Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES 03-17-86#IIIITES ~F A ~ ~'TII~ OF 1~ ~ITI ~XJI~IL ~F THE Cll~f CF TUSTIM, C~IFOI~IA ~ARC~ 17, 1986 II. III. IV. CJ~LL TO ~I~I~R/I~ ~z~E OF MI.~IJ~I~/INVOCATIOM The ~tng ~as ;all~ to order by Moyor Gretnke at 7:02 p.m. in the Cl~y ~unctl Ch~e~, 300 C~tennta] ~ay. The P~ge of Alleg4ance ~es ]~ by Counctl~n Hoesterey, and ~he [nvocatt~ ~es gtv~ by Counctl~n Kenn~y. Counct 1 persons Present: Counctl persons ~bsent: Others Present: Frank H. Sretnke, Mayor Oonald J. Saltarellt, Mayor Pro Tam Rtcherd 8. Edgar Ronald a. Hoesterey U~ula E. Kenn~y ~e gJlltam A. Huston, Ctty Manager J~ ~. Rou~e, Ctty Attorney ~ E. ~ynn, Ctty Clerk Donald O. Lam, C~. ~velop~nt Otrector Robe~ S. L~d~ker, Die. o~ P~11c ~orks Cherl~ R. ~ayer, Chtef ~ Poltce Royl~ A. ~hlte, 0tr. of C~. & Admtn. Srvcs. Susan Jones, R~restton Superintendent Lots Jeffrey, O~uty Ctty Atto~ey E~rd Kntg~t, S~tor Planne~ Jeff Oavts, Ass~late Planner R~er Herrts, 8utldtng OffJctal Approxt~tely 300 Jn the audt~¢e P~a.~TlglS ~LIVER VAIl IIIRN - RE'I'TRED I~IIITENANC~ B41q. oYKI: Moyor Gretnke presented Oliver "Van" Van Horn with a proclamation upon his ~ettreeent after 19 years of dedicated City service in the Maintenance Oepartment. Mr.' Van Horn thanked the Council. 84 "R~I) a~os$ N)NTll' - MN~Iil, Sandy Lantell accepted a proclamation fram Mayor Sreinke desig- nating the month of ~arch, 1986, as "Red Cross Month." Ms. Lantell thanked the Council. Mayor Sretnke re~d a prociamation designating March 30-April $ as Women's Bowling Week." Ramona Clark, President of the Orange County Wamen's Bowling Association, elaborated on the International Bowling Congress Convention and Tournament. She thanked the Coun- cil for the recognition. · 84 Libby Buckley, Tustin organizer for the event, was recognized at Councilwamen Kennedy's request. Ms. Buckley noted that the tourna- ment All run fram April 3 through July 1, 1986. CO.UNITY mJit.t 1. TUSTIN HIST(XIICA~ SOCIETY'S TEXT'H BIRTHDAY Mayor irelnke announced that the Tustin Historical Society will celebrate its Tenth Anniversary on May ¢ with a Victorian Tea. Event details will follow, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 3-17-86 2. mrMglMI. MUNICIPAL I~CTIUN - APRIL 8, 1986 Mayor Gretnke encouraged everyone to exercise their right to vote in the City's General Municipal Election. to be held on Tuesday, April 8, 1986. 3. RF~ISTRATI611 ~ ~ R~CREATIOM I~ The Mayor announced that registration is open for spring recreation classes through the Cmmmntty Services Oepartment. 4. L. P. REP~qTORV COMPAIIV - *THE ~lllVtr~' Mayor Gretnke announced that tickets are now available for L. P. Repertory Company's 1986 production, 'The Uninvited,' through the Community Servtces Oepartnmnt. 5. S~IIIUN C~ITER GR~IT ~LI.OCATIOM The Mayor announced with immense pride that the City has been awerdmd the 1986 Regional Competitive Grant from the State of California in the amount of $275,000 towards construction of the Tustln Multtservtce Senior Center. Royleen White. Director of Community and Administrative Services, wes applauded. She thanked her staff and membere of the c~..unity who have be~n very supporttve~ A6ENDA mmER At Mayor Pro TM Saltarellt's suggestion, the Agenda Order was revised for the public's convenience. The following item were heard at this point in the agenda. VI. P~IC INPUT I. CUI~ AT 340 MEST I~I# STR~rT Richard Vlntng, 44)0 West Main Street, requested that the curbs at 344) West Main Street be repaired quickly. Mayor Sretnke requested the Director of Public Works rectify the matter. 9~ 2. M~IM $lllEET mI~ STUDV Paul Snow, 430 West Main Street, requested the Council convey to area residents its desire to maintain the stable residential area as it is and to decree that the land use designation in old his- toric Tustin will never be changed. Mayor Greinke spoke on the Council's desire to preserve the old hmms need with residential uses only and not any cm~erctal use. To eliminate any further confusion, it was moved by Gretnke, sec- ooded by Edgar, to instruct staff to discontinue the study on any overlay zoning of Main Street. Councilwoman Kennedy was assured that staff would pursue the crea- tion of a Historic Preservation Elen~,nt in the City General Plan to protect sites and structures of architectural, historical or cul- tural significance. The motion carried 5-0. 109 V. PUBLIC ~qIl~ 2. AP~ OF Iq. ANMIN6 co~qISSIOM DEMIAL OF USE PERglT 8~-6, 13842 RBffN)RT AVEMI~, UNIT A The staff report and recommendation were presented by the Co~nunity Development Director as contained in the Inter-tom dated March 17, lg86, prepared by the Community Development Oepartment. ~ayor Gretnke opened the public hearing at 7:29 p,m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 3-17-86 Ron Bam~urger, La ~ancha Development C~apany, 11440 San Vlcente Boulevard, Los Angeles, spoke in favor of Use Pemtt 86-6 for an off-site beer and wine license for the 7-Eleven Corporation at the southeast coroe~ of Newport and Walnut. He defined the chain's successful marke~ctng concept and goals, and offered mitigations to the following concerns: The proposed location is ver~ close to the high school, it wtll contribute to student delinquency, and become an undesirable hangout. 