Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 11 CC MIN'S CORREC. 12-18-84~ ~ r ~k ) ~'~ A ~ CONSENT CALENDAR ~ . . NO. 11 DAT£' December 12, 1984 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: William A. Huston, City Manager Director of Community and Administrative Services CORRECTION OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 1984 RECOMMENDATION: Regarding Item #1, under Continued Public Hearing, General Plan Amendment 84-4D -- Recreation Element of the Tustin General Plan, the last paragraph should be worded as follows, because the dedication standard of three acres per thousand was inadvertently deleted from the motion. Following further discussion, a second substitute motion was made by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve General Plan Amendment #84-4D, Recreation Element of the Tustin General Plan, with a minimum dedication standard of three acres per one thousand population, a desired ratio of 1.5 acres of community parks for every 1.5 acres of neighborhood parks, and a minimum-size standard for private neighborhood park credits of one acre. Royleen A. White, Director Community and Administrative Services RAW/kaw Attachment: Incorrect Minutes, November 5, 1984 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 11-5-84 Vo The Community Development Director responded to Councilman Edgar's questions pertaining to the Planning Commission and City Council involvement in reviewing and approving future park developments. The Director of Community and Administrative Services compared Tustin and Irvine standards for community and neighborhood parks, and she responded to questions on park classification standards and park dedication credit for improvements. Councilman Hoesterey arrived at 7:43 p.m. Mayor Kennedy stated that review of the plan shows the City has compromised on six points, and is opposed on two points. She was not in favor of one-half acre parks. The motion by Kennedy to adopt General Plan Amendment 84-4d, Recreation Element of the General Plan, died for lack of a second. Councilman Greinke proposed that the definition of community parks read "community parks are owned and maintained by the City and serve residents of the entire City" so that it does not sound like a private park. The Recreation Superintendent stated that staff sees great need for parks for athletic development in the area and desires the stan- dards as presented in the Recreation Element. It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Kennedy to adopt General Plan Amendment 84-4d, Recreation Element of the General Plan, with Councilman Greinke's proposed definition of community parks. The motion failed 2-3, Edgar, Hoesterey, and Saltarelli opposed. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to retain the standard of three acres per thousand, with one acre per thousand for community parks and two acres per thousand for neighborhood parks, and keep the credit standards for private parks at one acre per thousand. A substitute motion by Hoesterey to leave the dedication to com- munity and neighborhood parks the same but have the one acre for private parks died for lack of a second. Following further discussion, a second substitute motion was made by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve General' Plan Amendment No. 84-4d, Recreation Element of the Tustin General Plan, with minimum standards of one acre per thousand for private parks, one- and-one-half acres for community parks, and one-and-one-half acres for neighborhood parks. The motion carried 3-2, Kennedy and Greinke opposed. 81 PUBLIC HEARINGS ELEVENTH YEAR APPLICATION - COPI NITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PRO- GRAM (HCO) The Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the inter-com dated November 5, 1984, prepared by the Community Development Department. Mayor Kennedy opened the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. There were no speakers on the matter, and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Hoesterey, to approve the Eleventh Year CDBG application for Fiscal Year 1985-86 as recom- mended by the Community Development Advisory Board and staff. Following a question-and-answer period, the motion carried 5-0. 81 Mayor Pro Tem Greinke requested that the Mayor send a letter of thanks to members of the Community Development Advisory Board for their work and input on the application.