Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 10-21-81 (2)1 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting October 5, 1981 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, October 5, 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 3:07 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Saltarelli and the invocation was given by Mr. Edgar. ROLL CALL Present: Sharp, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli Absent: None Also present: Michael Brotemarkle, Community Dev. Director William Huston, City Manager James Rourke, City Attorney Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held September 21, 1981 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. VARIANCE 81-7 Applicant: Location: Request: Kam Yee 17440 Seventeenth Street, Suite D, Enderle Center To vary with Tustin Sign Ordinance 684 After the presentation of the staff report by Mr. Brotemarkle, the public hearing was opened at 3:11 p.m. Mr. Kam Yee, applicant, spoke in favor of the sign and related that the sign would be important to make the liquor store a suc- cess. The public hearing was closed at 3:13 p.m. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar to deny Variance 81-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2001. Mr. Saltarelli commented that he was in favor of it, but thought that it should be reduced in size. Mr. Edgar commented that the center has a master sign plan which has relented to the restaurants to grant them their own monu- ments. However, he feels since this is now a monument sign for a liquor store rather than a restaurant, approval would constitute a grant of special privilege. Chairman Sharp referred to a letter from the Enderle's in 1978 which stated that with the exception of restaurants, no other tenants would be allowed to have monument signs because it would cause too much sign congestion and destroy the open concept intended in the Enderle Center Planning. Mr. Edgar suggested that he be allowed to enlarge his wall sign. The above motion was carried 4-1: AYES: Sharp, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy Planning Agency Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Two NOES: Saltarelli ABSENT: None 2. USE PERMIT 81-28 Applicant: Location: Request: Rosenberg Real Estate Equity Fund 1096-1140 Irvine Blvd., Tustin Heights Center To begin revitalization of the center. After the presentation of the staff report, Mr. Saltarelli ques- tioned the additional landscaping and where it was b~ing placed. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that it was perimeter, along the street and buildings. After some discussion pertaining to the parking layout and land- scaping, it was suggested that 2e of Resolution No. 2002 be changed to read Agency and staff. The public hearing was opened at 3:25 p.m. Mr. Rob Kleban, representative of the applicant, spoke in favor of the project and related to the Agency that they are trying to accomplish the following items: 1) Install landscaping along Irvine Boulevard. 2) Replace all wall signs with new signs according to master plan. 3) Painting and replastering as needed. 4) Restriping parking lot. 5) Installing new high sodium lights. Mr. Edgar commented that he would encourage the owner to help put in new street improvements at the signal toaccommodate realign- ment of the streets. The public hearing was closed at 3:32 p.m. Moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy to approve Use Permit 81-28 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2002. Motion carried 5 - O: AYES: Sharp, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC CONCERNS - None OLD BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL: Use Permit 81-27 Moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar to adopt Resolution No. 2000 which denied Use Permit 81-27. Motion carried 5 - O: AYES: Sharp, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: None STAFF CONCERNS 1. Orange County EMA Presentation: Class I Industrial Waste Transfer Station. Planning Agency Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Three Chairman Sharp commented that he has received correspondence from Supervisor Stanton regarding this matter. Mr. Brotemarkle informed the Agency that they had until October to respond and make comments on the EIR. Mr. Bob Rusby, EMA County Environmental Analysis Section, intro- duced the individuals present who played a part in this EIR. Sylvia Silenas explained the process of the EIR and highlighted its contents. After the presentation, Chairman Sharp suggested that the Agency should go on record as to what their concerns are and they will have to be addressed in the final EIR. Chairman Sharp stated that he felt the City would resist the project. Mr. Hoesterey related his concerns: 1) The mathematical probabilities of air accidents 2) Major route for helicopters 3) Marine Corps.Air Station 4) Newport Costa Mesa fault (earthquake) 5) When Tustin produces only 5% of the waste, why is the station going in the City? Mr. Saltarelli stated that any site can be made environmentally sound if enough money is spent. Looking at the EIR, he felt it sounded as though Tustin will end up with the site. He said he 'would convey his feeling~ to the Board of Supervisors. He stated he recognizes the necessary ritual of the EIR process, but it will all come down to a political decision. Mr. Edgar questioned what happened to the other 32 sites, and how did it get down to just five