The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA MINUTES 1989 03 06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA MARCH 6, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Kennedy at 9:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Ursula E. Kennedy, Chairperson - Richard B. Edgar, Chairperson Pro Tem Ronald B. Hoesterey John Kelly Members Absent: Earl J. Prescott (Mr. Prescott returned to the meeting at approximately 9:05 p.m.) Others Present: William A. Huston, Executive Director/City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary/City Clerk Christine Shingleton, Director/Comm. Development Fred Wakefield, Acting Chief of Police Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Royleen White, DireCtor/Community & Adm. Services Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent Valetie Whiteman, Deputy City Clerk Court Reporter for Item No. 3 Approximately 175 in the audience 3. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SESSION - PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Councilman Prescott stated he would'abstain regarding this subject matter. At 9:00 p.m., Mayor Kennedy called to order the joint session of the Tustin Redevelopment Agency and the Tustin City Council. The City Clerk recalled the roll of the City Council and called the roll of the Redevelopment Agency. All members of the Council/Agency were present except Councilman Prescott. (Councilman Prescott returned to the joint meeting at approximately 9:05 p.m.). Mayor Kennedy reviewed the procedures that were followed at the Public Hearing held on February 21, 1989, and declared at tonight's session staff would present, for Council/Agency consideration, the written responses to the written objections received from affected Project Area property owners and taxing agencies. Christins Shingleton, Director of Community Development, reported that State law required the Council/Agency to present written findings in response to written objections received from affected property owners or taxing agencies on any proposed Plan amendment; and must respond in writing to those written objections describing the disposition of the issues raised and addressing the objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting certain specified objections and suggestions. At the last Council/Agency meeting, written objections were received from Elizabeth M. Dreher and Dennis Hayden, on behalf of Shirley Griset and Virginia Stevens. She indicated that staff had submitted to the Council/Agency an exact response summary of each written objection and a summary response to each specific concern. She noted that, based upon reasons provided in the subject Resolution, the Tustin Redevelopment Agency/City Council would affirm that adoption of the amendment would remain in the best interest of the project area and the City at large. She requested the record reflect written responses had been presented and adoption of the subject Resolution would reflect action upon those written responses. Staff also provided Council/ Agency, although not required by law, with a summary of oral objections and questions brought forward during the Public Hearing. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Page 2, 3-6-89 Mayor Kennedy noted that one of the sections being added to the amendment provided for a Certificate of Compliance. She requested agendizing the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for conformance to the Redevelopment Area for Prospect Park, Packers Circle and Palmwood Condominiums. Council concurred. It was moved by Edqar, seconded by Hoesterey, to approve the following: 1. Adopt the following Resolution No. 89-26 overruling written and oral objections and adopting written findings in response to written objections received and overruling such written objections: RESOLUTION NO. 89-26 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, OVERRULING WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAXING ENTITIES AND OVERRULING SUCH WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TUSTIN TOWN CENTER AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Councilman Kelly voiced his objection that a prepared script, written at the February 21, 1989 joint session, was used during the proceedings and prescribed the approval of the Resolution overruling written and oral objections. He stated it had been completed in advance and Council was performing a hoax when the public had clearly indicated opposition against the retention of eminent domain power for twelve additional years. He wanted the record to reflect that he would vote approval, but was vehemently opposed to Council/Agency retaining the authority of eminent domain for twelve years. Mayor Kennedy explained that she occasionally extemporizes and, when staff offered the use of a script to avoid omission of legal requirements, she gratefully accepted. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar ~esponded that because revision to the Redevelopment Plan required compliance with newly enacted laws and because this was a litigious society, he felt it would be improper for Council to depend upon their mental recall ability involving a project that would stand the scrutiny of those choosing to sue the City. Use of the script did not prevent each Councilmember from adding personal comments. He did not want the City vulnerable to lawsuits and wholeheartedly supported the use of a script. William Huston, City Manager, clarified that the script provided for the Mayor pertained only to procedural aspects of the hearing, it did not apply to the merits of the Redevelopment Agency extending condemnation authority, and was strictly an outline for the Mayor on how to conduct the hearing based on State law. Councilman Hoesterey disagreed that this had been a predetermined situation and noted the fact that Council would be considering the pQtential passage of blanket Certificates of Compliance. He felt this Council was the most receptive of any agency to public input and concerns. The motion carried 4-0, Prescott abstained. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edqar, that Ordinance No. 1021 have first reading by title only. The motion carried 4-0, Prescott abstained. Following first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1021 by the City Clerk, it was moved bV Edqar, seconded by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 1021 be introduced as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1021 - AM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TUSTIN TOWN CENTER AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Page 3, 3-6-89 Mayor Pro Tem Edgar requested a correction on Page 5 of the Ordinance, Section 10, to reflect an action date of December 5, 1988, instead of December 5, 1989. The motion carried 4-0, Prescott abstained. At 9:16 p.m., the joint session of the City Councii and Redevelopment Agency was adjourned and the Redevelopment Agency meeting was reconvened at 11:11 p.m. 60 [ ~ 4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,773.53 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edqar, to approve 'subject demands in the amount of $1,773.53. The motion carried 5-0. 60 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1989, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded bV Edqar, to approvethe Minutes of February 21, 1989. The motion carried 5-0. 6. DESIGN REVIEW 88-62 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edqar, to approve'the following: 1. Adopt the following Resolution No. RDA 89-7 certifying the final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-7 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-03 AND DESIGN REVIEW 88-62, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 2. Approve Design Review 88-62 by adoption of the following Resolution No. RDA 89-5 as submitted or revised: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-5 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A 48,000 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 1492 INDUSTRIAL WAY (DESIGN/SITE PLAN REVIEW 88-62) The motion carried 5-0° 60 7. DESIGN REVIEW 88-29 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edqar, to approve the following: 1. Adopt the following Resolution No. RDA 89-8 certifying the final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-29, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 2. Approve Design Review 88-29 by adoption of the following Resolution No. RDA 89-6 as submitted or revised: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-6 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 12,390 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 1302 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE (DESIGN REVIEW 88- 29) The motion carried 5-0. 60 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Page 4, 3-6-89 8. OTHER BUSINESS - None 9. ADJOURNMENT At 11:12 p.m., the meeting adjourned to the next Regular Meeting on Monday, March 20, 1989~ at 7:00 p.mo CHAIRPERSON