Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA MINUTES 1981 03 02CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 3-2-81 RECESS 2. ZONE CHANGE 81-1 (From 1%-3 to C-2P at 135-195, 305-325 S "C" St) ORDINANCE NO. 842 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON "C" STREET UPON APPLICATION ZONE CHANGE 81-1 Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director, reported that the Planning Agency recommends that these properties be rezoned to be consistent with the General Plan. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:43 p.m. There being no com- ments or objection, the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Sharp, that Ordinance No. 842 have first reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following the reading of the title of Ordinance No. 842 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Shar~, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 842 be introduced. The Community Development Director clarified that this Ordinance provides for design review by the Council. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to recess to the Rede- velopment Agency meeting at 7:45 p.m. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY March 2, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Saltarelli at 7:45 p.m. 2. Members Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp Members Absent: None 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 17, 1981 It was moved by Shar~, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the min- utes of the February 17, 1981, meeting. Motion carried 5:0. 4. BID AWARD - EL CAMINO REAL UNDEI%GI~)UND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 5 Bids for this project were opened at 11:00 a.m. on February 24, 1981, and were tabulated as follows: Pacific Pipeline Const. Co., Corona, CA Hood Corporation, Whittier, CA Russco Const., Inc., Hawaiian Gardens, CA Irish Construction, Rosemead, CA Pacific Engineer's & Const.,Inc.,San Diego, CA John T. Fricke Const., Pasadena, CA J.R.J. Const. Co., Long Beach, CA Herman Weissker, Inc., Long Beach, CA Zapata Const., Inc., Paramount, CA Savala Const., Inc., Costa Mesa, CA $530,945.00 554,217.06 571,887.10 572,633.55 614,426.65 629,246.75 634,375.70 661,259.68 682,923.05 961,813.95 It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to award the subject bid to the low bidder, Pacific Pipeline Construction Company of Corona, California, in the amount of $530,945.00. Carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 3-2-81 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to direct the City Engineer to prepare Request for Proposal (RFP) for the next meeting to obtain a consultant to draft a Redevelopment Agency Plan which would address the financial needs, available funds, and specific projects for Council's review before the next bud- get year. Councilman Sharp asked if his intent was to develop a new plan or were we going to use the older plan that we had. Councilman Edgar explained that we must commit to some specific task over and above what we had in the past before July so that we do not run the risk of losing our funding. Councilman Hoesterey suggested including a unit price as well as a fixed bid in the proposal. Councilman Sharp asked that the City Engineer include in his report a list of the names and addresses of firms that would receive the RFP. Motion carried 5-0. 5. It was moved by Hoestere¥, seconded by Edgar, to adjourn to the City Council meeting at 7:52 p.m. Carried. OF T~STIN CI~"~ COUNCIL RECO~F~NED A~ 7:52 P.M. March 2, 1981 PUBLIC CONCE]~NS 1. OPPOSITION TO DOME HO~SE AT 340 W. 2ND STREET Arthur M. Charleton, 460 W. 2nd Street, Tustin, presented peti- tions signed by 23 residents opposing the construction of a dome house at 340 W. 2nd Street. He stated that the house does not conform to the homes in the area and it was his opinion that it would decrease the value of the homes in the area. He asked the Council's cooperation in not allowing this home to be built. Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director, responded that this house meets the Zoning Code, the set backs and standards for R-1 property. There are no CC & R's, deed reviews, or design reviews on R-1 property. The City Attorney said the only way to control this would be through the Zoning Ordinance and under our ordinance, there is no design review required. Council concurred that staff should write a letter to the devel- oper and inform him of the opposition of the homeowners and request that he work with them.