sites. Mr. Edgar stated that he felt the City Attorney should respond to every legal matter that is necessarT. Mrs. Kennedy found fault with the EIR in the manner in which they chose the sites and particularly that no one discussed the housing at the base. Moved by Edgar, seconded by Sharp, to direct staff to prepare correspondence in draft form and address the comments of the Agency in respect to the EIR. Motion carried 5 - O: 'AYES: Sharp, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: None Chairman Sharp commented that this is one of the most important issues that the City has faced lately and questioned Mr. Rhoades from the County if this EIR was being tied to the ultimate Solid Waste Plan for Orange County. Lynn Hartline, Orange County Board of Education, Assistant Super- intendent, related to the Agency that the Board of Education will be responding to the EIR since they are violently opposed to this project and will help to try and defeat this proposal. AGENCY CONCERNS - None . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m. to the 7:30 public hearings. Planning Agency Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Four TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY 7:30 P.M. MEETING The meeting was called to order at 8:31 p.m. by Chairman Sharp. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. VARIANCE 81-8 Applicant: Location: Request: Cal State Associates CCLV "A" 14822-14942 Newport Avenue Authorization to convert the 296 unit apartment com- plex to condominiums. After the presentation of the staff report, Mr. Saltarelli ques- tioned if the applicant has negotiated the lease or sale of the open space property with the Tustin Unified School District. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that the applicant has started the-negotiations but does not have anything in writing at this time. After some discussion of the School District property, Mr. Rourke, City Attorney, stated that he would have to take a look at the lease to determine whether the lease could qualify as open space. Mr. Sharp commented that he shared the concern of the open space issue and felt it was a waste of time to spend it on discussion. Never before had the City allowed a project to use someone else's property. The public hearing was opened at 8:47 p.m. Dr. Hans Vogel, Tustin Unified School District, stated that he wanted to clarify that there is no commitment from the District at this time to sell or lease the land. The School District has no plans to put this parcel up as surplus property. Dr. Vogel also commented that he had heard a rumor that the future owners would have primary use of the tennis courts. Dr. Vogel stressed that this was only a rumor as those tennis courts are public. Craig Kelford, applicant and architect, spoke in favor of the project and informed the Agency that his attorney and the school district attorneys have been meeting on the open space property and are near an agreement which might be a long term letter of recordation to use the land for 35 years. The land would only be used for recreation purposes and would be maintained by the home- owners association. Mr. Kelford also denied the rumor that the tenants were told they would get primary use of the tennis courts. He also informed that they can meet the 45% open space and clean up the units to meet code requirements and design stand- ards. Mrs. Kennedy informed the Agency members that she had visited the site and had a meeting with the tenants. Gloria Weber questioned the Agency about a rumor she had heard that Carfax would be opened as a street. She stated that Carfax now is a cul-de-sac and questioned the possibility of notifying the neighbors if it is opened as a street. Mr. Brotemarkle informed that Carfax might be retained as an emer- gency exit for fire trucks. Richard Horton, 14916 Newport Avenue, presented two'-different petitions to the Agency. The first petition requested the Agency to defer any final decision of the conversion until such time as the ownership has proven good faith by correction of building deficiencies. This petition was signed by 156 residents of the Californian Apartments. Planning Agency Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Five The second petition requested that relocation expenses be payable immediately upon commencement of construction, providing proper notice to vacate is made to the owners in accordance with the ten- ant's rental agreement. This petition was signed by 148 residents of the Californian Apartments. David Miller, 14924 Newport Avenue, spoke in opposition to the conversion. Mark Mayfield, 14938 Newport Avenue, spoke in favor of the project stating that he would be better off buying his unit. He felt the owner should have the right to convert to condominiums. Philip Graham, 14902 Newport Avenue, spoke in favor of the conver- sion, but stated that the open space area concerns him. He feels the conversion will bring aesthetic and economic interest to the area. Mr. Graham also was worried that'if the conversion does not take place, the rents will increase. Mark Harris, 14914 Newport Avenue, spoke in opposition to the con- version and stated that the closed patios should not be considered as open space because they are roofed and partially enclosed. He felt the variance is in conflict with City Codes and previous con- versions and therefore would be setting a new precedent. Chairman Sharp questioned if this project is allowed to have