Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 05-06-85MINUTES OF A RESULAR ~ETING OF THE CI~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CN. IFORNIA APRIL 15, 1985 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. Councilman Edgar led the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Invocation was given by Councilwoman Kennedy. II. ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: III. PROC~TIONS Frank H. Greinke, Mayor Richard B. Edgar Ronald B. Hoesterey Ursula E. Kennedy Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor Pro Tem William A. Huston, City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Donald D. Lamm, Com. Development Director Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police Robert S. Ledendecker, Dir. of Public Works Jeffrey C. Kolin, Recreation Superintendent Isabelle McClements, Recreation Coordinator Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Approximately 50 in the audience IV. 1. 'ASSESSMENT & TREATMENT SERVICES CENTER' Mayor Greinke read and presented a proclamation to Mary Ann Miller, President of the Sophisticates, a fund-raising support group for ATSC, in recognition of the services both groups provide to benefit troubled youth in the community. Mrs. Miller expressed thanks to the Mayor and Council. 84 2. 'CANCER CONTROL MONTH" - APRIL, 1985 Helen Edgar received a proclamation designating April, 1985, as "Cancer Control Month." Mrs. Edgar expressed appreciation to the Council, provided information on the American Cancer Society, and reported that Tustin is one of seven cities that surpassed its financial goal. ~ 3. "TUSTIN OLDER AI~RICANS MONTH' - HAY, 1985 A proclamation honoring Tustin senior citizens was read and pre- sented by Mayor Greinke to Isabelle McClements, Recreation Coordi- nator. Mrs. McClements thanked the Council on behalf of all the senior organizations recognized in the proclamation. 84 4. SADDLEBACK CO.UNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT - NORTH CAMPUS Mayor Greinke read and presented a proclamation to William L. Watts, President of Saddleback Community College District, in recognition of its recent action to form two colleges from the former two-campus district. President Watts thanked the Council and Tustin community and extended an invitation to all to attend courses offered by the colleges. ~ PUBLIC HEARING 1. APPEAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 85-6 - 450 WEST FIRST STREET (Continued from April 1, 1985) The Director of Community Development presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the inter-com dated April 15, 1985, prepared by the Community Development Department. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 4-15-85 Building floor plans, site plans, and elevations were viewed by Council. The Director narrated a series of slides of subject prop- erty, the adjacent property, and land uses along First Street from the 55 Freeway to Newport Avenue. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Greinke at 7:26 p.m. Applicant Harry Gates, 11502 Plantero, Santa Aha, spoke in favor of Use Permit 85-6. In response to Council comments of the March 18 meeting, he stated that during the past four years various unsuc- cessful efforts were made to purchase the adjacent parcel (430-440 West First Street). Since then, the property has been sold. Mr. Gates has worked with the new owner, and architects for both par- cels have coordinated development of a compatible architectural theme as displayed this evening. Also, Mr. Gates reported he spent several weeks talking to a major restaurant owner on subject par- cel, which was eventually turned down because of location, lack of parking and local competition in the area. Mr. Gates stated that ideally, efforts to combine parcels should have been made prior to construction of the condominium project to the south which would have allowed more parcel depth and possible development of a "mini shopping center." Mr. Gates responded to Council questions. Howard Jones, 203 North Golden Circle Drive, McMahon-Jones-Ray Partnership, owner/developer/architect of the adjacent parcel at 430-440 West First Street, spoke regarding development of subject parcel and its proposed use. In relation to the Gates development, Mr. Jones stated the plans have been redesigned to make the two more compatible and to accommodate parking standards. Mr. Jones responded to Council questions. There being no other speakers on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m. Councilman Hoesterey emphasized the need for a specific plan on First Street and expressed uncertainty that the area can support retail. He stated strip retail centers are not aesthetic at City entrances, and encouraged Council to take some action on the Gates property. Councilman Edgar stated he was a member of the City Council when widening/undergrounding improvements were made on First Street to significantly enhance Tustin's commercial viability. In addition to City funds allocated for subject improvements, businesses along First Street were inconvenienced during construction. Now ten years later, he is extremely reluctant to view First Street as another attractive office corridor. Councilwoman Kennedy stated her greatest concern is the building height at 35 feet which would have to be reduced for her to support the project. She favored allowing Mr. Gates to resubmit a project with lower density and concurred with Councilman Hoesterey regard- ing a specific plan for First Street. Mayor Greinke echoed Council concerns and agreed with the need for a specific plan. Mr. Gates responded to Councilman Hoesterey that the third floor was a personal preference to use it as his office space, and it could be deleted with no problem. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, Mr. Gates stated underground parking was eliminated upon discovery that the storm drain runs along the northerly side of First Street. Mr. Gates called attention to the existing low-grade retail on First Street, which is not aesthetically pleasing. The Community Development Director responded to Councilwoman Kennedy that a specific plan would take at least six months to pre- pare, and described what it would entail, i.e., land use inventory, market study of properties along First Street, proposal of a con- sistent type of architectural theme, etc. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 4-15-85 Mr. Gates respectfully requested that should Council deny Use Per- mit 85-6, that it do so without prejudice. The motion by Hoesterey to approve Use Permit 85-6 with a waiver of the retail requirement and a reduction in building height through elimination of the third floor; to direct staff to immediately hire consultants to prepare a specific plan for the area along First Street between the Newport Freeway and Newport Avenue with final- ization and presentation to Council in six months; and to delay any further development along First Street pending Council adoption of a specific plan died for lack of a second. It was then moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to continue Use Permit 85-6 to May 20 to allow Mr. Gates the opportunity to review Council concerns, review the fiscal feasibility of his property, and perhaps resubmit plans. In response to Councilman Edgar, the Community Development Director explained that Council could deny the project and waive any future filing fees simply by instructing staff to do so; denial without prejudice would allow Mr. Gates to resubmit at any time in the future; Council could continue the matter for resubmittal of plans, or it could deny and ask for a new project to be resubmitted. He stressed that if the use permit is denied and resubmitted, it must first go through Planning Commission review. The motion to continue carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to direct staff to hire a consultant firm to develop a Specific Plan for the area between the Newport Freeway and Newport Avenue, along First Street, to be presented to Council six months from today, and to place a hold on any permits pending 6ompletion of the Specific Plan. At Councilman Edgar's request, the Community Development Director clarified that placing a hold on any permits is proper from the standpoint that staff will notify the development industry of Coun- cil direction, eliminating the need for an interim urgency ordi- nance. However, if a use permit application is submitted, it must go to public hearing within "x" number of days, and staff will return to Council with an interim urgency ordinance at the next regular meeting to block the development. Staff must then advise Council every 30-45 days according to law. The Director added that Howard Jones' project has been submitted, and it must not legally be considered/discussed this evening. Staff received Council direction to discuss with Mr. Jones the matter of voluntarily withholding his project from going to hear- ing. If Mr. Jones wishes his project to be heard, then staff must return at the next meeting with an interim urgency ordinance. The motion carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 81 The Director acknowledged that he would prepare correspondence from the Mayor to formally inform the Planning Commission of Council action/dialogue regarding development along First Street. PUBLIC INPUT 1. EL CAMINO REAL EXTENSION TO MYFORD ROAD Walter Flaherty, 190 E1 Camino Real, stated that four years ago he requested the extension of E1Camino Real to Red Hill Avenue, which was approved up to Newport Avenue. He added that he personally polled many businesses and there was only one business opposed to the name change. He encouraged the extension of E1Camino Real to Myford Road for better identity and improved business for the down- town merchants. Trudy Wilson, Tustin Chamber of Commerce Executive Manager, reported that the Board unanimously decided to support renaming Laguna Road to E1 Camino Real from Newport Avenue to Myford Road. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 4-15-85 In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, the Community Development Director stated that in relation to the East Tustin area, staff did recommend formation of a committee consisting of public/private individuals to review/approve proposed street names, etc., in the future. Following Council/staff discussion, it was moved by Hoesterey, sec- onded by Kennedy, to direct staff to initiate proceedings for con- sideration of a street name change on Laguna Road from Newport Avenue to Myford Road. Mayor Greinke expresssed his support of the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 96 It was then moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to begin prepara- tion for formation of a City street-naming committee for the East Tustin area. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent, g6 Mayor Greinke thanked Dr. Flaherty and the Tustin Chamber of Com- merce for bringing the matter before Council. 2. CONSTRUCTION PROBLEHS AT 545 SOUTH 'B' STREET Theresa Arndt, 535 South "B" Street, described problems with con- struction on the adjacent lot at 545 South "B" Street, whereby her stake fence and numerous plants were destroyed. She stated that there is a conflict over erection of a retaining wall and the loca- tion of the property line. She reported that she contacted City staff, and the Building Inspector and City Attorney are investi- gating the matter. Charles Anderson, 255 West Sixth Street, also complained about encroachment onto his property from construction at subject parcel owned by Walter Fredrickson. He reported damage to trees and utility boxes on his property, and poor workmanship by construction workers. The Community Development Director stated staff has had several complaints regarding subject property, a Stop Order will be issued on the wall construction, and surveyors will be called in to settle the property line dispute. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, the Director of Community Development stated that active construction always results in a nuisance to the surrounding area. He reported that the City can intervene to a certain degree by withholding release of any utility connection and occupancy until the contractors clean-up the adjoin- ing properties, replace damaged plants and walls, etc. He added that the City is in the business of certifying the safety and qual- ity of construction, and the matter is probably more of a civil dispute between adjoining property owners. Councilwoman Kennedy suggested that Mrs. Arndt and Mr. Anderson submit to Mr. Frederickson their bills for damages, with a copy to the City. She also suggested the City do the same. The City Attorney stated that staff must first determine the facts, i.e., have the survey completed, Engineering will review same, and staff will proceed from that point, prior to recommending small claims court or other sources of legal assistance to Mrs. Arndt and Mr. Anderson. The Director of Community Development responded to Councilman Edgar that should the survey reveal the forms for the retaining block wall are misplaced, staff will not release the inspection and con- crete cannot be poured. If they are in the proper place, however, staff cannot legally stop construction of the wall. 81 3. COI~qUNII~f IMPROVE)lENT PROGRAN At Mayor Greinke's request, the Chief of Police provided an oral progress report on the Community Improvement Program, and its recent successful clean-up campaign on Kenyon Drive. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 4-15-85 A slide presentation was viewed by Councilmembers which has been prepared in-house to enlist the support and participation of land- lords/property owners in the Community Improvement Program. Mayor Greinke suggested staff submit the Program to the League of California Cities for recognition. The Chief responded that all information is being properly documented, staff will then submit the Program to the League, and Tustin is the only city that has implemented such a program. Council concurred with Councilman Hoesterey's suggestion that the Mayor send letters of Council appreciation to all organizations who participated in the Kenyon Drive clean-up campaign, and to members of the Task Force. 82 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to approve the entire Consent Calendar. Mayor Greinke requested a correction to the April 1 Minutes, Page 3, New Business Item No. 3, to reflect the vote on the motion to read, "carried 4-0, Greinke abstained." Council concurred. The motion carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent, to approve the Consent Calendar with the above correction. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 1, 1985 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,234,651.98 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $123,784.86 50 REJECTION OF CLAIM OF LOIS RICHARDSON; DATE OF LOSS: 3/8/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 3-8-85; CLAIM NO.: 85-16 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 REJECTION OF CLAIM OF SIG%AL MAINTENANCE, INC.; DATE OF LOSS: 12/6/84; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 3/18/85; CLAIM NO.: 85-17 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 REOECTION OF CLAIM OF MARK BERNHART; DATE OF LOSS: 1/21/85; DATE FILED WITH CIll': 3/20/85; CLAIM NO.: 85-18 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 RESOLUTION NO. 85-38 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM Adopted Resolution No. 85-38 as recommended by the Recreation Superintendent. 