Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 04-05-82TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting April 5, 1982 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, April 5, 1982, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sharp at 3:02 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Hoestery and the invocation was given by Mr. Edgar. ROLL CALL Present: Sharp, Hoesterey, Edgar, Kennedy, Saltarelli Absent: None Also present: William Huston, City Manager Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director James Rourke, City Attorney Janet Hester, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held March 15, 1982, were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. VARIANCE 82-4 Applicant: Location: Request: QRS Corp. on behalf of Lincoln Savings 14161Redhill Avenue Vary with sign code to allow tenant I.D. sign After Mr. Brotemarkle presented the Staff report, Mrs. Kennedy questioned if this was an unusual request. Mr. Brotemarkle replied that it was in view of approval for tenant signing given in 1969. Because of a change in the sign code and the tenants' failure to take advantage of of the original approval, the present applicant was required to apply for a variance. The Public Hearing was opened at 3:07 p.m. Mr. Albert Navsky, representing QRS Corp./Lincoln Savings presented himself to the Agency for questions and stated he was in agreement with Staff's recommendation. Mr. Jerry Mezerow, representing Santa Ana ~irst Federal Savings, asked if this Variance was approved, would that mean Santa Ana First Federal would also be allowed additional signing. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that each request for a variance is studied on a case-by-case basis and that without being aware of all the facts, no immediate determination could be made. The Public Hearing was closed at 3:10 p.m. Mr. Edgar moved to approve Variance 82-4 granting Lincoln Savings authorization to vary with the sign code. Mr. Saltarelli seconded. Motion carried: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: SHARP, SALTARELLI, HOESTEREY, EDGAR, KENNEDY None None Planning Agency Minutes April 5, 1982 Page 2 PUBLIC CONCERNS None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Extension of time for 14742 Plaza Drive. After Mr. Brotemarkle presented the Staff report, Mrs. Kennedy made the motion to approve a one year extension for the Use Permit for 14742 Plaza Drive. Mr. Edgar seconded the motion. Motion carried: AYES: SHARP, SALTARELLI, NOESTEREY, EDGAR, KENNEDY NOES: None ABSENT: None STAFF CONCERNS None AGENCY CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT AT 3:15 p.m. to next regular meeting. ~/~~nei~ He~eLr, Record lng Secretary J james B. Sharp, Chairman ~ 4-5-82:jh MINUTES OF A R~u~AR ~TING OF '~US REDEVELOPMENT AG~CY OF THE CIT~ OF TU~a~N, C~L?FO~NIA April 5, 1982 The meeting was called %o order by Chairman Sharp at 3:15 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. Agency Members Present: Agency Members Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp None James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, Exec. Director/City Manager Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary/City Clerk Mike Brotemarkle, Comm. Dev. Director Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Ronald Nault, Finance Director Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Royleen White, Community Services Director Ken Fleagle, Planning Consultant Jeff Davis, Planning Aide Approximately 10 in the audience 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to approve the minutes of the March 15, 1982, regular meeting. Carried 5-0. 4. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS - EL CAMINO REAL & SIXTH AS recommended in the report dated March 25, 1982, prepared by the City Engineer, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt the follow- ing resolution: BESOLUTIO~ NO. ~DA 82-3 - A Resolution of the Tustin Community Redevelop- ment Agency of the City of Tustin, California, APPP~VING PLANS AND SPECI- FICATIONS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND SIXTH STREET Motion carried 5-0. 94 The Executive Director presented the staff report and reco~nendation. Pursuant to the recommendation contained in his report dated April 2, 1982, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to authorize retention of the firm of Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, for the purpose of preparing a financial plan for the Redevelopment Agency. In response to Mr. Edgar, the Executive Director indicated that a repre- sentative of the consultant firm will be present at the next Agency meet- ing to provide an overview on the scope of work and methodology and allow for Agency input. The Executive Director responded to Mrs. Kennedy that staff did check with cities the firm has worked with, they have an exten- sive track record in redevelopment, and are one of the foremost consul- tants in the field. Motion carried 5-0. 