Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 04-21-86MIMUTE$ OF A REGULAR ~ETI~ OF ltl£ CITY COUNCIL OF lllE CITY OF llJSTIN, CALIFORNIA MARCH 17, 1986 II. 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 Hoesterey, and the Invocation was given by Counci 1 woman Kennedy. ROLL CALL Council persons Present: Council persons 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 Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police Royleen A. White, Dir. of Com. & Admin. Srvcs. Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney Edward Knight, Senior Planner Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Roger Harris, Building Official Approximately 300 in the audience III. PROCL.A~TIONS 1. OLIVER VAN HORN - RETIRED I~AINTENANCE EIIPLOYEE Mayor Greinke presented Oliver "Van" Van Horn with a proclamation upon his retirement after 19 years of dedicated City service in the Maintenance Department. Mr. Van Horn thanked the Council. ~ 2. "RED CROSS HDNTH' - I~.RCH, 1986 Sandy Lantell accepted a proclamation from Mayor Greinke desig- nating the n~nth of March, 1986, as "Red Cross Month." Ms. Lantell thanked the Council. 84 3. "~N'S BOWLING WEEK" Mayor Greinke read a proclamation designating March 30-April 5 as Women's Bowling Week." Ramona Clark, President of the Orange County Women's Bowling Association, elaborated on the International Bowling Congress Convention and Tournament. She thanked the Coun- cil for the recognition. ~ Libby Buckley, Tustin organizer for the event, was recognized at Councilwoman Kennedy's request. Ms. Buckley noted that the tourna- ment will run from April 3 through July 1, 1986. IV. CO~NITY NOTES 1. TUSTIN HISTORICAL SOCIETY'S TENTH BIRTHDAY Mayor Greinke announced that the Tustin Historical Society will celebrate its Tenth Anniversary on May 5 with a Victorian Tea. Event details will follow. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 3-17-86 2. DENEP. N. NUNICIPAI. FIECTION - APRIL 8, 19B6 Mayor Greinke encouraged everyone to exercise their right to vote in the City's General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, April 8, 1986. 3. REGISTRATION OPEN FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS The Mayor announced that registration is open for spring recreation classes through the Community Services Department. 4. L. P._ REPERTORY COgPANY - 'THE UNINVITED" Mayor Greinke announced that tickets are now available for L. P. Repertory Company's 1986 production, "The Uninvited," through the Community Services Department. 5. SENIOR CENTER GRANT ~LLOCATZON The Mayor announced with immense pride that the City has been awarded the 1986 Regional Competitive Grant from the State of California in the amount of $275,000 towards construction of the Tustin Multiservice Senior Center. Royleen White, Director of Community and Administrative Services, was applauded. She thanked her staff and members of the community who have been very supportive. AGENDA ORDER VI. At Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli's suggestion, the Agenda Order was revised for the public's convenience. The following items were heard at this point in the agenda. PUBLIC INPUT 1. CURBS AT 340 WEST )lAIN STREET Richard Vining, 400 West Main Street, requested that the curbs at 340 West Main Street be repaired quickly. Mayor Greinke requested the Director of Public Works rectify the matter. 92 2. MAIN STREET ZONING STUDY 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 homes need with residential uses only and not any commercial use. To eliminate any further confusion, it was moved by Greinke, sec- onded 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 Element in the City General Plan to protect sites and structures of architectural, historical or cul- tural significance. The motion carried 5-0. 109 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. APPEN. OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE PERMIT 86-6, 13042 NEWPORT AVENUE, UNIT A The staff report and recommendation were presented by the Community Development Director as contained in the inter-com dated March 17, 1986, prepared by the Community Development Department. Mayor Greinke opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 3-17-86 Ron Bamburger, La Mancha Development Company, 11440 San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, spoke in favor of Use Permit 86-6 for an off-site beer and wine license for the 7,Eleven Corporation at the southeast corner of Newport and Walnut. He defined the chain's successful marketing concept and goals, and offered mitigations to the following concerns: 1) The proposed location is very close to the high school, it will contribute to student delinquency, and become an undesirable hangout. 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 beer and wine; 7-Eleven is willing to operate the store with no video games, and post/ enforce no loitering signs; and the site was selected on basis of the motoring public and surrounding residents, not high school students. Tustin High's principal and the Superinten- dent of Schools were contacted and declined comment. Mr. Bam- burger added that a local franchisee on McFadden Avenue was recently recognized for community involvement. 2) Residents in immediate vicinity will be negatively impacted by 7-Eleven. Mr. Bamburger submitted a petition signed by 44 residents most impacted who are in favor of the proposed license. 