41 RESOLUTION NO. 85-44) - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 SIDEWALK AND CURB REPAIR PROGRAM Adopted Resolution No. 85-40 as recommended by the Engineering Department. 92 RESOLUTION NO. 85-39 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDA- TION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (1984-85 ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY PRO- GRAM) IR. J. Noble Company] Adopted Resolution No. 85-39 as recommended by the Engineering Department. 95 AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF SANTA AMA TO PROVIDE FOR THE RESURFACING (SLURRY SEAL COAT) OF WARNER AVENUE BETWEEN THE COSTA MESA FREEWAY AND REDHILL AVENUE Authorized the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest to the subject agreement as recommended by the Engineering Depart- ment. 95 45; 85-18 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 4-15-85 10. SAJ. E OF WATER SERVICE FACILITIES TO CITY OF ORANGE Authorized the sale of City of Tustin Water System facilities located in the City of Orange and its sphere of influence in the amount of $59,400.00 to Orange and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement for said sale as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 107 45; 85-19 11. PARCEL ~P 84-1032 - OFF-SIllE EASEMENT DEDICATIONS Amended the conditions of approval of Parcel Map No. 84-1032 to allow the recordation of easements for off-site Auto Center related improvements to occur after recordation of said parcel map, but no later than six months (180 days) after approval of said map or 90 days after completion of said improvements and acceptance by the appropriate agency, the earlier of the two dates prevailing as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. gg 12. RESOLUTION NO. 85-31 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP 84-1033 LOCATED AT 2911 AND 2961 DOW AVENUE Adopted Resolution No. 85-31 as recommended by the Community Development Department. 99 13. PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 135 (LAGUNA-T1JSTIN EAST) Authorized staff to advertise a public hearing for May 20, 1985, on the City Council's intent to adopt a resolution of application for the Laguna-Tustin East Annexation No. 135 to the City of Tustin as recommended by the Community Development Department. 24 VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTROOUCTION VIII. None. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION None. IX. OLD BUSINESS None. X. NEW BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTIONS OF INTENTION TO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR 1}lE ABA~- MENT OF PUBLIC NOISANCES As recommended in the inter-com dated April 15, 1985, prepared by the Community Development Department, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to adopt Resolution Nos. 85-32, 85-33, 85-34, 85-35, 85-36 and 85-37 advising property owners of the intent to conduct public hearings to ascertain whether the properties described in subject resolutions constitute public nuisances, and to schedule public hearings for the May 20, 1985, City Council meeting: RESOLUTION NO. 85-32 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14351 HEATHERFIELD CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION NO. 85-33 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14092 DEL AMO (AP# 432-063-12) CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION NO. 85-34 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2392 APPLE TREE (AP# 432-424-32) CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUISANCE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 4-15-85 XI. RESOLUTIOII NO. 85-35 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 275 MAIN (AP# 401-585:01) CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION NO. 85-36 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 140 NORTH "A" STREET (AP# 401-522-15) CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUI- SANCE RESOI. UTIO# NO. 85-37 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13282 MARSHAL LANE (AP# 395-581-11) CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUI- SANCE The motion carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 81 LAND USE SURVEY/APPROPRIATE ZONE OESIGNATIO# FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON YORBA STREET BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND IRVINE BOULEVARD Pursuant to the staff recommendation contained in the inter-com dated April 1, 1985, prepared by the Community Development Depart- ment, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to: 1) Receive and file the staff report to the Planning Commission dated March 11, 1985; and 2) Direct staff to advertise a public hearing before the Planning Commission for the purposes of amending the General Plan and Zoning Designation for certain properties along Yorba Avenue, between First Street and Irvine Boulevard. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 3. EAST TUSTIN ASSESSMENT DISll~ICT 81 The City Manager recommended continuance to May 6, 1985, for fur- ther review by the City Attorney's office. He stated that staff and The Irvine Company representatives have discussed this method of financing improvements in the East Tustin area for some time, pointing out that it would not preclude other methods of financing future improvements. He stated proceedings are very detailed, and Council may want to schedule a workshop for complete presentation on same. At the May 6 meeting The Irvine Company's petition which initiates assessment district proceedings will be presented for Council acceptance. The Director of Public Works described the boundaries of the proposed assessment district area, the improve- ments to be made within the district, and the timetable for comple- tion of work. Councilman Edgar noted his intent to include a north-south arterial in any future developer agreement, to be fully developed with asphalt pavement perhaps from the I-5 Freeway to Chapman, acknowl- edging that the assessment district being considered at the May 6 meeting deals with a local area only. Brad Olsen, The Irvine Company, was present to answer Council ques- tions and expressed understanding of Councilman Edgar's point regarding a development agreement and future extension of the north-south arterial. It was then moved by ..Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to continue con- sideration of the East Tustin Assessment Distrtict to May 6, 1985. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 25 RE~RTS 1. PLANNING (:OMISSION ACTIONS - APRIL 8, 1985 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to ratify the entire Planning Commission Action Agenda of April 8, 1985. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 4-15-85 The Director of Community Development explained to Councilman Hoesterey that because Healthcare Medical Center has a leasehold interest in the hospital property, but the adjoining parcel was purchased from Tustin Block Company, the two properties cannot be combined physically. Therefore, Healthcare has requested a change in the condition which required combining the two parcels. A series of covenants has been prepared which prohibits them from ever selling the 100' strip of purchased property separately from the hospital property without. City approval, and staff feels the City is well-protected in this regard. The motion carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 80 2. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF PARCH 31, 1985 It was moved b~ Edgar, seconded by Hoestere¥, to receive and file subject report dated April 5, 1985, prepared by the Finance Direc- tor. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 50 3. HANDICAP RAMPS/CURB CUTS Following consideration of the inter-eom dated April 9, 1985, pre- pared by the Director of Public Works, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file same. Councilwoman Kennedy stated she would support the motion with the understanding that when funds were diverted from the handicap ramp construction program to sidewalk construction, Council did so with other concerns that were equally important, and it was not from an insensitivity to the needs of the handicapped. The motion carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 4. WATER SERVICE FINANCIAL REVIEW It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report dated April 9, 1985, prepared by the Director of Public Works. Councilman Edgar commended staff on a very explicit report in terms of the change in ratio of pumped water to purchased water. He pointed out that it highlights the terrific financial advantage being gained, approximately $200,000 per year, in going from 45/55 (% pumped/% purchased) to 53/47. He noted that an equal advantage can be gained by going from a ratio of 53/47 to 60/40. He felt it essential to quickly analyze the next step to achieve that ratio. The City Manager concurred and stated the matter would be addressed in the draft budget for fiscal year 1985-86. The motion carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 107 5. RB)HILL AVENUE & BRYAN AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNING Councilwoman Kennedy suggested changing the signs to read, "No Right Turn on Red When Children Are Present." Council discussion followed. In response to Council, the Chief of Police recommended removal of the signs, stating there is no vision obstruction, the street is wide open in all directions, there is clear visibility on the side- walk, and the signs are not consistent with State standards for signing. The Director of Public Works concurred, adding that the signs should either be removed or revised to read "No Right Turn on Red" with a full 24-hour prohibition. Relative to signing at Redhill and Sycamore Avenues, the Chief and Director of Public Works responded that there ~s a high volume of pedestrians and bicyclists at subject intersection which necessi- tated same. It was then moved by Hoestere¥, seconded by Edgar, that the signs at the intersection of Redhill and Bryan Avenues be removed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 4-15-85 Councilwoman Kennedy expressed opposition to the motion on the basis that staff should first attempt "No Right Turn On Red When Children Are Present." There was no response to the Mayor for persons wishing to speak on the matter. The motion carried 3-1, Kennedy opposed, Saltarelli absent. 94 6. REVIEW OF ~ EIR FOR VILLAGE 14 - CITY OF IRVINE The staff report and recommendation were presented by the Director of Community Development as contained in the inter-com dated April 15, 1985, prepared by the Community Development Department. It was moved by Hoestere¥, seconded by Edgar, to authorize staff to forward the letter dated April 15, 1985, to the City of Irvine in response to the Draft EIR for Village 14 stating publicly Tustin's concerns relative to this project; and should there be delays in the freeway improvement projects, Tustin has grave concerns about the effects on Tustin streets which become the alternate routes for any north/south traffic traveling through these areas. Coralee Newman, Manager of Government Relations for The Irvine Company, stated the staff reports have been reviewed, the concerns taken to heart, and they will be trying to address same. She encouraged both Tustin and Irvine to get together and discuss these matters on staff, Council-to-Council, and Commission levels. The motion carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 81 7. REVIEW OF SUPPLEME~FAL EIR - IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX The staff report and recommendation were presented by the Community Development Director as contained in the inter-com dated April 15, 1985, prepared by the Community Development Department. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded b~ Hoesterey, to authorize. staff to forward the letter dated April 15, 1985, to the City of Irvine regarding the Irvine Business Complex Supplemental EIR. Motion carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 81 XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney requested a Closed Session for matters of litiga- tion. 2. PACIFIC BELL AGREEMENT As recommended by the City Manager, Item No. 5 on the Redevelopment Agency Agenda was removed for consideration by Council at this point. It was moved b~ Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with Pacific Bell authorizing the con- struction of the project subject to payment of circulation fees prior to occupancy, as recommended in the inter-com dated April 15, 1985, prepared by the Community Development Department. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. ~ 85-20 3. POPULATION FIGURES Councilman Edgar noted that population figures on freeway signs are more accurately reflected than on city limits signs, and he requested staff look into updating the City signs. The City Man- ager indicated staff would correct same. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10, ¢-15-85 4. WORKSHOP SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW OF I-5 FREEWAY iIIDENIN(~ PROJECTS Following consideration of Councilman Edgar's suggestion, Council concurred to schedule a workshop on May 15, 1985, at 4:00 ~ review alternatives regarding the I-5 Freeway widening projects and to establish a position on same as they relate to the community, for transmittal to CalTrans. 54 5. REPEAL OF ANTIQUATED CIl"f ORDINANCES Councilwoman Kennedy requested the Mayor begin a clean-up campaign to eliminate antiquated City ordinances. Mayor Greinke assigned the matter low priority, and the City Manager stated that those departments most involved are extremely busy and other projects would suffer if it is given high priority. Mayor Greinke suggested a one-year completion time, and the City Manager stated staff would review a process for accomplishing same and come back at a later date with timing. 3/) COMMI1-EE APPOINTMENTS Mayor Greinke made committee appointments for 1985-86 as follows: Committee Representative Alternate O.C. Sanitation District #1 O.C. Sanitation District #7 Public Agencies Data Systems O.C. Vector Control League of Cities CalTrans Advisory Committee Santa Ana River Flood Control N.O.I.S.E. Hoesterey Greinke Edgar Greinke Hoesterey Kennedy Kennedy Saltarelli Greinke Edgar Greinke Kennedy Robert S. Ledendecker Greinke Director of Public Works Kennedy Saltarelli 7. TIE LIMIT UNDER PUBLIC INPUT SECTION Mayor Greinke requested Council's indulgence to consider limiting speakers under Public Input to three minutes, which would be flex- ible, dependent on the nature of the matter. Councilwoman Kennedy expressed concern that it would be inequitable to members of the general public as opposed to developers/profes- sionals. Councilmembers Hoesterey and Edgar expressed willingness to limit Public Input speakers to 3-5 minutes on a trial basis, so long as good judgment prevails. 38 XIII. RECESS - REDEVELOPMENT; CLOSED SESSION - ADJOURNMENT Mayor Greinke announced the City Council would recess to a Closed Ses- sion pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the City is a party. Identification of such litigation would jeopardize the City's ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. At 10:14 p.m. it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to recess to the Redevelopment Agency, thence to a Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) as stated above; and thence adjourn to the next regular meeting on May 6, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. MAYOR CITY CLERK