6. ~ENCX CONCERNS In response to Mrs. Kennedy, the Executive Director reported that staff has started on the EIR for the Edinger Overpass on a preliminary basis and will be utilizing some outside traffic engineering analysis. Staff's goal is to get the project funded by December. Responsibility for the project will be a joint effort on behalf of the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the Planning Consultant, with the Planning Consul- tant principally responsible for coordinating the focused EIR. The City Manager pointed out that if there are no state and/or federal monies available for the project, the City can look at other options for f~nding the project, i.e., through a bond program of the Agency. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Page 2, 4-5-82 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to adjourn at 3:22 p.m. to the next regular meeting on April 19, 1982. Carried 5-0. CHAIRMAN REc0 MIKOTES OF A ~E~u~AR MEETING OF ~ TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way April 5, 1982 I · CaT.T, TO ORDER III · PUBLIC HEARING 1. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Sharp at 3:22 p.m. Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp None James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, City Manager Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mike Brotemarkle, Comm. Dev. Director Ken Fleagle, Planning Consultant Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Royleen White, Community Services Director Jeff Davis, Planning Aide Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk Approximately 10 in the audience GAM~ ARCADES - ORDINANCE NO. 870 The Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommended that the following ordinance have first reading by title only and introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 870 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING ~E ~JSTIN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO GAME ARCADES The City Attorney commented that staff had modified the draft ordinance prepared by his office and requested that first read- ing and introduction of Ordinance No. 870 be deferred to the next meeting to allow clarification of those modifications. Council discussion followed. Councilman Edgar suggested modify- ing page 1, Section 3321, paragraph b from "five or more . . ." to read "more than five . o ." In response to Councilman Hoesterey, the Community Development Director provided clarification of page 3, Section 3324, para- graph 6, stating that req%tirement relates to location of machine, size of machine, and aisle width to assure adequate ingress/egress. Councilman Hoesterey suggested including guide- lines as to the number of machines allowed per given square feet. The Community Development Director responded to Councilwoman Kennedy that the problem of unchaperoned minors in establish- ments with on-sale liquor licenses would be greatly minimized due to Alcoholic Beverage & License Control Board regulations. He continued that whether an arcade is part of another use (fast-food service) or an independent primary use, it will fall under regulations in a similar manner. As to the maximum number of machines allowed per given square feet, the Community Devel- opment Director stated that most cities have found it an impos- sibility to make such a determination due to the various sizes of machines. The best guideline they have found is to restrict maximum occupancy based on the type of building structure, main- taining adequate aisle widths for the passage of people back and forth, and not being concerned with whether there is one large or two smaller machines as long as accessibility and ability to exit the structure are properly maintained. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 4-5-82 In reference to Councilman Hoesterey's inquiry on the use of tokens vs. coins, the Community Development Director responded that staff does not feel this needs to be addressed. Although there is a possibility for abuse, most cities have found that unless the machine is specifically designed for both, it creates a problem for the operator because the machines must be modified to accept tokens and coins, so the operator goes one way or the other, and neither seems to be most satisfactory. Councilman Saltarelli stated the ordinance is discriminatory against this particular type of business. He commented that the "shopping center" definition used in ordinance is not the same definition used in zoning and business ordinances and posed the following q~estlons: 4) why aren't they allowed in industrial districts; 2) why does interior have to be visible from counter at all times if supervisor is on board; 3) why do they have to be near a signalized inter~ section; and 4) why do we ask for information regarding the convic- tion of any crime. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to defer the matter to the next meeting. The motion was withdrawn following Councilwoman Kennedy's statement that a public hearing on the matter has been scheduled for today and the Community Development Director's concur- rence. The public hearing was opened at 3:39 p.m. by Mayor Sharp. Dave Patterson, Sgt. Pepperoni's Pizza Store, 651 E. First Street, stated his establishment was issued a conditional use permit to operate video games in 1977, and questioned if the standards con- tained in Ordinance No. 870 will affect those who have faithfully operated under existing conditional use permits. The Cow~nunity Development Director responded that those use permits having preexisting approval would not be affected. ~fr. Patterson pointed out that although "shopping center" is defined, that definition is not used throughout the ordinance. The City Attorney responded that is an item which needs clarification. Mr. Patterson continued as follows: it would be appropriate for the final draft to recognize a two-acre shopping center as a unique entity regardless of proximity to other uses mentioned; stemming from Council comments, it is appropriate to recognize restaurant with on-sale liquor/beer/wine license as such, i.e., it should not become game arcade because it has more than five games; and staff has already uncovered unique circumstances requiring attention to a restaurant doing business with games on the side. Mr. Patterson responded to Councilman Edgar that some standards in ordinance 870 seem to be pointed directly at the applicant that was before Council some months ago, particularly in reference to the non-signalized intersection and proximity to a hospital. The requirement where the applicant is asked to go into detail indi- cating the placement/kind of machine would mean that at any time the machines are mqved, the conditional use permit is in jeopardy. Although Mr. Patterson did not have any suggestions, he felt the proposed ordinance will not insure that an arcade will be operated in a proper manner. In accordance with Councilman Edgar's request, Mr. Patterson stated he would provide Council with constructive criticism of the ordinance for Council consideration at the next meeting. There being no other speakers, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to continue the matter to the April 49, 1982, meeting. Carried 5-0. IV. pU~n?C CONCE~S None · V. CO~NT C~.~NDAR Item 8 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Edgar. It was then moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL M~iNUTES Page 3, 4-5-82 3e 12. A~PI~O~AL OF MIN~P~ES- March 15, 1982. APPI~OFAI~ OF DEMANDS in the amount of $329,675.12. I~ATIFICATION OF PAX~OI2% in the amount of $198,117.19. 50 ACz:~.T~s~ICE OF IK~LIC IMPROVE~ AND WK~.~a~E OF BO~DS - TR~T NO. 10707 (Industrial Condominium development located on the southerly side of Bell Ave. and westerly of Red Hill Ave.) Accept all public improvements within Tract No. 10707 and authorize the release of three bonds as follows: Faithful Performance - ~0C-300094, Labor and Materials - ~0C-300094, and Mon~mentation - ~0C-300096, as recommended by the City Engineer. 99 AM~D~T ~O PADS JOINT POWERS AGP~EM~T Authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed addendum to the Joint Powers Agreement creating PADS as recon~nended by the City Manager. 45 DONA~ O~ mT~AC~W~ FOR MA6~IOLIA '~u~ ~ENNIS COIFRTS Accept the donation of bleachers for the Magnolia Tree Park Tennis Courts frc~ the Tustin Tennis Club as reco~aended by the Director of Community Services. 77 In accordance with Councilwoman Kennedy's request, the Community Services Director indicated a letter would be prepared for the Mayor's signature thanking the Tustin Tennis Club on behalf of the Council for the donation of the bleachers. The Director responded to Councilman Saltarelll that the bleachers meet safety standards, and they have been through the process with the Public Works Department. DENI~2~ OF CLAIM OF GEO~R- F. ~u-~l~IE, DATE OF LOSS: 1~-18-81; DA~E F¥!.~O: 1--18-82; CLAIM NO: 82-3 Deny claim of George F. Guthrie as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 RESOLUTTO~ NO. 82-26 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO ASSEMBLY BILL 2660 REGARDING THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR .QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Adopt Resolution No. 82-26 as requested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 6~ RE~OI~]'~-~OI~ NO. 82-28 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of T~stln, California, COMMENDING THE ~JSTIN NEWS AND ITS EDITOR-PUBLISHER, WILLIAM A. MOSES, II Adopt Resolution No. 82-28 as requested by the City Council. 84 Following approval of the Consent Calendar, Mayor Sharp formally read and presented Resolution No. 82-28 to William A. Moses, II. EX~SION OF USE PERMIT 81--5 ~D ~N~%TIFE ~ACT MAP 11389 (14742 Plaza Drive - Office condominium conversion) Extend Use Permit 81-5 and Tentative Tract Map 11389 from April 6, 1982 to April 6, 1983 as recommended by the Commu- nity Development Department. 99 RESOI~J-rl0~ NO. 82--29 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO REAL~.0CA- TION OF AIR POLLUTION FUNDS Adopt Resolution No. 82-29 as requested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 67 APPROPR~AT~ REQUEST ~)R PUP~HASE OF 3 CRT's FOR USE W~TE "~ WATER u'£~LITY MANAgeMENT SYSTEM Authorize the Finance Director to solicit bids for the pur- chase of three CRT's for use with the Water Utility Manage- ment System and approprla~e $7,000 from the unappropriated reserves of the Nater Fund for their purchase as reco~z~ended by ~he Finance Director. 