3) Too many licenses in area and there truly is not a legitimate need. Mr. Bamburger briefly explained their marketing research indi- cates that the proposed site justifies the intended use. Mr. Bamburger summarized by stating that 7-Eleven recognizes and shares concerns raised by Parents Who Care and hopes to mitigate same. The petition demonsrates that residents most affected by beer and wine license do want convenience (along with senior citi- zens who live in immediate vicinity). He requested the opportunity to offer a needed service to the community while acting as a responsible, concerned business entity. Mike Austin, 24071 Lindley, District Manager for 7-Eleven in South Orange County, reiterated Mr. Bamburger's comments and spoke in favor of Use Permit 86-6. Robert Heard, 13517 Fairview, Garden Grove, Area Loss Prevention Manager for Southland Corporation, described the "Come of Age" pro- gram from its inception to today. He provided Council with pack- ages of material which participants receive, and detailed various aspects of the training program. Martine 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, reviewed the points of opposition to issuance of a beer and wine license at subject location as contained in their letter to Council dated March 12, 1986. Jack Miller, 17352 Parker Drive, spoke in opposition to Use Permit 86-6, citing the social problems associated with alcohol abuse. A1 Waterson, Pastor of Aldersgate United Methodist Church, 1201 S.E. Irvine Boulevard, spoke in opposition to Use Permit 86-6 as a parent of two children who 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 Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli commended the Southland Corporation as one of the great corporations of America and a responsible member of Tustin's business community. However, Council did set parameters for granting use permits and has denied various uses and zoning around the high school specifically to protect students. It'was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy., to affirm the findings of the Planning Co,,,ission and deny Use Permit 86-6. Councilwoman Kennedy agreed, adding that there seems to be new awareness among the public that Council be more careful on these uses. Councilmembers Hoesterey and Edgar concurred. Mayor Greinke commended the Southland Corporation and spoke in favor of the appeal. He stated that he could not support any fur- ther restrictions on the free marketplace. The motion carried 4-1, Grelnke opposed. 81 Mayor Greinke left the Council dais. 3. APPEAL OF USE PIiRMIT 86-7 - OFFICE BUILDING AT 185-195 "CN STREET The Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the inter-com dated March 17, 1986, prepared by the Community Development Department. The .Community Development Director responded to Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli that the reduction in compact parking spaces from 47% to 30% overall has not physically changed the building square footage, with structural coverage of the lot approximately 55-60% on the second floor, and approximately 25% on the ground floor. Mayor Greinke resumed the Chair. Councilwoman Kennedy expressed concerns regarding aesthetics of the area relative to building height. Councilman Hoesterey raised questions regarding accessibility at' the point of ingress/egress relative to placement of compact park- ing spaces. The Director responded that staff feels there is more than adequate drive aisle width. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Greinke at 8:18 p.m. Craig Curl, applicant, 1717 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, spoke in favor of Use Permit 86-7. He asked Council to approve the project as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Curl responded to Mayor Greinke that he has not discussed proj- ect plans with owners of Ginny's antique store, Mr. and Mrs. Flaherty. The Community Development Director added that the Flaherty's did view plans in City Hall but did not speak at the Planning Commission hearing on the matter. There were no other speakers on the matter, and the public hearing was closed at 8:24 p.m. It was then moved by Saltarelli, ~econded by Greinke. to uphold the findings of the Planning Co,,m, lsslon as contained in Resolution No. 2306 and approve Use Permit 86-7. The Community Development Director responded to Councilman Hoesterey regarding parking lot plans and parking, space require- ments. The applicant responded to Council questions regarding pro- posed tenants, level of client use, and parking plans. Councilwoman Kennedy expressed delight that the building height is 30 feet. The motion carried 5-0. 81 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 3-17-86 CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF EAST TUSTXN PLANNED COld, UNITY - RESOLU- TXONS NO. 86-28, 86-29, 86-30, 86-31, & 86-32, AND ORDINANCES NO. 966 & 967 Mayor Greinke announced that the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed at the March 3, 1986, meeting. The Community Development Director stated that the majority of questions raised on March 3 have been formally addressed in the "Response to Comments" document, and in the latest issue available at the back tables of the Chambers, in the Community Development Department, the Library, and Police Department .counters. The following correspondence was received and entered into the record: Letter from Jeffrey M. Oderman, Rutan & Tucker; letter from Clayton H. Parker, Parker & Covert; and letter from Gregory A. Hile, Good, Wildman, Hegness & Walley, all dated March 17, 1986. He summarized eight major areas of concern and amendments/mitiga- tions recommended by the Steering Committee (composed of The Irvine Company and City staff). Reference: Inter-com dated March 17, 1986, to City Council from the Community Development Department entitled, "East Tustin Planned Community." {Items are numdered as they appear in reference inter-com.) Regarding the four major roadway connections from East Tustin into the north County area, {Lower Lake, Foothill, Racquet Hill, and La Colina) - staff still recommends deletion of Racquet Hill Drive as a connector to Future Road. It is proposed that Council include the following mitigation measure to EIR 85-2: Prior to any connections at Lower Lake or Foothill, a joint County/City study will be prepared to address the need for these connections. If such a need exists, the impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with these connections will be addressed as well as who will pay for them, and how they will be done. If such a need does not exist, the roads will not be connected. 