2) 3) Mr. Bamburger stated that franchisees must attend a program oriented to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors; the location is least convenient to high school students; more convenient locations to the north and south sell b~r and wine; 7-Eleven is wtlltng to operate the store with no video games, and post/ onforoe no loitering signs; and the site Us selected on basis of the mutortng public and surrounding residents, not high school studeots. Tusttn Htgh's principal and the Superinten- dent of Schools were contacted and declined comment. Mr. Bam- burger added that a local franchises on McFadden Avenue was receotly recognized for coemmntty involvement. Residents in t~escltate vicinity will be negatively t~acted by 7-Eleven. Mr. ~u~er sulxmitted a ped:ltion-signed by 44 residents most t,q~acted who are in favor of the proposed license. Too many licenses in ares and there truly is not a legitimate Mr. Bmmburger briefly e~platned their marketing research Indi- cates that the proposed site Justifies the intended use. Mr. BaM)urgee sumertzed by stating that 7-Eleveo recognizes and shares concerns raised by Parents ~ Care and hopes to mitigate same. The petttlon de~nsrates that residents most affected by beer ~ wine ]1tense do want convenience (along with senior ctti- zeos ~ live tn t~late vicinity). He r~uested the opportunity to offer a hooded service to the c=muntty while acting as a responsible, concerned business entity. letke Austin. 24071 Ltndley. Otstrict Manager for 7-Eleven in South Orange County. reiterated Mr. Bm,burger's commnts and spoke in favor of Use Permtt 86-6. Robert Heard, 13~z7 Fatrvtem, ~arden Grove, Area Loss Prevention Manager for Southland Corporation. described the "Come ot' Age" pro- gram fram 1ts Inception to today. He provided Council with pack- ages of matertal which participants recetve, and detailed vartous aspects of the training program. Marttne Pilcher, 1045 San Juan, spoke in opposition to Use Permit 86-6 on the basis of loitering and proximity to Schools. Ethel Reynolds, co-founder of Parents Who Care, revte~ted the points of opposition to issuance of a beer and wine license at subject louatton as contained in their letter to Council dated March 12, 1986. Jack ~lller, 17352 Parker Drive, spoke in opposition to Use Permit 86-6, citing the social problems associated with alcohol abuse. A1 Heterson, Pastor of Aldersgata United Methodist Church, 1201 $.£. Irvine Boulevard, spoke in opposition to Use Permit 86-6 as a parent of two children w~o became chemically dependent, There were no other speakers on the matter. The public hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m.' CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4. 3-17-86 .3. Mayor Pro Tam Saltarellt co,~,ended the Southland Corporation as one of the great corporettons of Amertca and a responsible member of Tusttn's business community. However, Counctl did set parameters for granting use per~tts and has dented various, uses and zontng around the htgh school specifically to protect students. It was then roved b). Saltarelltt seconded b). Kenned),. to afftrm the flndtngs of the Planning Co.mlssim and deny Use Permt~: 86-6. Counct]~x~an Kennedy agreed, addlng that there seems to be new a~areneaa among the publtc that Couec11 be more careful on these uses. Counctlme~bers Noeaterey and Edgar concurred. Mayor C-retnke commanded the Southland Corporetton and spoke tn favor of the appemt. ~e stated that he could not support any fur- ther restrictions on the free marketptece. The marion cerrted 4-1; 6retnke opposed. 8~. Mayor ;retnke left the Counctt data. Al)FEN. (IF USE FEI~I~ZT 86-7 o OFF]C~ BIJ[LD[II6 AT ]~5-1gS "C" STREET The Coemuntty "Oeveloment 01rector presented the staff report and recm~,endatton as contained tn the triter-corn dated March 17. 1986. prepared by the Co,~untty Development I)epartment. The Co,muntty ~)eveloplent 01rector responded to Mayor Pro Tea Sattaretlt that the reduction tn compact parking spaces f;c,~ 475 to 305 overall has not physically changed the building square footage. wtth structurat coverage of the lot approxtmotaty 55-605 on the second floor, and approxtmetel), 25~ on the ground floor. Mayor ;retnke resumed the Ch&ir. Counctlv~mn Kennedy expressed conceros regarding aesthetics of the aree relative to butldtng height. Councilman Hoestere~ retsed questions regarding accessibility at the point of ingress/egress retattve to placement of co~oact park- trig spaces. The Director responded that staff feels there Is ~ore than adequate drive atsle width. The pul)llc hearing was opened by Mayor ;retnke at 8:~8 p.m. Cret g Curt, appt 1cant, ~7t7 South State Co! 1 age Bout evard. Anaheim, spoke tn favor of Use Permit 86-7. Me asked Council to approve the pro~ect as reco,~ended by the Planning C~tsslon. Mr. Curt responded to Mayor ~retnke that he has not discussed pro~- ect ptans wtth owners of ;tnny's antique store, Mr. and Mrs. ~1 aherty. The Community Oevelopment 0t rector added that the ;taherty's did vtew plans tn Ctty Natl but dtd not speak at the Planning Co,mtsston hearing on the matter. There were no other speakers on the matter, and the pu~tlc hearing ~as ctosed at 8:24 Zt ~as then moved b). Sattaretlt~ seconded b). ~retnke. to uphold the findings of the Planning Commission as contained In Resolution No. 2306 and approve Usa Permtt 86-7. The Community Oevet opwent Dl rector responded to Councilman I~oesterey ragerdlng parking lot ptans and parking space require- manta. The appttcant responded to Counctt questions regarding pro- posed tenants, lever of c11ent use. and parktng plans. Councilwoman Kennedy expressed deltght that the buttdtng t5 no higher than 30 feet. The motion carried 5-0. 8! CITY COUNCIL Page $, 3-17-86 Rayor Gretnke announced that the publtc testimony portton of 'the hesrtng was closed at the f4arch 3, 1985, meettng. The Commntty Development Dtrector stated that the majority of questions raised on Nerch 3 have been formally addressed in the "Response to Coamenta' document, and in the latest issue available at the back tables of the Chambers, tn the Cmmmnlty Development Departmeot, the Library, and Police Department counters. The following correspondence was received and entered into the record: Letter from Jeffrey H. Oder, mn. Rotan & Tucker; letter frme Clayton It. Parker, Parker & Covert; and letber from 6regory A. HIla, Good. t~lld~an, ~legness & t4alley, all detad Hatch 17. 1986. lte:summirtzed etght major areas of concern and amendments/mitiga- tions reco,~eeded by the Steering Committee (composed of The Irvtne Company and City staff). Reference: Inter-corn dated March 17, 198~, to City Council from the Cm~auntty Development Department entitled, "East Tusttn. Planned Community." (Itemi are numdered as they appear tn referonce Inter-com.) 1) Regarding the four mi]or roadway connections from East Tuetln into the north County area. (Lower Lake, Foothill-. Racquet Htll, and La Coilna) ~ staff still reco,wendi deletion of Racquet Rtll Drive as a connector to Future Road. It is proposed thet Council include the following mitigation measure to EIR 85-2: Prior to any connections at Lower Lake or Foothill, a ]otnt County/City stud~ will be prepared to address the need for these connections. If such a need exists, the impacts and proposed mitigation measures assocteted with these connections will be addressed as well as Nho will pay for the.. and horn they will be done. If such a nosd does net exist, the roads will not be connected. 2) Regarding development in Sector 8 around Pavtllion Drive. con- cams mere raised regarding location of Jamboree (Tusttn Ranch Road). 1ts relationship to a peninsula portion of Sector 8. denstty, compettbtltty with existing adjoining areas, overall density of East Tusttn, and provisions for schools within East Tuettn. It is reco,,mnded that Tusttn Ranch Road be moved easterly a minima, of 1,000 feet frme the closest residence on Pavtll'ton/ Saltatr. Sector 8 policies must be amended to allo~ a provi- sion for midtom density residential. Also, a provision will be included for a continuous noise barrier along the roadway (to consist of betas, soundwal 1 s, residences, and combtnatt one thereof). These provisions will more than adequately address concerns and insure that any noise impacts on the closest home- o~er will not be greater than 55 CNEL. It is also recommended tha~ ~otse levels not exceed 55 (:NEL to the closest home on Pavtllton Ortve/Saltat r. It ts recomended that the first row of homes abutting North Tusttn be ltmtted to single-story structures with a minimum lot size of I0.000 square feet and that maxtn~J, denstty be 4.0 dwlltng untts per gross acre. Clustering will not be allowed in Sector 8, and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 30 feet edlotntng existing residential areas. The overall number of units mill be frozen as proposed and there will be no provi- sion for transfer of additional units into Sector 8 at a later date. This appears to be satisfactory to adjoining homeowners. 4) Pertaining to Item 4. while staff is sympathetic to residents' concerns that La Coltna not be extended into East Tustln. It is felt that the extension of La Coltna to Tustin Ranch Road is necessary. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6~ 3-17-86 Staff has researched and stands corrected that La Coltna is not on the County ~aster Plan of Arterial Highways. Therefore, it is proposed that La Coltna be reduced to a two-lane local resi- dential street only and not be emphasized as any form of regional or major arterial to the County Bottleneck Study which could make it a "super" street. The Dtrector referenced a letter to Council dated March 17, 1986, frma ;regor~ Htle ~a~esenttng the Cm~unlty Preservation Comtttee. Subject letter requests wording in the plan that the La Coltna connection be deferred to subdivision approval process, that a study and/or forcused EIR be conducted to determine if the connection is needed, and that s no connection alternative be reviewed. Staff has responded to Mr. Hlle that it does not support the no connection alternative. The Direc- tor explained the subdivision map approval process, stating that the street connection/alignment can be properly addressed at that time with sufficient public review and input. The Director noted staff"s concern and disturbance with a flyer which ms circulated regarding the "Red Hill Alert." Subject flyer unfortunately misled many to believe that approval of the East Tustl.n Spectflc Plan and the La Coltna connection would obligate Council to advocate it as an alternative in the Bottleneck Study as a future arterial roadway to help relieve [rvtne Boulevard and/or the Santa Aha ;r~ay. He again aha- stzed that La. Coltns has been dewotuned to a local resldentta! street, and hoped that this Information will be circulated bask to the c~anuntty. 5) The Director then spoke regarding the agreement between The Irvtne Coa~any (TLC) and the ?usttn ~ntfled $chool District (T~$~) and the controversial Planning Commission's addition to the condition which essentially gives the ¢lty flnal authority to determine tf the subdtvtsdton ~ap could be recorded tn a deadlock situation between TIC and TUSD. The Director explained the amendment to the original agreement which has been agreed to by all parties as contained in the ;attar from Clayton H. Parker dated March Z7, ~986. 7) The amendments contained in this tree are of a "housekeeping" nature. B) ~hts tree refers to the rear yard setback as explained earlier. The Community ~evelopment Otrector made final comments that staff has no ubJectlon to, and recommends, removal of La Collna ~rom the map; and that verbage indicate that the extension wtll be connected at a future date ~th actual design and location subject to builder maps at such potnt In time. The Director explained two other concerns raised by TIC in written mu~o form relative to parking. They are asktng reconsideration of the parking require,eel for two-bedroom apartments which was increased from ~.8 spacee to 2 covered assigned spaces per unit the Planning Com, tSston. TIC Is requesting that the two-bedroom/ two-bath ~ntts reeain at the 2 spaces/unit ratto; but that the two-bedroom/one-bath units be decreased to ~.75 spaces/unit. Staff offers no opinion/recommendation since it is outside the Planning Cometsston's original recommendation. Secondly. the on-street parktng credit for single-family homes the medium-low, medium, and medium-high zones was changed from to 50~ on-street guest parking by the Planning CommiSsion. TIC requesting that tf they provide a much higher ratto of guest park- tng from the requirement of ~/2 to 3/4 space per unit overall ~or a whole subdivision, that tbe~ again be reallocated the rights to do the ~00~ on-street guest ratio. Councilwoman Kennedy requeeted Council's indulgence tn reopening the publtc testimony portion of the public hearing. The motion Kenn~d~ to reopen the public testimony portion of the public hear- CiTY COUNCIL H[NUTE$ Page 7. 3-17-86 trig a11ovrlng only speakers ~ho have not gtven testimony previously and ltatttng comamnts to exactly three mtnutes dted for lack of a second° Two additional attempts by Counctlv~xaan Kennedy to allow speaker to address the Counctl fatled. Foilomlng Count11 dlscusslon, tt was moved by Edgar~ seconded by Gretnke. to adopt ~he following, tncludlng amendments contained In ~ dated 14erch 17. 1986. prepared by the Ca~,untty Oavalop- mont Oepartment: RESOLUT]O# ~0o 8E-~ - A RE$OLUT]ON OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE C[TY OF 11JSTIN, CERTIFY[N6 FINAL ENV]RONMEffTAL iMPACT REPORT (EIR) 85-Z AS RE{]J[REO BY THE CJ~J.]FORN]A ENVIRONMENTRL (]UAL[TY ACT. The metton was amended by Saltare111~ seconded by Hoesterey, that La Coltna be classified as a four-lane residential street from the Ctty' 11mt:s to Tusttn Ranch Road and that tt not be classtfled as an artertal htghwny tn the Mayor gretnke ms sul3porttve of the t~o-lane restdonttal street. However, he felt that therets no need for four laees at thts ttme, and the City should be able to e~pand wtthtn the Ctty to four lanes ~c such ttmo as the need axtsts. The morton carried4-1, are~nke o~posed. 8! It was then moved by Hoectere~t seconded by ;retnke. to uph~ld the ftndlngs of the Planntng C~tsslon that the parking redu~roment for two-bedroom apartments be tncressed from 1.8 to 2 covered asstgeed spaces per untt; and that on-street guest parktng credtt for single-family homes tn the medium-low, modtue, and medium-high zones 'be set at 50~.. Carrted 5-0. 8~ Councilwoman Kennedy stated that her major concerns are wtth the plan's denstty tn the medium-low and mndtum zones; the total number of ap&rtments ~tch wtll further offset the balance between apart- merits and R-! hoams; the need for htgher parkland standards; the questionable appropriateness of the development agreement betng approved at a later date; and flood control The morton by Keflned~ to return to the denstty standard set tn 1978 of ¢ untts per acre for a total of 8,000 untts for the enttre plan alt ed for leck of a second. in response to Count11 concerns, the Community Oevelopment 01rector stated that tn the East Tusttn Speclftc Plan, all apartments are subject to Conditional Use Permtts whtch requtres Planntng Commis- sion approval before any construction. Above and beyond that, the development agreement contatns a propesal to specifically 11mtt the maxtmum number of apartments to a percentage. That st111 is sub- ject to negettatton and subject to a future publlc hearing. Councilwoman Konnedy requested that Coralee Ne~man, The irv~ne Com- pany, communicate wtth persona ~no were not permitted to speak. The Community Oevelopment 01rector addressed concerns regarding flond control, in East Tusttn, flood control channels must be fully tmbroved as conditions of subdivision. Therefore, the E1 ~ndena-Zrvlne Channel wtll be fully concrote-lmproved, and wtll ulttmotely be under the County's ~urtsdtctton. Mayor Pro Tem Saltere111 thanked Mr. Netlsen, President of The Irvtne Company, for attending thts evening's meettng. Mayor Pro Tee Saitare111 addressed concerns and tssues relattve to apartment denstty, preservation of rtdge 11nes, parklands, financial feasi- bility, and a11goment of Tusttn Ranch Road. it was moved by Saltarelllt seconded by Heestere~, to accept move- ment of Tusttn Ranch Road easterly by another 500 feet provtded . that design constraints w~11 not reduce the size of the golf course nor destroy the Integrity of the golf course community. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 3-17-86 ~ayor Gretn~a recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. The meeting was raconvenad at 10:17 p.m. with all members present. Mayor Pro Tam Saltarellt wt*thdram his motion with approval of the second. He stated that The Irvtne Company assured him they can design the villages and golf course within constraints of the new alignment. It was then moved by Saltarelltr seconded by Hoestare. y; to accept varying design of Tusttn Ranch Road +_. 100 feet. Carr~ea s-J. It was then moved by Edgar~ seconded by Greinke, to adopt the following with amencb,ents as contained in the inter-eom dated Mmrch 17, 1986. prepared by the Co,m,untty Oevelo~.ent Department: ~UTX(Xl NO. 8~-~8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYINg FIlL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) B5-2 AS REQUIRED 8Y THE CN. IFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The motion carried 4-l, Kennedy opposed on the issue of density. She stated support of the plant but not density. It was moved by SaltarelltI seconded by Hoesterey.. to adopt the lolling:. RF..~LUT]OII NO. 8~-Zg - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN. ADOPTINg SENERAL PLAN A/~ENgHENT 86-Ia, AMENDING THE lANg USE ELEJ4ENT TEXT AND OIAGRA# OF THE TUSTIN AREJ~ GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE SANTA AMA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTIND RESIDENTIAL OE1/ELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COF/MIJNITIES OF LE)tON HEIGHTS ANO COttON HEIGHTS TO TI4( WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORO ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST; ENCOMPASSINg APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES COf4~MONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXNIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO) ~otien cmrried 4-1, Kennedy epposed on the issue of density, but in favor of the plan. It was moved b) Hoestereyl seconded by Edqmr. to adopt the follow- inN: RF.~OI.IEr]oII NO. 86-30 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTIN6 GEMERN. PtJ~N AMENDMENT B6-1b, AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA AMA FRE£WAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPO- P~TED GOIMMUNITZES OF LE]MON HEIGHTS AMD COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORO ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSINg APPROXIHATELY 1,740 ACRES. COMYX)NLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT 'A' ATTACHED HERETO). Counctlw~n Kennedy requested that assurances be built into the plan whereby TIC will meet its co~z,ttment as contained on Page 3, Item 4, relative to bicycle/pedestrian facilities. The motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Edgart seconded by Hoesterey, to adopt the follow- ing: RF.S~LUTIOI NO. 86-31 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN. ADOPTING cJrMERAL PtJ&N AMENDMENT 86-1C. AMENOING THE SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA AMA FREEWAY {I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL OE1/ELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPO- RATED COHMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AgO COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LA~ID TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES. COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO). 'Carried $-0. VII. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page. 9. 3-17-86 It ~as ~oved by Edgar, seconded by Grelnke., that Ordinance No. 966 have first rgaalng by tltle onty, Garrled 5-0. Following first readtng by tttle only of Ordinance No. 966 by the City Clerk, it was ~oved b), Gretnket seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 966 be IntrOduced as follows: ORDI~ I1~. ~ - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, REZONING FROM PLANNEO CO~elUNITY TO PLANNEO COMMUNITY/RESI- OENTIAL; PLANNEO COFavaJNITY/COI4MERCIAL; PLANNEO COMMUNITY/MIXEO USE ANO PLANNEO COMMUNITY/COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR THE AREA BOUNOEO BY: THE SANTA AMA FREE~AY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN ARB THE UNINCORPORATED COt~4UNI- TIES OF LEMOR HEIGHTS ANO COWA~ HEIGMTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATEO LANO TO THE NORTH; ANO UNINCORPORATEO AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENC~ LINE (MYFORO ROAO) FOR ~ CITY OF [RVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSINS APPROXIMATELY [,740 ACRES, COI~NONLY r~IOWN AS EAST TUSTIM (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHEO HERETO). The ~otton cart~ed 4-1, Kennedy opposed on density, but in support of the plan. 8[ It was eeved by Saltarelltl seconded by .Gretnke, to adopt the following: RESOMJi'IOII !10. 8~-~ - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECO~NOINO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AOOPTION, BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, SECTIONS t.O ANO 2.0 OF ~ EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN.NO. 8). At the Camuntty Oevelopa~t Otrector~s request, it was clarified that Council's intent is to physically delete the llne on the ~ap, but aake La Coltna a four-lane local residential street, as was requested by the attorney representing the La Coltna Ho~ers' As sect at i on. The ~otto~ carrfled 4-[, Kennedy opposed on density, but in favor of the plan. 8[ It ~s aeved by Gretnket seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 967 have first reading by title drily. Motion carried 5-0. Following f.trst remdtng by tttle onlx of Ordinance NO. 967 by the City Clerk, it was aoved by Moestere~t seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 967 be introduced as follows: ORDI~ NOo ~ - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIM ~0OFTING SECTION 3.0 OF THE EAST ~USTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC ~ NO. 8) ANO EXHIBIT "C" AS THE LANO USE PLAN. The ~otion carried 4-[, Kennedy opposed on density, but in favor of the plan. 8[ Mayer Gretnke thanked the North Tusttn residents for their input and understanding. Mr. Toe Ntelson, President of The Irvine C~any, ~as recognized in the audience. Mr. Nlelson expressed appreciation to all for their work and input on the East Tustln Specific Plan. It was nmved by Hoestere~ seconded b~f Kennedy,, to approve the entire Consent Calendar. The morton carrted 1. APlIOYAL OF ~ - M~CH 3, 1986 2. ~ ~ ~ IN ~E ~U~ OF $1.585,309.30 ~TIFI~TI~ ~ ~ IN 3. ~I~ ~. ~36 - A RES~ION ~ ~E CITY ~NClL ~ ~E CITY OF ~STIN, C~IFORNIA, ~OERING ~E ~VASS ~ ~E GENERAL ~NICI- P~ ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986, TO 6E MADE BY THE CI~ ~ERK Adopted Resolution ~. ~-36 as ~eco~nded by the City Clerk. CITY COU~IL ~41NUTES Page 10, 347-86 Autlwrtzed the ~ayor to execute tho Freeway Agreement wtth CaF Trans for the I-5/~ford Road Interchanp Nodlftcatton ProJ~t as ~nd~ by the Otr~tor of Publlc ~s/CJty Englnemr. 45; ~4 5. ~%~ ~. ~ - A RESOL~ION ~ ~ CITY '~UNCIL OF ~E CITY OF ~ST[N, ~[FORNXA, TO ~[~E P~TXCXPATXON IN ~E ~U~Y OP PURC~]~ ~0~ ~t~ Resolution NO. 86-39 as ~d~ by the Engineering Division, 87 R~ the ~tflt~ance ~ffom contPact fo~ an addtttoflal g an fflcPels~ cost of five pe~c~ as p~ovtd~ ~n exts~tflg agp~t as pK~nd~ by ~he Engineering Dtvtstofl. 45= ~5 C~ Rm~ the annul1 H~ttng, Venttlattflg a~ Att ~ndltlonlng (gV~) contPa~ wtth Ate-Ex Up Conditioning, La Veme, loc an addtt~oflal ~ar g ~ ~nual cost of $34,~0 as ~d~ the Eflg~n~rtng Division. ~; Authortz~ the ~yor ~ ~ute sub~t agre~nts ~th the County of Oran~ for ad~us~ of ~ger valve boxes; and ~uthortz~ a supp1~ntai ~dget ~propr~atton ~th the Enterprise rum tn the ~unt of $~,500 to fu~ satd ~ r~d~ by the Dtr~tor of Public ~rks/Ctty [ng~n~r. ~; ~7/~8 flOgS F~ REL~TZ~ ~ CERTUN P[~ZNES U;TH;N ~ ~8L~C R[GHT- ~opt~ Resolution ~. ~0 as r~d~ by the Dtrector of VlIl. URDIMANCES ~ IX. 1.. NAZAIIDO~ MItTERIJU..S DLe, O__OSURE ORDIIMJICI! A IMIR.IXENTATIOR Pr. AIl - OIIDINMICE I10. g~4 A RESI~UTIOM IlO. 86-1.4 As recommnded tn the triter-corn dated Idarch 17, 1986, pr~ared by the Community Development Department, tt ~as ~oved by Saltare111, seconded by Hoestere},, to conttnue the follo~ng to Aprll 7, 1986: ORDIMANCE RO. g64 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, C~.IFORNIA ADDING SECTION ~600 TO THE HUNICIPAL COOE ESTAB- LISHING REOUIREFEKI'S AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE OISCLOSURE OF HAZARDOUS ~IATERIAL$ RE~OLUTIOII gO. 86-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN NANING THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE OI'.'PANT~4ENT AS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR IHPLEHENTING AND ENFORCING THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSEHBLY BILL NO. 2185 The ~otton carrted 4-1, Kennedy opposed. 