87 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 4-5-82 13. C~UU~-~ANT AG~E~T - MO~LTON PAI~K~FAY/I RVINE (~ ~R D~-VE REALIGN~T Authorize the Mayor to execute the consultant agreement for the engineering design services on the Moulton Parkway/ Irvine Center Drive Realignment and Widening project and select the firm of Van Dell and Associates, Inc., Irvine, to perform said engineering design services in the amount of $104,866.65 subject to the following: 1) Receipt of written confirmation of the E.P.A. waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency, and 2) Final approval of consultants agreement by CalTrans and execution by Van Dell and Associ- ates as recommended by the City Engineer. 45 14. RESOLUTIO~ NO. 82-30- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (IRVINE BLVD. CENTER MEDIAN MODIFICATION FROM YORBA STREET TO "A" STREET) Adopt Resolution No. 82-30 and ass~ing no claims or stop payment notices are filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount at that time as recon~- mended by the Engineering Department. 92 15. ~E~O~ NO. 82--31 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT. AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION - (F.Y. 81-82 SIDEWALK AND CURB REPAIR PROGRAM) Adopt Resolution No. 82-31 and assu~nlng the contractor' s insurance carrier acknowledges responsibility for the $150,000.00 claim which has been filed against the project and assuming no other claims or stop payment notices are filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount at that time as recommended by the Engi- neering Department. 92 Consent Calendar Item No. 8 - The Director of Public Works responded to Councilman Edgar's concerns pertaining to whether this project included beautification of the islands by saying that the final submittal of the project to CalTrans and FAU included beautification plans and they would be allowed. Any savings will accrue to the gas tax and any expenses will come out of Redevelopment funds. RESOLU~ NO. 82--27 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IRVINE BLVD. FAU PROJECT M-M023 (2) AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Adopt Resolution No. 82-27 as recommended by the Engineering Department. 94 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to adopt Resolution No. 82-27 as recommended by the Engineering Department. Carried 5-0. VI. ORDINANCES FOR INTN~DUC~gON - None VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTTO~ - None VIII .OLD BUSINESS 1. TTT.r.RR DAYS CO~41'1'~ REQUEST Mrs. Kennedy requested that this item be deferred until Mrs. Webb comes to the meeting. Council concurred. IX. NEW BUSINESS 1. REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INS~?.?.~TION AT INTE~SECTIGN OF WALNUT AF~IE AND OXFORD AV]~NUE Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, reported that a resident had requested a traffic signal at the intersection of Walnut Avenue and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 4-5-82 Oxford Avenue. The required warrants were done and the intersection did not qualify for a signal. Staff is reco~endlng two additional stop signs at the intersection. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to direct staff ~o install two additional stop signs at the intersection of Walnut and Oxford Avenues and defer any traffic signal installation at the subject intersection until such time the required warrants are satisfied for said installation and to fund the stop signs from the 1981-82 Maintenance Division operating budget. Councilwoman Kennedy asked that Mrs. Dearlng be notified of the action and that staff would be monitoring the situation. Mr. Hoesterey asked that the letter include the fact that it is possible that the warrants could be met for a signal in another year. Discussion followed regarding the serious traffic problem at Walnut and Red Hill. Mr. Ledendecker said that he had done some preliminary work with the County to see if the full improvement of that intersection on the NE corner would qualify for Arterial Financing Program funding and he has gotten tentative verbal response from the County that it would qualify. It would be an immense impact on that property owner at that corner. He suggested having a report for the next meeting that would outline the impacts and scol~e of the program so that all improvements could be done at one time. The motion carried 5-0. 2. O.C.T. Do ~ANSIT C~',~ FEASIBILITX STUDY The City Engineer explained that the Orange County Transit District has requested that we participate in a study with the District to review or select sites for a Transit Center within a reasonable ?/4 mile radius of the present Larwin Square site. This study would involve t~he selection of several sites that possibly could be utilized as a Joint Transit Facility on the ground level with some offices or some type structure on the second floor wherein the City or the District could recover some of the cost of the Center through ongoing leases. It was moved by Sharl~, seconded by Edgar, to authorize the Mayor to execute the Transit Center Feasibility Study Agreement and direct staff to include the amount of $5,000.00 into the 1982-83 budget as the City's share of the cost for said study as recommended by the City Engineer. Mayor Sharp said that since his term would be ending this month, he wanted to leave the Council with some of his thoughts on this matter. His assessment was that if this City is going to continue in good economic health, it is going to have to face and solve the issues of affordable housing, mitigation of traffic problems and the improvement of public