HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA MINUTES 03-01-82 Ml~%rr~S OF A ~u~AR
OF THE RED~-v~OPMENT ~NCY OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
February 16, 1982
1. Ca?.?. TO O~DER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sharp at 4:04 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California.
Agency Meafoers Present:
Agency Members Absent:
Others Present:
Edgar, Kennedy, Sharp
Hoesterey, Saltarelli
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
william A. Huston, Exec. Director/City Manager
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
Mike Brotemarkle, C~. Dev. Director
Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works
Royleen White, Community Services Director
Ronald Nault, Finance Director
Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director
Edward Knight, Associate Planner
Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk
Approximately 20 in the audience
3. APPNDVAL OF MI~u','~S
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the minutes of the
February 1, 1982, regular meeting. Carried 2-0, Hoesterey and Saltarelli
absent, Sharp abstaining.
4. NE~POP~ ~v~u,C BI~ TRATn BEP~ u~K~ ~EPLACEM~T
AS recommended in the memo dated February 1, 1982, prepared by the Engi-
neering Division, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt the
following resolution and ass%~ning no claims or stop payment notices are
filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of Notice of Completion,
authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount at that time:
RESOLUTI~ NO. ~)A 82-1 - A Resolution of the Tustin Community Redevelop-
ment Agency of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND
AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (Newport Avenue Bike Trail
Berm Curb Replacement - Alfredo's Excavating & Paving Construction)
Motion carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Saltarelli absent.
86
5. BT.T.'X"L' I~K:~H~:)~mJ~'I'IC~ I~OFE~TS - VAK~O~S LOCAT~(H~S
Pursuant to the reco~endation contained in the memo dated January 22,
1982, prepared by the Engineering Division, it was moved by Edgar, sec-
onded by Kennedy, to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. ~DA 82-2 - A Resolution of the Tustin Community Redevelop-
ment Agency of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECI-
FICATIONS FOR ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT I - Alley East of E1 Camin6 Real Between Main St. & 3rd St.
PROJECT II - Tract No. 3994 Alley
PROJECT III - E1 Camino Bank Alley Between 3rd St. & E1 Camino Real
Carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Saltarelli absent.
95
6. APP~H]VAL OF DEMANDS
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to approve General Demands for
the month of January, 1982, in the amount of $443,912.60 as recommended by
the DirectQr of Finance. Motion-carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Saltarelli
absent. 81
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
Page 2, 2-16-82
AS recommended in the memo dated February 4, 1982, prepared by the Direc-
tor of Public Works, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Sharp, to direct
staff to include within the 1982-83 RDA Capital Improvement Program fund-
ing for the subject project in the amount of $14,000.00 and direct staff
to execute the subject Improvement Agreement.
In response to Mrs. Kennedy, the Director of Public Works stated that the
City will get a fair return by including the property owner's dedication
of the required right-of-way in exchange for the City constructing all
required street improvements by saving acquisition costs, appraisal fees,
and administrative staff costs, aside from the benefits to the City and
community.
Motion carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Saltarelli absent.
45
8. SX'l~P~%ti ~'~X~7- 175 "C" S'~m.?
The Co, unity Development Director presented the staff report. He pointed
out that the facility faces the park a~d has been designed to give it a
residential appearance. More importantly, if the proposal is approved, it
will inhibit the ability of the Redevelopment Agency or property owners in
the area to consolidate lots since it would mandate that the alley access
to the rear of this facility be maintained in order to provide parking.
The ability to combine either four or six lots (remaining lots to the
south) into a single integrated development would be restricted. At the
present time the Agency does not have any active program of lot purchase
and consolidation for resale to developers. The proposed project conforms
with the C2 zoning underlying the Redevelopment District plan. If the
Agency determines this development is inappropriate and not in keeping
with the Redevelopment area, it should direct staff to work with this
property owner and other property owners to attempt to accomplish more
comprehensive development in the area. If not, then the Agency should
direct staff to work with the property owner for the development as pro-
posed.
Mr. Edgar stated his opposition to perpetrating the alley. He stated he
is in favor of supporting consolidation of adjoining lots for continuity.
In terms of architectural style, he does not think it matters so long as
it is not stark ultra-modernistic. Mrs. Kennedy concurred, but stated her
preference for Victorian or Queen Anne architecture dominating the down-
town area.
The Comm%lnity Development Director stated that he understands the Agency's
direction to be to work with the applicant to see if a proposal cannot be
expanded to i~clude additional property. Secondly, that any development,
even if limited to one lot, should not place dependence on utilization of
the alley for access and utilization; if a project could be developed on
one lot but did not utilize the alley for any of its purposes, it might be
permitted, but the primary goal would be to see if consolidation could be
generated. 81
9. AG~CX CO~CE~S
None ·
10.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to adjourn at 4:16 p.m. to the
next regular meeting on March l, 1982. Carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Salta-
relli absent.
RECORDING SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN