Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 03-17-86MINIF[ES OF A REGULAJ~ I~E-FINIi OF lltE CITY COUNCIL OF lltE ¢1T¥ ~ TtI~?1H~ CALIFORNIA MARCH 3, 1986 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION The meeting was called to order by Mayor Greinke at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Edgar, and the Invocation was given by Councilman Hoesterey. II. ROLL CALL Council persons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: Frank H. Greinke, Mayor Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar Ronald B. Hoesterey Ursula E. Kennedy None William A. Huston, City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Donald D. Lamm, Com. Development Director Robert S. Ledendecker, Dir. of Public Works Royleen A. White, Dir. of Com. & Admin. Srvcs. Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney Fred Wakefield, Police Captain Edward Knight, Senior Planner Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Roger Harris, Building Official Approximately 300 in the audience III. PROCI.AJMATIONS 1. AI~ERICA~ ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOrN - ll~Nllt ANNIVERSARY At Mayor Greinke's invitation, Councilwoman Kennedy read a procla- mation which was accepted by Josephine Collins, NkUW President. Vernell Ditter, the organization's first President who was instru- mental in starting the Tustin branch, was introduced by Ms. Collins. Ms. Collins expressed thanks to the Council on behalf of the AAUW Tustin branch. 84 IV. COle(UNITY NOTES 1. CAI~P TUSTIN Mayor Greinke noted during spring break. Hall. that Ca~ Tustin will be held March 24-28 Further information can be obtained at City 2. IMAFlt40114 SKI ~EKEND The Mayor announced the Mammoth Ski Weekend on March 21-23. Inter- ested persons should call City Hall, Community Services, for infor- mation. 3. ASSISTANCE LEAF~IJE OF llJSTIN - RED ~ARTER REVUE Mayor Greinke congratulated the Assistance League of Tustin on their Red Garter Revue to be held March 14-15. He encouraged all to attend. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 3-3-86 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. EAST TUSTIN M. ANNED CO,UNITY (TUSTIN RANCH) - RESOLUTIONS NO. 86-28, 86-29, 86-30, 86-31, & 86-32; AND ORDINANCES NO. g66 & g67 Mayor Greinke stated that subject item would be heard at this time on the agenda. The Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the' inter-com dated March 3, 1986, prepared by the Community Development Department. He provided a chronicle .of events over the last-three years, when The-Irvine Com- pany first approached the City regarding development of East Tustin. All original proposals were submitted to the Planning Commission. Noteworthy changes recommended by the Planning Commission are: 1) 2) 3) 4) New homes built under the Browning Flight Corridor will be sub- ject to future study for noise and sound attenuation to assure they are adequately insulated and occupants do not suffer addi- tional noise impacts from helicopter overflights. Within the coming year, the Browning Flight Corridor will be moved from its present location to further east approximately 1/4 mile away from the North Tustin area than previously indicated. The on-street parking credit for single-family homes in the medium-low, medium, and medium-high zones has been changed from 100% on-street guest parking credit to only 50%. This means virtually half the homes must have full-sized driveways. The parking requirement for two-bedroom apartments was increased from 1.8 to 2 covered assigned spaces per unit. The East Tustin plan may not be implemented (no maps recorded or building permits issued) until the actual development agree- ment is in place to protect regulations in the plan. The development agreement is still being negotiated. 5) 6) 7) Racquet Hill Drive was removed as a connector to "Future Road" (Jamboree). La Colina Avenue has been reduced to a two-lane secondary road. There has been considerable disagreement as to what road configuration should be built between "Future Road" (Jamboree) and Browning Avenue. What occurs in the unincorporated area is up to the County and will be their decision. Considerable opinion has been voiced on whether adequate schools would be provided in East Tustin, who would pay for them, and where they would be located. The Irvdne Company (TIC) and the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) agreed to include the following statement within the East Tustin plan: "The TUSD and TIC shall enter into necessary agreements to enable the school district to obtain financing for the acquis'ition, construction, and/or use of school facili- ties necessary to accommodate the students generated by the East Tustin residential development." The Planning Commission recommended adding that "final approval of the residential maps shall be contingent upon this agreement or in the absence of such an agreement, upon the determination of the City' Council." This means that after a good faith effort on both parts, if an agreement is not reached, the Coun- cil has the final say on land use matters. Substantial controversy was raised on the Planning Commission's change in the proposed agreement. The City, TIC and TUSD have been meeting, and an agreement has been reached in concept on new wording to be brought back to Council at its March 17 meet- ing which will adequately satisfy and protect all party inter- ests. COUNCIL MINUTES 3, 3-3-86 Consequently, staff requests Council continue the hearing to March 17 to allow the School Board to take action on the proposed agreement prior to Council's next meeting. A firm agreement with conditions in hand can then be presented to Council. The Director continued that issues were raised by the public who questioned every aspect of the plan, logic of land uses, and road connections. Some 180 questions with 300 pages of response and research were boiled down to what is referred to as a Summary Matrix Chart. The chart refers to all main issues by categories related to the specific plan, the EIR and implementation. It out- lines the subject, every issue raised by the public, the City's response, TIC response, and recommended change to the specific plan as a result of research. The major problem staff has been faced with is identifying all the community groups, determining how to meet with them, and satisfying their concerns as best as possible. This would permit staff to have adequate answers in preparation for questions raised at a public hearing and alleviate some public concerns. Staff has met with members of the Foothill Community Association, the Racquet Hill Community Association, the "Committee for Compati- bility (primarily oriented around Red Hill Ridge area and represen- ted by Attorney Jeffrey Oderman of Rutan and Tucker), and a splinter group called the Lower Lake Homeowners Association. Staff has met most recently with Mr. Oderman and his group. They outlined five major concerns. Staff responded with modifications to five areas of the plan, to which they appear to be agreeable to only four. One concern is still outstanding and has yet to be resolved. In addition, staff has been contacted by La Colina Homeowners Asso- ciation represented by Attorney Greg Hile. Their main concern is that La Colina not be connected through from Future Road (Jamboree) to Browning Avenue. The Director stated that staff is faced with the difficulty of how many answers/solutions will be raised this evening before the public hearing; and during the public hearing, how many more new answers/solutions will be raised. Staff prefers proceeding this evening with a recap of the slide show, a recap of TIC's position, receiving more public testimony, and identifying the final set of issues and groups being dealt with. Staff recommends continuance of tonight's meeting to allow an opportunity to analyze the issues and identify all groups that remain, and then present answers at the March 17 meeting to the satisfaction of all community groups once and for all. Larry Webb, consultant project coordinator, made a lO-minute sum- mary highlight slide presentation of the East Tustin Specific Plan. At Mayor Greinke's request, the Community Development Director clarified that the La Colina connection is proposed as a two-lane secondary arterial to meet Tustin's own purposes for East Tustin. It has nothing to do with the Orange County Transportation Commis- sion's Bottleneck Study. Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli expressed concern over comments made by Supervisor Nestande at a meeting of the North Tustin Municipal Advisory Council regarding transportation issues in the east County areas. He felt it important to contact his office and obtain an official position regarding same. Monica Florian, The Irvine Company, introduced members of the proj- ect team - Roger Seitz, Vice President of Urban Planning, and Mike Ellis, Vice President of Irvine Community Development Company. She presented The Irvine Company's position in support of the East Tustin Plan. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 3-3-86 The Community Development Director concluded by noting wall display maps of the land use plan, the site plan of proposed Upper Peters Canyon Reservoir Regional Park site, the open space and public institution land, the hillside district, and the circulation system plan. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, the Community Development Director explained why the development agreement has not been com- pleted and elements of the agreement that were under negotiation. Mayor Greinke opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Wayne Stanfield, 12291 Ranchwood Road, questioned what the speed limit will be on Future Road (Jamboree), and what the noise impacts will be on the neighborhood. John Newland, 1869 La Colina, expressed concern that La Colina will remain a secondary road only until the County or other appropriate public entity improves the roadway from Newport to Browning to secondary standards. He felt the plan's density would destroy the area's character, and questioned who will pay for right-of-way acquisition if La. Colina is widened through East Tustin. James Minehard, 12472 Ranchwood Road, asked Council consideration of whether it is absolutely necessary to extend La Colina any fur- ther. Bob Spindola, 2112 Omega Drive, asked about the possibility of the golf course serving as a buffer to the North Tustin area. He sug- gested Myford Road be expanded to a six-lane highway rather than Future Road. Oessa Shroeder, 13902 Oall Lane, member of .the North Tustin Munici- pal Advisory Council, expressed concerns that the proposed con- nector roads will generate a great deal of traffic through North Tustin. She recommended withdrawing La Colina as a proposed con- nector road. Gregory Hile, 5000 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, presented the Com- munity Preservation Committee's (La Colina area) position as con- tained in his letter to Council dated March 3, 1986, received by Council. He requested that La Colina be removed as a connector to "Future Road." Mr. Hile responded to Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli that he has not spoken with anyone at the County regarding future plans for La Colina and would be willing to work with Tustin in doing so. Stephen Johnson, 420 West Main Street, expressed concerns on the East Tustin Plan relative to schools (suggesting the City partici- pate in the development agreement with TUSD and TIC); finance (he felt the report does not identify initial capital expenses or fund sources for construction of public improvements, property tax reve- nue estimates are incorrect, and there is no reference to financing water service facilities)~ and public improvements (he urged Coun- cil require TIC construction of public improvements as development progresses). Neil Harkleroad, 2252 Lichen Lane, expressed doubts that property taxes, sales tax revenue from the Auto Center, and income from new residences in the East Tustin area will pay for the cost of City services to same. He stated the report does not provide answers, it provides options for financing capital costs. He felt that some costs will have to be paid by the City, and some costs by other people. Allen Staniforth, 1651 La Colina, spoke in opposition to La Colina being a connector road through East Tustin. Judy Almquist, 2281 Pavillion Drive, presented a petition contain- ing approximately 500 signatures in opposition to the East Tustin Specific Plan. ~'TY COUNCIL MINUTES . ~ge 5, 3-3-86 Jeffrey Oderman, Rutan and Tucker, 611 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, spoke on behalf of the "Committee for Compatibility," a group of 200 homeowners in North Tustin area adjoining Sector 8 opposed to the East Tustin Specific Plan in its current form. He summarized a letter to Council dated March.3; 1986, and highlighted changes to the plan which would appease residents' concerns and thereby effect withdrawal of their opposition. Barry Pasternak, 10941 Coronel, suggested the City contact the County in an effort to develop a coordinated plan for La Colina so that residents and property owners can see impacts of the total picture, rather than on a piecemeal basis. Sally Yunt, 12061 Browning Avenue, complained that County area residents were not consulted in the three-year planning process for East Tustin. She stated that the changes requested by the various community gPoups will provide a smooth transition between the newer and older areas. William Hayward, 12612 Lemona Lane, suggested revision of the Plan to eliminate extension of Jamboree north of Irvine Boulevard. Mayor Greinke recessed the meeting at 9:15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:32 p.m. with all members present. Monica Kollman, 1941 La Colina, suggested an alternative circula- tion system within the new community so that La Colina is not extended and existing neighborhoods are not affected. She encour- aged preservation of the Red Hill landmark and the inhabitant wild- life. Jane Portera, 1867 Cocksrow Lane, expressed concern that Irvine Boulevard and Bryan Avenue will be overburdened with traffic if roads north of La Colina are deleted from the plan. Alicia Francis, 1792 San Juan. Street, stated that if the upper east-west connectors are deleted, residents south of La Colina will suffer. Bill Ordway, 2042 Inwood Lane, stated he felt it was atrocious that the County' does not have regional planning to deal with impacts for developments such as East Tustin, whose impacts will be felt everywhere. Albert Mesch, 1781 Windsor Lane, requested Council reconsider east-west circulation routes in the East Tustin Specific Plan to lessen impacts on Foothill, Lower Lake Drive, and La Colina. He presented a petition containing approximately 250 signatures of residents requesting same. Shapleigh Kimes, 2112 La Colina Drive, felt that the same allevia- tion problems should take place in Sector 8 as in Sector 9 such as clustering of homes, lot size, and one-story height limitation. He also noted traffic as a primary issue, and he suggested waiting until completion of the Bottleneck and other traffic studies prior to extending La Colina through East Tustin. John Millspaugh, 12292 Ranchwood Road, stated that with the recom- mended deletion of Racquet Hill Drive as a connector, Future Road (Jamboree) does not have a function unless La Colina is extended through. He spoke in opposition to the extension of La Colina cit- ing increased traffic, access problems from cross streets between Ranchwood and Newport, and safety hazards for school children. Jeff Newland, 1869 La Colina, questioned the density and recom- mended removal of the golf course to lower same. He wondered where access to the golf course will take place. If at the end of La Coltna, it will cause extreme congestion. He stated that the County Master Plan has deleted La Colina extension beyond where it is now and hopes that's honored in the future. He felt Myford could handle traffic movement better than Future Road with less impact on Tustin. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 3-3-86 Arthur Silva, 1088 Irvine Boulevard, spoke in opposition on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee. He felt the increased demands for utilities, police and fire services, flood control, schools, and traffic will c.reate an over-congested, blighted area in the-County. He questioned water quality of new wells in East Tustin, since existing wells are being subjected to pesticide con- trols. He concluded that Tustin should be prepared to adopt a policy of "slow" or "no growth" through a voter referendum. At Mayor Greinke's request, the Community Development Director clarified that if the total East Tustin acreage is divided into the total 7,950 units, the overall density is less than 5 units per acre. He quoted density figures for each sector and stated the maximum density of 25 units per acre is on the east side of the golf course within the Browning Flight Corridor. Brian Brutcher, 1501 Sierra Alta Drive, asked the following ques- tions: 1) Have any joint County/City traffic studies been conducted on La Colina extension; and if not, when will they be prepared or completed; 2) If project funding falls short, who will pay for deficit (the City or area taxpayers); will subject area eventually be annexed into the adjoining City area; 3) Is there a-corporate agreement with City and TIC for funding if revenues fall short, who would make provisions of such an agreement, are they public; 4) What are exact provisions/limitations regarding what TIC can build in the area; 5) Can the entire matter be placed on a public referendum to be decided upon by the public vote, and what are the procedural guidelines for same? Cliff Polston, 1357 Sierra Alta Drive, spoke in favor Of the East Tustin Planned Community. He felt more energy should be directed at the Cgunty level regarding La Colina. He stated the golf course will serve as a buffer and he trusts TUSD and TIC will work out any difference~ to the benefit of the City. Judy Malueg, 10962 Bent Tree Road, stated she is definitely a Tustini%e, spoke favorably of Tustin and its unique character of mixing the old with the new. She presented a petition which was presented to the Planning Commission a few weeks ago containing 259 signatures from the Lemon Heights, Lower Lake, Skyline areas who are concerned about traffic in the Lower Lake area. Scott Daniels, 1321 Lucinda Way, stated he does not see why con- nector roads are needed into East Tustin and felt the golf course would serve as a good buffer. He expressed concern with access onto La Coli~a being limited to local street intersections and com- mercial driveways. Janine Harmon, 12232 Ranchwood Road, spoke on behalf of the Foot- hill Community Association (FCA). She stated that matters pertain- ing to minimum site standards, lot size and unit transfers into Sector 8, clustering, and height restrictions which have been agreed to by TIC and the City should become part of the written documents in the EIR. She thanked City staff for their time in compiling answers to questions raised in public testimony. Ms. Harmon stressed the unifying theme of a regional transportation system as a most necessary aspect of southern Orange County. She aske~ if there has been a correction to question M28 raised by TIC which indicates that parklands below Bryan will satisfy a portion of the park requirement in the specific plan. She proposed amend- ing the circulation element to not extend La Colina since it is not on the County's master plan of arterial highways. She wondered if there is a population increase in the specific plan, will there be an increase to the number of park acres as a minimum requirement. She closed by stating that there is still one outstanding issue raised by FCA regarding specific site standards which has not been answered. ~'TY COUNCIL MINUTES , ~ge 7, 3-3-86 Carol. Shrider, 12172 Ranchwood Road, President of FCA, stated that City and County residents share the arterial circulation problem. One goal of the plan is to relieve north-south traffic presently congested on the freeway system and surface streets via Future Road and Myford Road, and ultimately the Eastern 'Transportation Corri- dor. However, recommendations from the recently concluded Bottle- neck Study to relieve east-west traffic will not be forthcoming for a few months. She requested, a delay in land use development to allow phasing in of proper arterial circulation solutions prior to reaching a deadlock, and suggested phased development in pace wfth ' adequate arterial roads. Julia Gibson, 10941 Lake Court.Road, expressed concerns regarding the connector coads.. She suggested more thought be put into plans for north/south freeway traffic n~vement to minimize through com- muter traffic. She requested designation of the regional park's northern.boundary line, park entrances, and parking areas for park users. Nadine Lundburg, 12582 Southwest Ranchwood Road, requested that Sector 9 be given the same considerations as Sector 8, i.e., one- story height limitation. She stated that if La Colina is extended, residents on Shelterwood and Southwest Ranchwood Road will be locked in. Jeffrey McElderry, 10351 Mira Vista, read a letter dated January 24, 1986, which was received at the January 27, 1986, Plan- ning Commission meeting. The letter expressed approval of the East Tustin Specific Plan in concept with reservations pertaining to meeting original goals, commercial base, revenue generators, and Myford Road overpass. He felt some opponents specifically want to delay the plan. He stated he personally feels the overall plan is beautiful. Art Hunter, 12521 Wedgewood .Circle, President of Homeowners Asso- ciation, asked what consideration is being given to the 57 resi- dents o~ the'newest development in the area on Wedgewood Circle. Bill Bangert, 2105 E. Lemon Heights Drive, FCA membership committee chairman, raised the issue of fire protection services. He felt the Skyline facility would not be safe. He questioned who would be responsible for the regional park. He felt that the County does not adequately care for existing facilities at Irvine Regional Park and questioned their ability to take on more responsibility. He asked if the 148 homes deleted for the park would be transferred to another sector or completely deleted from the project. Gerald Feldman, 13191 Wickshire Lane, representing Bellewick Com- munity Association Board of Governors, expressed approval and sup- port of the East Tustin Specific Plan and recommended ratification by Council. He spoke favorably of TIC for meeting with the various associations, allowing input into the planning process to rectify areas which were felt interfered with neighborhood compatibility, and looking at suggestions for integration of new development with existing neighborhoods. Ronald H. White, 14431 Raintree Road, former member of the Tustin Planning Commission, spoke in favor of the East Tustin Specific Plan. He felt the opportunities and safeguards it contains will insure a quality community which is of real benefit. He high- lighted positive elements of the plan, noting accompanying chal- lenges to implement same. John Green~ 11751 Outlook Lane, s'uggested the plan be referred back to the Planning Commission for answers to questions raised this evening, and then brought back to Council for a vote. John Norwit, 10811 Skyline Drive, asked if safety studies have been conducted concerning Skyline and Foothill should Lower Lake and Foothill be extended to Jamboree. There being no other speakers on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 11:02 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 3-3-86 Council/staff discussion followed on whether to respond to some questions now or to continue the hearing to March 17 and respond to all questions at that point. The City Attorney suggested a brief recess for staff and consultants to consult on the matter. Mayor Grei'nke recessed the meeting at 11:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:23 p.m. with all members present. Mayor Greinke stated that the Community Development Director would answer as many questions as possible, with written responses to follow. The Community Development Director stated that each consultant would respond to questions this evening within their areas of con- cern. In addition, a text of written questions and responses will be available at the next Council meeting for public review. Larry Webb, Project Manager, stated that areas of particular con- cern would be highlighted rather than addressing each question in detail since written responses will be forthcoming. He noted that a complete set of "Responses to Comments" at the Planning Commis- sion level is available at the library and City Hall for public review. He pointed out that the majority of comments being addressed this evening were dealt with in subject document. For purposes of clarification, and particularly because many have not taken the opportunity to review subject document, consultants will elaborate on some questions in general format. Mr. Webb introduced Fred Greve, Mestre Greve Associates, who con- ducted the acoustical analysis for EIR 85-2. Mr. Greve responded on the noise, issue along Future Road alignment and how ~t will impact the residential area (mostly on Pavillion Drive). There was some confusion presented by Mr. Oderman when he quoted existing and future noise levels at 40 CNEL and 60 CNEL, respectively. Although referenced in the EIR, 40 CNEL is the bottom noise limit expected in that area and may be higher due to helicopter fly-bys, etc. ~ixty (60) CNEL is an unmitigated noise level. In addition to the recommendation for a sound wall/berm along Jamboree Road, homes will be built along Jamboree to intervene with the line of sight between existing homes and Jamboree. It is expected noise levels will be lowered anywhere between 5-10 deci- bels. The result in that. area would be between 50-55 CNEL, which are considered to be acceptable and significantly less than the City goal of 60 CNEL. Stan Hoffman, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, fiscal and financial consultant, reiterated that in terms of process, the fiscal and financial analyses was done at a conceptual level. Phasing plans used in the analyses were not specific. Therefore, it is part of the development agreement and must be approved before anything can proceed. This specific monitoring program was designed because it was felt the process would be lengthy and that kind of control was needed. Also, a range of funding mechanisms was studied so that costs would be borne by East Tustin residents, i.e.,' assessment districts, landscaping and lighting districts, and various fees/charges directly related to those residences. Those particular mechanisms have not been adopted at this point and are also part of the devel- opment agreement. Other specific comments will be addressed in written detail at the March 17 meeting. Terry Austin, Austin Foust & Associates, traffic consultants, stated that principal issues relate {o the Bottleneck Study and east-west connectors. The east-west connector issue has two com- ponents, local and regional. The local component deals with neigh- borhood continuity, and the regional component deals with through traffic. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ~ te 9, 3-3-86 Comments were made that because of the Bottleneck Study and Eastern Transportation Corridor Study, there is great uncertainty for traf- fic planning on a regional level in the area. To help in that regard, traffic data in the EIR talks about traffic shares. Great effort has gone into identifying all roadways connecting East Tustin to adjacent areas as local vs. regional traffic. In the northern connections {Lower Lake/Foothill), a component of through traffic has been identified which is a concern not only to adjacent residents, but also to Council as far as East Tustin is concerned. It has been suggested that the County and City look at the issue of through traffic on those.streets. ~r. Austin sug- gested Tustin conduct a joint study with the County, after comple- tion of the Bottleneck Study, of those northerly connections to determine how through traffic can be minimized. On La Colina there has been some confusion with respect to the con- nection between Browning and the Specific Plan area to the exten- sion of Jamboree. After research, the County 'has found that it deleted La Colina from their Master Plan of Arterial Highways in 1983 and neglected to advise Tustin. Therefore, that connection is still on Tustin's-circulation plan. The Specific Plan has never recommended that La Colina be four lanes. In the unincorporated area, La Colina is designated as a secondary arterial (four lanes). Presently, of course, it is only two lanes. The Specific Plan suggests making La Colina a two-lane connector. Mr. Austin outlined the following three options for La Colina: 1) 2) 3) Leave the connection as a secondary arterial, and request the County amend their plan to conform with Tustin's circulation plan. This option is not recommended because it opens up the possibility of four lanes, and would be better left as a Bottleneck issue. Leave the connection as a two-lane collector~ and conduct a study which could be included in the study for the two north- erly connections. Delete the connection and still study the two northern connec- tors to determine whether to reconnect La Colina as a local collector. As a local collector it would not need to appear on the City circulation plan. Options 2 and 3 relate to one of the mitigation measures noted in the Specific Plan, namely to study means of reducing through traf- fic on La Colina. Options 2 and 3 are somewhat comparable. They would allow a joint study with the County on issues of through traffic after completion of the Bottleneck Study and provide a better idea as to how much through traffic this part of the circulation system should carry. Mr. Austin responded to Mayor Pro Tem S~ltarelli that deletion of La Colina would not influence the Bottleneck Study. One alterna- tive in subject study is to make La Colina an arterial far beyond what it is today. If indeed that alternative is selected, it would drastically change what is done now. Regarding the traffic requirement for Jamboree, figures indicate that a six-lane arterial is needed on Jamboree and Myford. The County Master Plan of Arterial Highways clearly states that one role of a major arterial is to carry some regional traffic in addi- tion to local traffic. That is how a major arterial is designated and the volumes seen definitely need that capacity. Roger Seitz, Vice President of Urban Planning, The Irvine Company, addressed questions on land use issues of Jamboree. He noted that one underlying goal in the planning process was to develop a qual- ity community. The location of Future Road was a generator of most alternatives studied in terms of its relationship between the golf CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10, 3-3-86 course community, adjacent land that could be developed, and exist- ing communities. Its current location represents an optimum balance between providing development opportunity and compatibility with existing and new development. The golf course/community are the centerpiece of the plan's entire southern sector. With respect to the character of Jamboree, that will be determined by road design, parkway and median landscaping, and adjacent devel- opment, as well as other road features which will benefit the entire area. Mr. Seitz requested a list of the 45 golf courses bisected by road- ways. He stated that TIC would never willfully or purposely hinder development of such a quality course by placing a road all the way through it. The plan is comprehensive and allows Sector 7 to be developed into a fine centerpiece community, and compromising that would be a very big mistake. As recommended by the Community Development Director, it was moved by Greinke~ seconded by Hoesterey, to continue consideration of the following to March 17, 1986: R£~4)LUI'ION NO. 86-28 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 85-2 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. RESOLUI'IO~ NO. 86-29 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AND DIAGRAM OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND 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) R~SOtUTIOM NO. 86-30 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1b, AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPO- RATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND 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). RESOLUTION NO. 86-31 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1c, AMENDING THE SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPO- RATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND 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" All'ACHED HERETO). OP. DI~C£ NO. g66 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, REZONING FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/RESI- DENTIAL; PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL; PLANNED COMMUNITY/MIXED USE AND PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNI- TIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND 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). CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ~e 1l, 3-3-86 RESOLUTION NO. 86-32 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION, BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, SECTIONS 1.0 AND 2.0 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8}. ORDINANCE NO. 967 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING SECTION 3.0 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8) AND EXHIBIT "C" AS THE LAND USE PLAN. The motion carried 5-0. 81 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2a - RESOLUTION NO. 86-27 The Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the inter-com dated March 3, 1986, prepared by the Community Development Department, noting that the Planning Commission has recommended adoption of subject Circulation Element. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, the Community Development Director clarified that the Circulation Element is for the entire community, with the exception of East Tustin which is contained in the General Plan Amendments of the preceding public hearing. The only real change is upgrading Irvine Boulevard between Newport and Browning to a six-lane arterial vs. the present four lanes within existing right-of-way. Regarding the extension of Newport Avenue, the plan adequately addresses the rail crossing at Newport's terminus to Edinger Avenue. Whether it be over, at-grade, or whatever, is subject to PUC final determination when the application is filed. The Community Development Director responded to Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli that the reconr~endation is that Irvine Boulevard be changed to six lanes between Newport and Tustin Ranch Road only, and that it remain at four lanes between Newport and SR-55 cross- ing. Terry Austin, Austin-Foust Associates, stated that Irvine Boulevard between Newport and the 55 freeway is adequate for six lanes. How- ever, it will require removal of parking. The section of Irvine between Newport and Browning is a four-lane primary arterial on City and County plans which means lower design standards. There is not adequate right-of-way for a major arterial, but there is enough right-of-way for six lanes within a primary arterial. Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli expressed concern regarding Irvine Boule- vard between Newport and the freeway. He stated it could create a long-term commitment to either remove parking, which would greatly impact businesses, and/or remove medians, which would be detri- mental to the City's beautification. Mayor Greinke opened the public hearing at 11:54 p.m. Mr. Austin responded to questions from Janine Harmon, 12232 Ranch- wood Road, on the matter. John Norman Butler was informed by the Community Development Direc- tor that the Circulation Element is a 15-20 year long-range plan. Its passage this evening means Irvine Boulevard would be restriped · only at such time that Council decided it is necessary. Jane Portera, 1867 Cocksrow, stated that "the Foothill organization has blanketed the area of Tustin with maps showing the alternative connectors through the Foothill area. This is the prime source of information for many homeowners of the 1trine Boulevard to Bryan area. These are the people who have not attended this meeting. The obvious conclusion is that the people in the 1trine Boulevard to Bryan area approve of these connectors and see no reason to pro- test. If these people realized that all other east-west routes would be eliminated and that Irvine would carry all of the new CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12, 3-3-86 VI. traffic they would probably be here in force. Please remember this silent group of people and solve the east-west traffic problem before more traffic is added to the problem." There were no other speakers on the matter. The. public.hearing was closed at 12:00 midnight. It was moved by Ed~ar~ seconded b~ Hoesterey, to adopt the follow- ing: R£~LUTION NO, 86-27 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2a, AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN Councilman Edgar spoke in favor of the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli expressed concern that because the Bottle- neck Study shows Irvine as a possible future "super" street, this action could possibly be looked at in the wrong light. Therefore, he considered the action premature. A substitute motion was made b~ Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to continue the matter to March 1~, 1986. Terry Austin, Austin-Foust Associates, responded that if the super street alternative is selected through the Bottleneck Study, Irvine Boulevard would be more than a six-lane primary arterial and prop- erty acquisition would definitely be required. A six-lane primary kept within the existing right of way does not immediately allow for that to become a super street. Councilman Edgar spoke in opposition to the substitute motion. Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli stated that his concerns were lessened by Mr. Austin's comments and withdrew his opposition to adoption of the resolution. Mayor Greinke was in favor 'of continuance due to the late hour. The substitute motion failed, Edgar, Hoesterey, Saltarelli opposed. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to adopt the following: RE~UTION NO. 86-27 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2a, AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN The Community Development Director responded to Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli that any element of _the General Plan can be amended by resolution up to four times per year. The motion carried 3-2, Greinke and Kennedy opposed. 56 PUBLIC INPUT 1. ~:~:NERAJ. MUNICIPAL ELE~ION - APRIL 8, 1980 John Norman Butler, 832-6002, stated he is a candidate in the upcoming election for member of the City Council. He complemented Mayor Greinke and Councilwoman Kennedy on the excellent job they have done. He stated he is available to transport the elderly and handicapped to the polls. He requested an extension of the period for political sign posting from 30 to 60 days, election consolida- tion, and a mass publication sponsored by the City or candidates to increase public awareness, encourage people to register to vote, and lower taxpayer costs. 44) FIRE HYDRANTS AT 400 EST ~IN STREET Richard Vining, 400 West Main Street, stated there are two fire hydrants in front of his home and he requested information on plans f 'Y COUNCIL MINUTES P:ge 13, 3-3-86 for removal of the old fire hydrant. The Public Works Director explained that once the old water main is retired, the older fire plug will be removed. 107 VII. CONSENT P..AI.,ENOAR It was moved by Hoestere¥, .seconded by Saltarelli, to approve the entire Consent Calendar. Regarding Item No. 5, Councilman Hoesterey requested appropriate sign- ing to route people to polling places where there has been a change. Mayor Greinke suggested election officials be identified with name badges. The motion carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 18, 1986, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $309,305.17 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $137,917.86 50 e REJECTION OF CiJ~IM NO. 86-1; CLAII~IT: GARY WILLIAI~ DICKEY; DATE OF LOSS: 12/5/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 1/22/86 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 85-47; CLAIMANT: SOLOM MCNULTY; DATE OF LOSS: 8/29/85; DATE FILED Will4 CITY: 10/24/85 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 RESOLUTION NO. 86-33 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES, APPOINTING PRECINCT BOARD MEMBERS AND FIXING COMPENSATION FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986, HERETOFORE CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 85-123 OF THE CITY COUNCIL Adopted ResolUtion No. 86-33 as recommended by the City Clerk. RESOLUTION NO. 86-34 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSEC- TION OF MOULTON PARKWAY AND MYFORD ROAD AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Adopted Resolution No. 86-34 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 94 e RESOLUTION NO. 86-35 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ~OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REAL EXTENSION FROM TUSTIN AUTO CENTER TO MYFORD ROAD AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Adopted Resolution No. 86-35 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 95 INSTALI. ATION OF NO PARKING SIGNS ON SYCAI~ORE AVENUE ~TWEEN RED HILL AVENUE & NEWPORT AVENUE FOR STREET SWEEPING PURPOSES Authorized the installation of no parking signs for street sweeping purposes on Sycamore Avenue between Red Hill Avenue and Newport Avenue to restrict on-street parking from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Mondays as recommended by the Engineering Oi vi si on. 75 VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - ORDINANCE NO. 964 AND RESOLUTION NO. 86-14 Following consideration of the inter-com dated March 3, 1986, pre- pared by the Con~nunity Development Director, it was moved by Ho,stet,y, seconded by Edgar, to continue consideration of the following to allow further review by the Chamber of Commerce: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14, 3-3-86 ORDINANCE NO. 964 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADDING SECTION 5600 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTAB- LISHING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESOLUTION NO. 86-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN NAMING THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT AS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2185 Councilwoman Ken'nedy. stated that the matter has been delayed twice. She felt it best to act on the ordinance now and amend it later, rather than to continue unprotected. Councilman Hoesterey reported on the Chamber's legislative committee wherein the Fire Department was to come back with additional information and expressed an interest to work with the Chamber in certain areas. The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. 102 IX. NEW BUSINESS 1. PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK )EMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (HOU) The City Manager requested continuance of the matter until the County takes action on the MOU. As suggested by the Mayor, it was moved by Greinke seconded by Saltarelli, to approve the Memorandum of Understanding in order to memorialize the County of Orange's commitment that the City of Tustin will participate in review and approval of subject park development and access' plans, subject to County approval. Carried 5-0. 45 86-13 2. PURCHASE OF CO#PUTERIZEO DIAGNOSTIC ENGINE ANALYZER As recommended in the inter-com dated February 24, 1986, prepared by the Engineering Division, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to authorize the purchase of a computerized diagnostic engine analyzer from Allen Group, Santa Ana, in the amount of $15,233.35. The motion carried 5-0. 87 REPORTS 1. PLANNING O)I~I(ISSION ACTIONS - FEBRUARY 24, 1986 It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, to ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of February 24, 1986, with the exception of Item No. 4. Motion carried 5-0. 80 Councilwoman Kennedy raised concerns regarding Item No. 4 - Use Permit 86-7, Northeasterly Corner of 2nd and "C" Streets (185-195 "C" Street) pertaining to density. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to appeal Item No. 4 - Use Permit 86-7. Carried 5-0. 81 2. EXPANSION OF PROPANE COMPANY ADJACENT TO 1021 EDINGER STREET It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report dated March 3, 1986, prepared by the Community Development Department. Motion carried 5-0. 81 3. PLACEMENT OF EDISON COMPANY UTILIl"f POLES It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report prepared by the Director of Public Works/City Engi- neer dated February 26, 1986. Carried 5-0. 104 rTTy COUNCIL MINUTES ~e 1~, 3-3-86 XI. XII. 4.. FROIQ'IER PARK COMPLAINTS It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject reports dated February 26, 1986, prepared by the Chief of Police and the Director of Community- and Administrative Services. The motion carri'ed 5-0. 77 Councilwoman Kennedy requested that Mr. McMahon, who raised ques- tions on the matter at the February 3 meeting,, be forwarded a copy of correspondence on same. OTHER BUSINESS 1. ADJOURNED REGULAR ~ETING FOR CLOSED SESSION - MARCH 7, 1986 As requested by the City Manager, Council concurred to schedule an adjourned regular meeting on Friday, March 7, 1986, at 7:30 a.m. to meet in Closed Session concerning the matter with the City of Irvine. 38 2. CO-SPONSORSHIP BY CIl~ OF COUNCIL CANDIDATE FORUMS - AAUW & CHAMBER 'OF COI~ERCE As requested by Councilwoman Kennedy, it was moved by Edgar, sec- onded by Kennedy, to approve co-hosting with the American Associa- tion of University Women (AAUW) a candidates ~ight with a waiver of fees for use of the Council Chambers. Carried 5-0. 41 It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, to approve co-hosting with the Tustin Chamber of Commerce a candidates night with a waiver of fees for use of the Clifton C. Miller Community Center. Councilwoman Kennedy raised the issue that the Chamber's function is a fund-raiser, whereas the AAUW function is strictly for the public's benefit. Mayor Greinke felt both organizations should receive the same consideration. Following Council discussion, the motion carried 4-0, Kennedy abstained. 41 RECESS - REDEVELOPIWENT - AD4OURNMENT At 12:42 a.m. (March 4) it was moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, to recess to the Redevelopment Agency; and thence adjourn to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Friday, March 7, 1986, at 7:30 a.m.; thence to a Budget Workshop on March 10, 1986, at 7:00 p.m.; and thence to the next Regular Meeting on March 17, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 5-0. MAYOR CITY 'CLERK