transportation. Through a joint venture, we could enter into a transportation center that would help transport people back and forth between the many businesses. I am suggesting that you consider buying and turning over to that joint venture the car wash site on Newport Avenue and Main Street. Councilman Saltarelli voiced that the buses at Larwin Square have increased from three or four buses to eight buses that don't carry over three or four passengers and he was concerned that such a facility would develop into a place where buses would be repaired. He was not in favor of a permanent facility in Tustin. Councilman Hoesterey agreed with Mr. Saltarelli and did not feel that Tustin is set up for rapid transit. He did not want T~stln to have to share the problems of the Orange County Transit District. Councilman Edgar favored participating in the study because it would enable the City to have some insight and part in the decisions made. Councilwoman Kennedy suggested considering other sites such as industrial sites. CITY COUNCIL ~MINUTES Page 6, 4-5-82 Agenda Order A substitute motion was made by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to continue this item to the April 19, 1982 meeting in order for staff to pass along the concerns of the Council to the Orange County Transportation District. Substitute motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to hear Old Business No. 1. Carried 5-0. VIII. OLD BUSINESS 1. '1~r,r.~R DAYS C0~tI'~ REQUEST IX. NEW BUSINESS X · O'Pl;~R BUSINESS Councilwoman Kennedy reported that she had discussed with Cherrill Webb the Council's feelings ~hat they did not want to spend the money since we could not use the pole for other events. She has on her own secured a pole and by getting the new power and pole, she will be able to have 17 to 20 new booths. She is going to have a fund raiser to raise funds. She has gotten backing for most of the equipment that is required but she asks that the City promise her $600. The pole will be ours and the School District will store it. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to authorize the $600 which is needed for the equipment for the pole. Agnes Bacon spoke in opposition to the Tiller Days as it has been the last few years. She felt Tustln should lift their sites and do something educational that would be beneficial to the young people. She pointed out that there are a lot of educated people in Tustin and we need some new ideas to improve. Ms. Webb said that they had tried to stay away from a carnival atmosphere. We have grown over the last three years and by adding on the additional electricity, we hope to have more booths and expand this year. Helen Edgar, 13622 Loretta Lane, said that most of the Tiller Days Committee were County residents. She felt that a lot of other City organizations would be asking the Council for money as a result of this action. Councilpersons Kennedy and Saltarelli recognized Ms. Webb's efforts in working on this project. Motion carried 5-0. 3. ON-STREET PARKING - 255 WEST 6~ ST~T It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to authorize the red zoning of curbs a minimum distance of 15 feet each side of the driveway located at 255 W. Sixth Street subject to Mr. Anderson's approval as recommended by the City Engineer. Carried 5-0. 4. P~OPO~ED AMENDMENTS ~O CIT~ P~RCHASING ORDINANCE It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance which includes the proposed amendments for introduction at the April 19, 1982 Council meeting. Carried 5-0. 1. CLOSED SESSION FOR LABOR NEGOTIATIONS The City Manager asked for a closed session for about an hour regarding labor negotiations. Council concurred. 2. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to oppose AB3011 which would make cancer a work related disease for disability. Carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 4-5-82 OFF T~%CK B~z-z~NG It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to oppose AB2577 regarding off track betting. Carried 5-0. 4. canTFO~IA APAR~M~ TS Councilman Hoesterey said he had received correspondence complaining about Cal State Associates. Mr. Brotemarkle, Community Development Director, said staff would have a report for the next agenda. 5. ~I~IF~A~I'm H~"~TI(~ OF ALD~SGA~ ~T~OOIST CHURCH, EAST SIDE OF ~'.TZABETH ~Y AND PA~':~'- SOU~H OF It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to direct staff to proceed with the uninhabited annexation of Aldersgate Methodist Church, the East side of Elizabeth Way and the parcel South of Irvlne Blvd. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, Dr. Fleagle, Consultant, said there was no benefit to the City in terms of liability. There will be strong opposition of the East side of Elizabeth Way. It is strictly the City Council's perogative. It will be argumentative with no financial benefit. The property south of Irvine Blvd. has been negative in the past but possibly has changed. Motion carried 5-0. XI. ADJOuK~M~T - It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to adjourn the meeting in memory of John Hardy of the Tustin News to a closed session regarding labor negotiations and legal matters and thence to the next regular meeting on April 19, 1982. Carried 5-0. MAYOR CLE~ CtTY OF TUST~N ~,00 Cent'~'tni~ Turin, C~. FIRST CLASS MAIL