102 OLD BUSINESS 1. EWPOItT AVEMUE EIIT~IOM TO EDINOIR STi~ET Following consideration of the triter-eom dated ~larch 11, 1986, pre- pared by the Dtrector of Publlc ~rks/Clty Engtnemr, It ~s ~oved by Hoestere~ s~ond~ by Kenn~y, to dtr~t staff to reapply to the railroad and ~bllc Utltltles C~tsslon for an at-grade cross- lng of N~po~ Avenue over the AT&SF tracks, and to acttvely pursue that ~th all due dlltgecce, Including 1~al act4on If n~essary. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11, 3-17-86 At Councilman Edgar's request, the City Hanager indicated staff mould schedule a meeting fftth the consultant engineers to revtee ~hy a 9rede separation structure at thts locatton ts not feasible. The motion carrted 5-0. 101 1. JMNID (Ilr BID - COLUI4BU$1USTIN ATHLETIC FIELD ~4 RENOVATI011: BACK- One btd Nas received for subject project as The Hakef~eld Company. Irvtne $11,800.00 As recommended tn the inter-cee dated March lO, 1986, prepared by the Engineering Division, it NaS moved by Hoesterey~ seconded by Edgar, to aNard the contract for subject renovation project to the k~kefteld Company, [rvtne, tn the amount of $11,800o Carried 5-0. 77 2. AMAIIO (ir BID -COI. IN4BUS 111STZN ATHI. ETIC FIFI_p LI~IITII~ One btd Nas ~ecetved for subject project as David-Richards Const~ctton $88,7~2.00 Zt Nas moved b~, Hoestereyt seconded b)~ Edgar, to avard contract for subject Hghttng project to 0avid-Richards Construction, San Dernardtno, ~n the amount of $88,712 as recofllRended by the Com- munity Servtces Department in the inter-corn dated H~rch 10, 1986. 77 REJECTION OF BIDS - POLICE OEPNtTI~d~ 8UILOlll6 EXPULSION ~1: OUTSIDE Pursuant to the recom~e~datfon contained fn the inter-cee dated February 26, 1986, prepared by the Chtef of Police, tt Nas moved by Hoesteroyw seconded by Edgar, to reject all bids recetved for but]dtng e~panslon of outside property storage area because of lack of avatlobla funds. The morton carrted 5-0. 8~ 40 LF.~ (IF C~LTFOIINZA C~TZE~ DZSABILLTY RETIREMENT & IJORKERS CONPEN- SATTO~ PRO~ECT The 01rector of Cmmmntty and Administrative Servtces responded to rd~yor Srotnka that the Ctty could Join at a later date and *beneftt free projected reforms. She stated that the League's Employee Relations Committee found that reform through legislature has been unsuccessful because of the lack of soltd data. Subject project proposes to produce the data that Is essential to reform efforts. It Nas the~ moved by $,retnket seconded by Edgar, to approve partt- clpatlm tn the League s 01sablllty Retirement and Horkers Compen- sation Project at a fee of $5,000 as receemecded by the Director of Community and Adm~ ntstratt ve Servtces tn her inter-cee dated Hatch 4, 1986o The motion carried $-0. 79 50 ORAL ~ - 1~6 11JSTZN TZLLER Mrs. Cherr111 Cody outlined problems with the 1985 Tusttn Tiller Days and provided an oral report on the 1986 Tusttn Tiller Days. She reported that the n~ applications contain a 11obtHty Natver for protection against spoiled food, Mrs. Cady requested $2,000 for rebutred electrical improvements, $6,000 In reserves tf needed, and asststaece wtth l~abtllty insur- ance coverage. The City Hanager ~ndlcated staff auld report back o~ the ~nsurance ~ssueo It Nas moved by ;ennedy~ seconded by Edgar, to: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12, 3-17-86 1) Authorize $2,000 for electrlcal tmprovoments requtred for the ].986 Tusttn Ttller Days; 2) Authorize reserves tn the amount of $6,000 tf needed; and 3) Dtrect staff to asstst wtth 11ability Insurance coverage for sailed The morton carrted 5-0. 34 Hrs. Cedy reported she wt~l retire'from the Committee ~n October and has not been successful in recruiting a replacement. MayQr Gret nke thanked Mrs. Cady° XI. It was n~ved by Saltarelltt seconded by Edgar, to appeal Item No. 4 General Plan ~ncl~t 86-2c (Physician's Offtce Semlce, Inc., 1101 Sycamore Avenue) free the PlanfMng Commission Action Agenda of March 10, 1986. Ca~rted 5-0. 56 It was moved by .Edgart seconded by Saltarellt, to approve the remainder ofthe March 10, 1986, Planfllng Caemisston Agenda. ~otten carried 5-0. 80 2. ZWESTNENT SI3IEINJLE AS (iF FE~IIUAR~ 28, It vas moved by Edgart seconded by Hoesterey, to recetve and f~le subject report dated March 6, 1986, prepared by the Finance Direc- tor. The motion carrted 5-0. 56 The Dtrector of Publtc Norks responded to Council that the City would, be responsible for Installation and molntenance, wtth actual purchase of the bus shllter units funded federally through OCTD. Counctlemn Edgar provided tnformattoo on the' matter. Council dis- cusston follaMed. Counctl concurred with Councilmoman Kennedy to dtrect staff to report back on the matter for further Council revtew (t.e., how many bus shelters Tusttn would get. what they look ltke, and what maintenance costs wtll be). 101 XII. OTHER 8USIW_$$ The Ctty Manager requested a Closed Sesston for dlscusslon of personnel matters. JOINT ITr_rTING ¥ITH TUSTIN URIFIED ~}~___ DISTRICT, 80NIO OF GI)UCA- TION The City Hanager recommended Counctl adjourn to March 24, 1986, at 6:30 p.m. for a Jotnt maetlng v~th the Board of Education, Tustln untried School District. 