less than 50% open space. Mr. Brotemarkle informed that they would be allowed to provide only 45% open space, but would have to tear out covered patios to meet that 454. Cheryl Pasquale, 14894 Newport Avenue, spoke in opposition to the conversion and questioned why all these units would need only one or two trash enclosures (page 3 of Staff Report). Staff responded that this is one item that would be worked out with the devel- oper. At this time, the proposal is to have an on-site delivery car service which would deliver the trash from the units to the trash enclosures. Harry Hudson, applicant, 17777 Crenshaw Blvd, Torrance, spoke in favor of the conversion and stated that there would be no rent increases during the conversion, which is designed as a bonus to keep the tenants there. Steven Price, 14918 Newport Avenue, spoke in favor of the conver- sion; however, he shares the frustrations as a resident. Mr. Price, further stated that the water situation is a problem, but would like to see the project converted and get the systems run- ning smoothly. Jon Harrison, 14802 Newport Avenue, President, Sycamore Gardens Homeowners Association, presented a letter from the association listing the concerns regarding the parking structure and how those concerns can be mitigated. The public hearing was closed at 9:33 p.m. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to continue this hearing (Variance 81-8) indefinitely until the open space property acqui- sition is finalized by the Tustin Unified School District. Motion carried 5-0: AYES: Sharp, Hoesterey, Edgar, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: None Planning Agency Minutes October 5, 1981 Page Six NEW 1. BUSINESS Workshop: Environmental I~act Report, Tustin Town Center. Mr. Edgar raised the question of the existence of 910,000 square feet of office space in Tustin and whether the City could support more. Mr. Edgar also questioned the relationship between 6 sto- ries and 101 feet in height. Mr. Hoesterey questioned Paul Wilkensen, Traffic Engineer, about the 9300 A.D.T. and how would it affect our streets. Mr. Wilken- sen answered that the increase on Newport Avenue would be 5 or 6% and it would be a 5% to 20% increase depending on which street they are looking at. Mr. Hoesterey also questioned Table 11 on page 31 regarding service level and also the intended 4 to 5 year phased program. Mrs. Kennedy questioned the following items: (1) 40% of parking spaces to be compacts. She felt this was a high number and would rather see a decrease in landscaping. (2) Commercial space versus office space. She was disappointed that there was so little commercial space planned. (3) Felt the height of the building was excessive. (4) Felt the cost of fire services would be higher than antici- pated. Mr. Greg Butcher, representing Cal Pacific Properties, stated that they could address most of the Agency's concerns. Mr. David Klages, Architect, explained the height of the building as follows:. First floor for commercial areas would be 17-1/2 feet. All floors beyond that would be 13-1/2 feet plus 14 feet for the mechanical penthouse. Mr. Edgar questioned the height of the proposed Far West Savings Building between First Street and Fashion Lane. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that the height of the proposed building is 72 feet not counting the mechanical on top! Mr. David Klages informed the Agency that any building over 58 feet in height requires a Life Safety System. He further informed the Agency that they would expand on the Life Safety System at the next meeting. Mr. Klages referred to the compact parking stalls and informed that the ratio has been cut from 40% to less than 30%. Mr. Hoesterey questioned how high the finished grade would be above Main Street. Mr. Klages answered about 2-1/2 feet. Mr. Greg Butcher projected the demand for office space and ex- plained how they would be large offices. Mr. Edgar stated that he wanted a detailed backup report on office space in Tustin to pre- clude an unbalanced community of all office space. Mr. Butcher pointed out that most of the existing office space in Tustin is for small users and this project will appeal to the larger users (50,000 plus square feet). Mr. Butcher further explained the ratio of retail commercial to office. The retail would be a draw to the center such as theatre, restaurants, shops. The office portion would be the stabilizing unit for the project. Mrs. Kennedy commented that she is not satisfied with the proj- ected fire and police protection for future users and would like P]anning Agency Hinutes October 5, 1981 Page Seven more information on this subject. Mrs. Kennedy also requested some information on the density of the project, comparing it to some existing projects in Tustin. Mr. Saltarellt requested further details on the materials and colors of the elevtions of the building and he is also concerned about the height. Mr. Klages con~nented that they will present a finished model of the complex at the public hearing on October 21, 1981. Mr. Saltarelli stated that, he would like to preserve the mix of retail and office as submitted. Mr. Butcher advised that the ground floor spaces for retail are an integral and important part of the development and this would be the draw for the entire project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting on October 21, 1981. James B. Sharp Chairman Mary Ann Chamberlain Recording Secretary MAC/lib:lO/14/81