
~ained in the repo~c dated OC~cober 14, 1981, prepared by .~he
City Manager, with the addition of notifying affected home-
owners' groupe~ Motion carried 5-0. 8~
It was moved by Sharp, seconded by Edgar, to direct staff to
explore the benefits of sL~rizing ordinance publications and
repoL~c back to Council.. Carried 5-0. 21
The City Manager presented the staff report and o~tious avail-
able to Council. Following discussion, it was moved b~ Edgar,
seconded by Sharp, to include the entire sphere of influence in
a sche~atic-~ter plan, but that any particular site or devel-
opment be restricted ~ incorporated City 1/mits. F.ur~her Coun-
cil discuSsion followed relative to ~olitical implications if
the entire sphere of influence is included in the m~_~ter plan,
County pla,ning in .unincorporated areas, County islands, and
exclusion of the North Tustin area.
A subs~itute mo~ion was made by Kennedy, seconded by Saltarelli,
to 1 tmlt the master plan to the incorl~orated City ltmtts.
Mo~ion carried 4-1, Sharp dissenting. 77
The Ci~ Manager reported that the handbills which were ille-
gally posted by the Green Peace organization will be investi-
gate~ an~ r_~__ved by CalTrens with billing for such costa to go
to the Green Peace. Mr. Gene Carter, representative from
Souther~ California EdiSon Company., was recognized by the Mayor
and indicated that they are proceeding to remove the handbills
and will forward & bill to Green Peace for any related costs.
It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that if any city
costs are incurred in the removal of the handbills, that Green
Peace be billed for same. Carried 5-0. 93
Councilman Saltarelli requested a five-minute Executive Session
for discussion of personnel matters. Council concurred.
Pursuant to Councilm~n Hoesterey's and Mayor Sharp"s con~aents,
Council concurred to direct staff to agendize for the Nov---her 2
meeting the matter of consoli~ation of municipal elections with
state/county elections for Council consideration. 48
In response to Mayor Sharp, Councilmen Edgar and Hoesterey indi-
cated they would serve as representative and alternate nominees,
respectively, for consideration of. appointment to the.'California
Coastal Commission for the Los Angeles/Orange County areas.
Counci]~n Edgar relayed that this may prove to be a futile
attempt c~ the City's behalf as there are already two prospec-
tive nominees from the Orange COunty area being considered for
same, and they must still be considered along with the Los
Angeles area nominees.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4, 9-21-81
ZZZo NE~~
Councilm--. Edgar indicated he would dis~ribu~e copie~ of resolu-
tions ado~fce~ by ~he General Ass--hLy ~o City s~aff ~--~ers, and
reported on several i~--= which affec~ ~he City.
Counctlm- Hoestere¥ reported on ~he Redevelopment and special
assessment ~is~riot workshops ~hich he a~tended at the confe-
rence ·
Councilw~n Kenn.~iy requested information on ~he procedure for
reeiden~s ~o repor~ s~ray ~-im~ls in the City and suggested that
same be published in the "Tus~i- TodaFm publication. 23
Pursuant ~o Councilw~mn Kennedy~ s request, it was moved by
Hoes~erey, seconded by Kennedy, ~o ~t~ect s~aff =o provide
clarification on ~he requla~ions governing plac~nt of poli~i-
cal signs, i.e., they are not allowed in center islands, bu~ are
allowed adjacent ~o the s~reet wi~h ~he consent of the adJoi~t-g
propert:y owner, wi~h ~hi$ information ~o be provided to the
applicant a= the. ~-~ of posting the- bond. Council discussion
£ollow~d.
Council concurred to defer the ~atter to the evening session to
allow ~caff to p~ovide a recomenda~ton. 9~
It was -~ved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to a~Journ at 4.:50 p.m.
~o the 7~30 p.m. evening session. Carried 5-0.
7:30
The City Council ~eet. tng was, called to order by Hayer Sharp at 8:37
p.m.
Councilpersons Present=
Councilpersons Absent=
Others Present=
E~gar, ~esterey, F~nnedy, Sal~elli,
None
Jamee G'. Ro~trke, City Attorney
William A. Huston, City Manager
Mar~ E. WFnn', City Clerk
Mike Bro~---~kle, Cowm. Dev. Director
Bob Ledendeoker, City Engineer
Ed Knight, Associate Planner
Maria Ivory, PiA-ning Secretary
A~pro.~4-Ately 90 in the audience
~ ~ ~ 81--2 (New~or~ Avenue. between Main
Street and E1 Camino Real)
HE~g~]TXO~ ~Oo 81--117 - A Resolution of ~he City Council of the
City of Tustin C~RTIFYING D~AFT ~OCUS EIR 81--2. AND AMENDMENTS
FOR USE PEI~4IT 81-29 (CAL PACIFIC PROPERTIES) AS FINAL FOCUS-EIR
81-2
It was moved by Edgar,. seconded h¥ Hoesterey~ to ad0~t Resolu-
tion No. 81-117. Carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. 81
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to recess ~o ~he Plan-
ning Agency at 8:38 p.m. Carried 5-0.
CITY OOUNCIL MIN~'£~-S
Page 5, 9-21-81
lO~05 P.x.
The Mayor declared a short recess at 10:06 p.m.
lot13
I. ~PTmLT'TC
maj~ 1.
AL~PE~. (l' ~SZ ; BO. 81--27
Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director, reported ~hat
this is an appeal of the denial ~o build eight cond~miniums at
116~ SycaMore Ave. The developer has re~uce~ the height of the
b~ildinga from 33 feet to 26 feet. If a flat roof is accept-
able, the height could be reduced to 22 feet. A two-story
single-family r~sidenee could be built with · maximu~ height of
30 feet.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:18 p.m.
Frank .Gonzales, designer of the project, explained- ~hat he
originally was asked ~o ~esign an apartment complex, which he
~id a~d it conforme~ ~o all City standards withou~ applying for
a Use permit. However, he s~ggested to the ~eveloper that a
condominima project would he more. desirable. The reas~ for not
conforming to the 1~0 ft. setback from R--1 zoned proper~ies is
because tbs lot is only 110 ft. deep. The property to the rear
is lower than this proper~y, and staff ~as suggested a 6'8"wall
abutting those proper~ies.
C~=~le~ sullivan,. 14782 Cat, ax Drive, was oppose~ to these units
and ~pressed that they would have a tremendous a~verse effect
upon has prope.'~y value, whic~ has already been affected by the
apartments a~ couple of lots from this property. Also, the traf-
fic would be adverslF impac~ed. He asked Council to consider
changing the R-3 Co~e to conform to the PD district.
The Community Developu~ant Director confirme~L ~hat apartments
wi~h o~ more ~n!t could be puc on this lo~ without coming to
Council for approval, and they could be as high as 40 ft.
John Zie=, 1152 Meat Lane, was opposed to the project and urged
council, to change the or~inance so that the development on this
lot would be compa~ible with ~-1 property.
Rick Cramer, 14792 Cat,ax Drive, spoke in opposition to the
appeal. He ha~ two concerns about the project -- firs=, the high
~ensity of ~11tiple-family ~its on. this very small parcel of
land in south Tustin an~ second, the increase in traffic on an
already heavily ~raveled s~reet.
Richard Howling, of Barnett Nowling (developer of ~he project),
14081 ¥orba Street, said he probably should have built apart-
ments instead of considering cond~ainiums, but felt condominiums
would be a much bet=er projec~ because of pride of ownership.
He sta~ed a lot of residents have compared this project to the
one currently being built on the street, which is entirely
different, and if this project is approved he will work with
staff to have more' than adequate land~caping and screening.
Pa= McMahan, 1181 Mear Lane, and Wendy Dugan,;' ~182 Mear Lane,,
spoke in opposition to the projec~ and felt it would be de~ri-
men~al to their property values~
The Mayor closed.the Public Hearing at 10.:4~' p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MIND'rmS
Page 6, 9-21-81
Councilwoman Kennedy s~ated that this R-3 zone (zoned when this
wee County area) is inappropriate among R-1 property. She could
see ~he d~veloper' s rights but is also sensitive ~o ~he R-1
proper~y owners. She continued ~hat ~he density on this is too
high, and there is an urgency orR4--nce for adoption which
continued fro~ the last meeting that could stop this
develo~nent.
Councilmnn Hoesterey said ~hat in 1977, he sat in the audience
and brought up the same concerns of height and difference in
grade level when the Pepper~ree tract was ~eveloped, --~ ~oday
his house is ~ ~/mes ~ore val,,~hle. He s~ated the developer
has m~c the concerns~ by lowering the height ~o 26 ft. which is
lower ~han an i%-1 building could be.
.C. ounct'tm~,n Sal~arelli expressed ~hat the wors~ ~i,g is ~o allow
ape~'~...ents ~o 9o in and the beet thing is ~o have ~r. dominiums
owned by residen~s who take interest in keeping their proper~y
beau~iful. He feels the developer is faced wi~h the s=tpma of
o~her apartments being built, and, the height of this proje~: is
significantly better.
It was moved by Sal~arelli, seconded bF Sharp, ~o approve the
appeal of Use Permit 81-27 subJec~ ~o verification that plans
and working ~rawings show 5 ft. min/mu~ ~ep~h of the p~rking and
~he roof line height in beck does no~ exceed 26 ft.
An. unidentified w~---n in the audience asked if anything was
going ~o be done abou~ traffic in the area.
Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, responded that a study had been
conducted at Sycamore and Carfax, and results did not warrant
stop signs. After that a ~cudy was done for & crossing guard
a~ one wee hired. There. was an infom&~ion repo~c for red
zoning on Sycamore b~c there is adequate visibilit~ except for a
camper parked at the sou~hwe~ corner. Th~ resident should be
no~ifie~ if ~he c~rb is red zoned in front of ~-~ house. The
City has applied for an at-grade railroad crossing at Newport
and Edinger; Sycamore could be widened. The City has 50%
ownership of ~he right-of-way on the south side of the street
and none on th~ north side.
Mo~ion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed.
81
It was moved b~ Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, ~o direct staff ~o
make a study of the ~raffic on Sycamore and. c~ back with some
re~"~endation ~o' alleviate traffic problem. Carried 5-0.
100
Councilman. Saltarelli said ~hat when the plans are r~ady, the
residen~s should be notified zo that they can look at the plans
and if there are some options, the architect could work with the
residents ~o get the most pleasing aes~hetic design relative to
the screening of the fence, ~cc.
A resident in the audience asked if the R-3 proper~y could be
down-zoned. ~o R-1. Council concurred to refer this to the City
Attorney for a r~por~ on what r~4~ications there would be if
property is downzoned from R-3 to R-1. 81
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, =o airec~ staff to
no,ice a public hearing before the Planning Agency and the City
Council for consideration of the draft ordinance amending
Article 9, Chapter 2, of the Tustin Cit~'-C0de relative to land
use and zoning. Carried 5-0. 110
CJ.','~ COUNCTT-
Page 7~ 9--21-el
was ~ved bF Hoes~re~ seconded h~ Edgar, to continue 0rdi--
n~n~t No. 859. Carried 5-0. 81