3. REQUEST ~ ~m:.r.i REPAIR ON SAH JUAN Councilwoman Kennedy reposed a large pot hole on San Juan Street by the Mormon church heading east. She requested the Engineering Olvtsion repair same. 4. ~N~ENI:E FROR BOYS & GIRLS C1.U8 OF TUSTIN FOR ASSISTANCE The City Manager ~nformed Councilwoman Kennedy that staff will address the request from the Boys and Girls Club of Tusttn for some assistance. CITY CDUNCIL MINUTES Page 13, 3-17-86 5. A8 2673 - ~VlSIONS TO 8ftO~ ~ Councilman ~esterey reported off proposed legislation (~ 2673) ~ich ~vlses the Br~ ~ ~nd~nt. It ~uld r~utre that no ttm be dtscuss~ in public by Council unless tt appea~ on the ege~a. He Felt this ~uld ~ a serious ~trl~t to the C~ncil Ag~da's public inp~ potion, a~ h~er the btddlng proc~s. It was th~ ~v~ by Saltarelltt s~ond~ by Edgar, to suppo~ the Leeg~ o~ Cities ~slCton a~ ~pose Ass~ly 8tll 2673. The m~ton carrt~ 4-X. Kenn~y ~pos~. 6Z ~or Gretnke ~o~ t~ la~e Tusttn Holm. ~e Otr~tor of Public ~rks ~tnd~ Counctl t~at the City contracts str~ ~lntenance and Is at the contractor's ~rcy to ~t ~al~ done. The Otr~tor of ~bltc ~rks p~vtd~ a brief status repo~ on fo~tton ~ th~ ~dergr~ndtng district for N~o~ Avenue. '~un- rtl s~uld have a ~o~ ~ the mttar tn AprlJ. Xlll. At ti:OX p.m. tt was ~v~ by Ho~ter~t s~ond~ by Edgar, to to the R~evel~nt Agency, and there to a Clos~ 5esslon for discus- 'sion of personnel ~tte~ pu~uant to ~over~t Code Section 54957; and th~ce ~Jou~ to the ~jou~ R~ular ~ettn9 Education, Tusttn Untfl~ ~h~l Dtstrt~ on March 24, 1986, at 5:30 p.m.; a~ there to the n~t R~ular ~teg on April 7, ~9~, at 7:~ p.m. Carrl~ 5-0. C ITY(~CLERK OF THE REI)EYELOP~ENT AGENCY CF THE CZTY air llJSTINo CALIFORNIA mARCH ~7, 1986 The meeting was called to order at ll:O1 p.m. by Chatrman Gretnke in the ¢tty Coundl Chambers, 300 Centennial Hay, Tusttn, Caltforota. ~ CN.L Agency ~Nbers Present: Agency Members Absent: Others Present: 3. A~ROV~L CF NZNUTES Frank lt. Gretnke, Chatman Oenald J. Saltare111, Chairman Pro Tan Rtchard 8. Edgar Renatd 8. Hoesterey Ursula E. Kennedy ~one Ht111am A. Huston, Exec. Director/City Manager ~?ames ~. Rou~ke, Ctty Attorney IMry E. Wynn, Recording Secretary/City Clerk Oenald O. Lam, Comuntty Oevelopment Otrector Robert $. Ledendecker. gtrector ol' Publlc Works Royle~l A. White, 0tr. of Co,. & Admtn. Servtces Susan Jones. RecrenCton Superintendent'. Lois Je¢1.rey, Oeguty Ctty Attorney Fred Wakefield, Pollce Captatn ~ EMrd Kntght, Senior Planner Jeff' Oavts, Associate. Planner · Roger Harris, Bulldtng 01'1'tctal Approximately 50 tn the audtence vas moved by Iioestere/t seconded by Kennedy. to approve Minutes of the Hatch 3, 1gu§, Regular Heetlng. ~otlon carrled 5-0. 4. N~0VN. CF ~ - FEBIIUNIY, 1986 It was moved by Hoester~t seconded by Kennedy, to approve dmandS tn the amount of $45,737.77 for the mnth of F~ruary, 1986, as reco,~ended by the Otrector of Finance. Carrted 5-0. 60 DES]61 REVZEII - dE FEI~ZT 86-7, 18~-195 "C" STREET - RE~)UJTION NO. NOA In accordance with Ctty Count11 actton affirming the Planntng Commission's approval of Use Pemtt 86-7, tt Nas moved by Hoestereyt seconded by Kennedz, to adapt the 1.ollowtng: RESOLUTION NO. NOA 86-4- A RESOLUTION OF THE: CO.UNITY REDEYS.0PMENT AGENCY CF THE CITY ~F TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SITE MD ELEVATIOH PLANS FOR THE PROPOS(D OFFICE PROJECT AT 8tS-].g5 "C" STREET ~otton carried 5-0. 60 None. At 11:02 p.m. tt was moved by Iioestere/! seconded by Kennedy, to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Apr11 7, 1986. Carrted 5-0. RECO~I~ SECRETARY ,.,~IFI'£S OF AN .q~0UItNED RKGUI.N~ OF THE CITY COUflCII. OF THE CITY OF llJSTlN, CALIFORNIA MARCH 7, 1986 II. CALL TO ~RI)ERII~.EDgE OF N.I.£GINICE/IIIVOCATION The meeting was called to order .by Mayor. Greinke at 7:30 a.m. City Council Chan~oers, 300 Centennial Way. in the Councllpersons Present: Counctl persons Absent: Others Present: Frank H. Greinke, Mayor Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor Pro Tom Richard B. Edgar (left at approximately 8:06) Ronald 8. Hoesterey Ursula E. Kennedy None William A. Huston, City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney The Mayor announced that the City Council will recess to a Closed Ses- sion to confer ~dth the City Attorney regarding pending litigation pur- suaot to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). The meeting was reconvened at 8:28 a.m. with Councilman Edgar absent. IV. F. ASll~RN TR.MNSPORTATION COItRIDOR ALIGNI4ENT It was moved by Saltarelli~ seconded by Kennedy, to approve the Memo- randum of Understanding (MOU} with the City o? Irvine concerning the Eastern Transportation Corridor alignment, provided however: l) If the MOU is not approved by the City of i rvine by 3:00 p.m. on March 10, 1986, then the City Attorney is authorized and directed to file a lawsuit concerning City of Irvine Ordinance No. 86-3 (rezonlng of the Irvine Business Complex); and 2) If the City of Irvine approves the MOU, then the City Attorney is authorized and directed to dismiss the lawsuit. The ~otion carried 3-1, Gretnke opposed, Edgar absent. 100 The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 a.m. by unanimous informal consent to the next regular meeting on March 17, lg86.