2) Regarding development in Sector 8 around Pavillion Drive, con- cerns were raised regarding location of Jamboree (Tustin Ranch Road), its relationship to a peninsula portion of Sector 8, density, compatibility with existing adjoining areas, overall density of East Tustin, and provisions for schools within East Tustin. It is recommended that Tustin Ranch Road be moved easterly a minimum of 1,000 feet from the closest residence on Pavillion/ Saltair. Sector 8 policies must be amended to allow a provi- sion for medium density residential. Also, a provision will be included for a continuous noise barrier along the roadway (to consist of berms, soundwalls, residences, and combinations thereof). These provisions will more than adequately address concerns and insure that any noise impacts on the closest home- owner will not be greater than 55 CNEL. It is also recommended that noise levels not exceed 55 CNEL to the closest home on Pavillion Drive/Saltair. It is recomended that the first row of homes abutting North Tustin be limited to single-story structures with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and that maximum density be 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Clustering will not be allowed in Sector 8, and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 30 feet adjoining existing residential areas. The overall number of units will 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 Colina not be extended into East Tustin, it is felt that the extension of La Colina to Tustin Ranch Road is necessary. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 3-17-86 Staff has researched and stands corrected that La Colina is not on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Therefore, it is proposed that La Colina 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 Director referenced a letter to Council dated March 17, 1986, from Gregory Hile representing the Community Preservation Committee. Subject letter requests wording in the plan that the La Colina 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 a no connection alternative be reviewed. Staff has responded to Mr. Hile 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 was circulated regarding the "Red Hill Alert." Subject flyer unfortunately misled many to believe that approval of the East Tustin Specific Plan and the La Colina connection would obligate Council to advocate it as an alternative in the Bottleneck Study as a future arterial roadway to help relieve Irvine Boulevard and/or the Santa Ana Freeway. He again empha- sized that La Colina has been downtuned to a local residential street, and hoped that this information will be circulated back to the community. The Director then spoke regarding the agreement between The Irvine Company (TIC) and the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) and the controversial Planning Commission's addition to the condition which essentially gives the City final authority to determine if the subdivisdion map could be recorded in 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 letter from Clayton H. Parker dated March 17, 1986. 7) The amendments contained in this item are of a "housekeeping" nature. 8) This item refers to the rear yard setback as explained earlier. The Community Development Director made final comments that staff has no objection to, and recommends, removal of La Colina from the map; and that verbage indicate that the extension will be connected at a future date with actual design and l'ocation subject to builder maps at such point in time. The Director explained two other concerns raised by TIC in written memo form relative to parking. They are asking reconsideration of the parking requirement for two-bedroom apartments which was increased from 1.8 spaces to 2 covered assigned spaces per unit by the Planning Commission. TIC is requesting that the two-bedroom/ two-bath units remain at the 2 spaces/unit ratio; but that the two-bedroom/one-bath units be decreased to 1.75 spaces/unit. Staff offers no opinion/recommendation since it is outside the Planning Commission's original recommendation. Secondly, the on-street parking credit for.single-family homes in the medium-low, medium, and medium-high zones was changed from 100% to 50% on-street guest parking by the Planning Commission. TIC is requesting that if they provide a much higher ratio of guest park- ing from the requirement of 1/2 to 3/4 space per unit overall for a whole subdivision, that they again be reallocated the rights to do the 100% on-street guest ratio. Councilwoman Kennedy requested Council's indulgence in reopening the public testimony portion of the public hearing. The motion by Kennedy to reopen the public testimony portion of the public hear- SITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7,' 3-17-86 lng allowing only speakers who have not given testimony previously and limiting comments to exactly three minutes died for lack of a second. Two additional attempts by Councilwoman Kennedy to allow speaker to address the Council failed. Following Council discussion, it was moved by Edgar, seconded ~y Greinke, to adopt the following, including amendments contained ~n the memo dated March 17, 1986, prepared by the Community Develop- ment Department: RESOLUTION NO. 86-28 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF llJSTIN, CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 85-2 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The motion was amended by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoestere~, that La Colina be classified as a four-lane residential street from the City limits to Tustin Ranch Road and that it not be classified as an arterial highway in the EIR. Mayor Greinke was supportive of the two-lane residential street. However, he felt that there is no need for four lanes at this time, and the City should be able to expand within the City to four lanes at such time as the need exists. The motion carried 4-1, osed. 81 It was then moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Greinke, to uphold the findings of the Planning Commission that the parking requirement for two-bedroom apartments be increased from 1.8 to 2 covered assigned spaces per unit; and that on-street guest parking credit for single-family homes in the medium-low, medium, and medium-high zones be set at 50%. Carried 5-0. 81 Councilwoman Kennedy stated that her major concerns are with the plan's density in the medium-low and medium zones; the total number of apartments which will further offset the balance between apart- ments and R-1 homes; the need for higher parkland standards; the questionable appropriateness of the development agreement being approved at a later date; and flood control. The motion by Kennedy to return to the density standard set in 1978 of 4 units per acre for a total of 8,000 units for the entire plan died for lack of a second. In response to Council concerns, the Community Development Director stated that in the East Tustin Specific Plan, all apartments are subject to Conditional Use Permits which requires Planning Commis- sion approval before any construction. Above and beyond that, the development agreement contains a proposal to specifically limit the maximum number of apartments to a percentage. That still is sub- ject to negotiation and subject to a future public hearing. Councilwoman Kennedy requested that Coralee Nev~man, The Irvine Com- pany, communicate with persons who were not permitted to speak. The Community Development Director addressed concerns regarding flood control. In East Tustin, flood control channels must be fully improved as conditions of subdivision. Therefore, the E1 Modena-Irvine Channel will be fully concrete-improved, and will ultimately be under the County's jurisdiction. Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli thanked Mr. Neilsen, President of The Irvine Company, for attending this evening's meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli addressed concerns and issues relative to apartment density, preservation of ridge lines, parklands, financial feasi- bility, and alignment of Tustin Ranch Road. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to accept move- ment of Tustin Ranch Road easterly by another 500 feet provided that design constraints will 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 Mayor Greinke recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:17 p.m. with all members present. Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli withdrew his motion with approval of the second. He stated that The Irvine Company assured him they can design the villages and golf course within constraints of the new alignment. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to accept varying design of Tustin Ranch Road +_ 100 feet. Carried It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, to adopt the following with amendments as contained in the inter-com dated March 17, 1986, prepared by the Community Development Department: RE~OLUTIO# 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. The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed on the issue of density. She stated support of the plan, but not density. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to adopt the following: RE~II~IO# NO. 86-2g - 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) Motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed on the issue of density, but in favor of the plan. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to adopt the follow- ing: RESOLUTIO# 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). Councilwoman Kennedy requested that assurances be built into the plan whereby TIC will meet its commitment as contained on Page 3, Item 4, relative to bicycle/pedestrian facilities. The motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Edgar~ seconded by Hoesterey, to' adopt the follow- ing: 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" ATTACHED HERETO). Carried 5-0. .TY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9; 3-17-86 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, that Ordinance No. 966 have first reading by title only. mmm Carried 5-0. Following first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 966 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 966 be introduced as follows: ORI)INA&iCE Ill). 966 - 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). The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed on density, but in support of the plan. 81 It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Greinke, to adopt the following: 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). ~ At the Community Development Director's request, it was clarified that Council's intent is to physically delete the line on the map, but nmke La Colina a four-lane local residential street, as was requested by the attorney representing the La Colina Homeowners' Association. The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed on density, but in favor of the plan. 81 It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 967 have first reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0. Following first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 967 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 967 be introduced as follows: 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 4-1, Kennedy opposed on density, but in favor of the plan. 81 Mayor Gretnke thanked the North Tustin residents for their input and understanding. Mr. Tom Nielson, President of The Irvine Company, was recognized in the audience. Mr. Nielson expressed appreciation to all for their work and input on the East Tustin Specific Plan. VII. CONSENT CALENOAR It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the entire Consent Calendar. The motion carried 5-0. 1. APROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1986 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,585,309.30 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $148,660.30 5O 3. RESOLUTION NO. 86-36 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICI- PAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986, TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10, 3-17-86 e FREEWAY AGREEMENTS FOR HYFORD RDAD INTERC~NGE IMPROVEMENTS Authorized the Mayor to execute the Freeway Agreement with Cal- Trans for the I-5/Myford Road Interchange Modification Project as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 45; 86-14 Se RESOLtF~ION NO. 86-39 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATION IN THE COUNTY CO- OP PURCHASING PROGRAM Adopted Resolution No. 86-39 as recommended by the Engineering Division. 87 6. RENEI4AL OF ~IAINTEHANCE UNIFORg CONTRJ~CT Renewed the maintenance uniform contract for an additional year at an increased cost of five percent as provided in existing agreement as recommended by the Engineering Division. 45; 86-15 7. ANNUAL RENEWAL OF HEATINO, VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) CONTRACT Renewed the annual Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) contract with Air-Ex Air Conditioning, La Verne, for an additional year at an annual cost of $34,900 as recommended by the Engineering Division. 45; 86-16 Se COOPE~J~TIVE AgrEEMENTS U86-02 & 086-03 Authorized the Mayor to execute subject agreements with the County of Orange for adjustment of water valve boxes; and authorized a supplemental budget appropriation with the Water Enterprise fund in the amount of $11,500 to fund said work as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 45; 86-17/86-18 RESOLUTION NO. 86-40 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO AND PROVIDING TERMS AND CONDI- TIONS FOR RELOCATION OF CERTAIN PIPELINES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY Adopted Resolution No. 86-40 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 104 VI11. IX. ORDZNANCES FOR ADOPTION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - ORDINANCE NO. 964 & RESOLUTION NO. 86-14 As recommended in the Inter-rom dated March 17, 1986, prepared by the Community Development Department, it was moved by Saltarelli~ seconded by Hoesterey, to continue the following to April 7, 1986: 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 The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. 102 OLD BUSINESS 1. NEWPORT AVENUE EXTENSXON TO EDXNGER STREET Following consideration of the inter-rom dated March 11, 1986, pre- pared by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedx, to direct staff to reapp~ to the railroad and Public Utilities Commission for an at-grade cross- ing of Newport Avenue over the AT&SF tracks, and to actively pursue that with all due diligence, including legal action if necessary. CITY COU~ICIL MINUTES Page 11, 3-17-86 Xo NEW 1. At Councilman Edgar's request, the City Manager indicated staff would schedule a meeting with the consultant engineers to review why a grade separation structure at this location is not feasible. The motion carried 5-0. 101 BUSINESS AWARD OF BID -COI. UI~BUS 1USTIN ATHLk-~IC FIELD M RENOVATION: BACK- STOP, DUGOUTS A~ID SIDE FENCING One bid was received for subject project as follows: The Wakefield Company, Irvine $11,800.00 As reconmnended in the inter-com dated March 10, 1986, prepared by the Engineering Division, it was moved by Hoesterey~ seconded by Edgar, to award the contract for subject renovation project to-the Wakefield Company, 1trine, in the amount of $11,800. Carried 5-0. 77 2. AWARD OF BID - COLUMBUS TUSTIN AT~.ETIC FIELD LIGHTINO One bid was received for subject project as follows: David-Richards Construction $88,712.00 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to award contract for subject lighting project to David-Richards Construction, San Bernardino, in the amount of $88,712 as recommended by the Com- munity Services Department in the inter-com dated March 10, 1986. 77 REJECTION OF BIDS - POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING EXPANSION OF OUTSIDE PROPERTY STORAGE AREA Pursuant to the recommendation contained in the inter-com dated February 26, 1986, prepared by the Chief of Police, it was moved .b~ Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to reject all bids received for building expansion of outside property storage area because of lack of available funds. The motion carried 5-0. 82 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DISA4)ILITY RETIREI4ENT & WORKERS COMPEN- SATION PRO,)ECT The Director of Community and Administrative Services responded to Mayor Greinke that the City could join at a later date and benefit from projected reforms. She stated that the League's Employee Relations Committee found that reform through legislature has been unsuccessful because of the lack of solid data. Subject project proposes to produce the data that is essential to reform efforts. It was then moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, to approve parti- cipation in the League's Disability Retirement and Workers Compen- sation Project at a fee of $5,000 as recommended by the Director of Community and Administrative Services in her inter-com dated March 4, 1986. The motion carried 5-0. 79 ORAL REPORT - 1986 TUSTIN TILLER OAYS Mrs. Cherrill Cady outlined problems with the 1985 Tustin Tiller Days and provided an oral report on the 1986 Tustin Tiller Days. She reported that the new applications contain a liability waiver for protection against spoiled food. Mrs. Cady requested $2,000 for required electrical improvements, $6,000 in reserves if needed, and assistance with liability insur- ance coverage. The City Manager indicated staff would report back on the insurance issue. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12, 3-17-86 1) Authorize $2,000 for electrical improvements required for the 1986 Tustin Tiller Days; 2) Authorize reserves in the amount of $6,000 i'f needed; and 3) Direct staff to assist with liability insurance coverage for same. The motion carried 5-0. 34 Mrs. Cady reported she will retire from the Committee in October and has not been successful in recruiting a replacement. Mayor Greinke thanked Mrs. Cady, REPORTS 1. PLANNIg~ COI~ISSION ACTIONS - MARCH 10, 1986 It was moved by Saltarelli~ seconded by Edgar, to appeal Item No. 4 General Plan Amendment 86-2c (Physician's Office Service, Inc., 1101 Sycamore Avenue) from the Planning Commission Action Agenda of March 10, 1986. Carried 5-0. 56 It was moved b Ed~ar~ seconded by Saltarelli, to approve the remainder '6f t~e March 10, 1986, Planning Commission Agenda. Motion carried 5-0. 80 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 1986 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to receive and file subject report dated March 6, 1986, prepared by the Finance Direc- tor. The motion carried 5-0. 50 3. 0CTD BUS PASSENGER SHELTER PROGRAN The Director of Public Works responded to Council that the City would be responsible for installation and maintenance, with actual purchase of the bus shelter units funded federally through OCTD. Councilman Edgar provided information on the matter. Council dis- cussion followed. Council concurred with Councilwoman Kennedy to direct staff to report back on the matter for further Council review (i.e., how many bus shelters Tustin would get, what they look like, and what maintenance costs will be). 67 XlI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION The City Manager requested a Closed Session for discussion of personnel matters. JOINT I~ETIN6 WITH TUSTIN UNIFIEO SOIOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCA- TION The City Manager recommended Council adjourn to March 24, 1986, at 6:30 p.m. for a joint meeting with the Board of Education, Tustin Unified School District. 3. REQUEST FOR STREET REPAIR ON SAN JUAN Councilwoman Kennedy reported a large pot hole on San Juan Street by the Mormon church heading east. She requested the Engineering Division repair same. 4. CORRESPONOENCE FROM BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF TUSTIN FOR ASSISTANCE The City Manager informed Councilwoman Kennedy that staff will address the request from the Boys and Girls Club of Tustin for some assistance. cITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13, 3-17-86 5. AB 2673 - REVISIONS TO BROWN ACT AMENDMENT Councilman Hoesterey reported on proposed legislation (AB 2673) which revises the Brown Act Amendment. It would require that no item be discussed in public by Council unless it appears on the agenda. He felt this would be a serious detriment to the Council. Agenda's public input portion, and hamper the bidding process. It was then moved by Saltarelli~ seconded by Edgar, to support the League of Cities position and oppose Assembly Bill 2673. The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. 61 6. REQUEST FOR STREET REPAIR ON FIRST STREET Mayor Greinke reported two large pot holes directly in front of. Tustin Honda. The Director of Public Works. reminded Council that the City contracts street maintenance and is at the contractor's mercy to get repairs done. 7. NEWPORT AVENUE UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT The Director of Public Works provided a brief status report on formation of the undergrounding district for Newport Avenue. Coun- cil should have a report on the matter in April. 104 XIII. AIMOU~NMENT At 11:01 p.m. it was moved by HoeStere), seconded by Edgar, to recess to the Redevelopment Agency, and thence to a Closed Session for discus- sion of personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957; and thence adjourn to the Adjourned Regular Meeting with the Board of Education, Tustin Unified School District on March 24, 1986, at 6:30 p.m.; and thence to the next Regular Meeting on April 7, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 5-0. MAYOR CITY CLERK