HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 05-17-82TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY
Minutes. of Regular Meeting
May 17, 1982
The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, May 17, 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 Edgar at 3:00 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Hoesterey and the invocation
was given by Mrs. Kenne~.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also present:
Edgar, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Hoesterey, Greinke
None
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 May 3, 1982, were approved as
submitted with Mrs. Kennedy abstaining.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Use Permit 82-8
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Michael Ferguson
445 W. Second Street
Authorize construction of a garage with a guest room
behind existing single-family home.
Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report and informed the Agency he
had received a letter from Nellie Brunet, 425 W. Second Street,
Tustin. She expressed opposition to approval of the Use Permit and
requested a continuation of the public hearing to a later date and an
evening meeting when she, and other concerned, residents could attend.
The Public Hearing was opened at 3:04 p.m.
Michael Ferguson, applicant, said he felt the hearing should not be
continued since the required public notice had been given. Mr.
Ferguson stated disagreement with Condition II C of Resolution 2030
prohibiting kitchen facilities such as refrigerator, sink, stove,
etc. While working on the renovation of the main structure, he wished
to be able to have a sink and a small refrigerator to keep food.
Mr. Saltarelli questioned Mr. Ferguson's use of the room after he had
moved back into the renovated home. Mr. Ferguson stated he intended
to use it as a guest room.
The Public Hearing was closed at 3:08 p.m.
Mrs. Kennedy asked Staff if sufficient methods of enforcement were
available to prohibit such structures being leased or rented.
Mr. Brotemarkle replied that except in the case of an obvious
violation, Staff had to rely on complaints from neighbors. It was
difficult to enforce, even with a deed restriction.
Mrs. Kennedy made the motion to continue the public hearing until June
7, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. to hear additional public comments. Mr.
Hoesterey seconded the motion.
P1 anning Agency Mi nutes
May 17, 1982
Page 2
Mr. Ferguson stated it was not his intention to ever lease or rent the
unit.
An unidentified member of the audience spoke in favor of approval.
She felt the Crawford house was in need of fixing up and the Agency
shouldn't put obstacles in the way of a much needed renovation.
Motion carried: 4-1 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EDGAR, KENNEDY, HOESTEREY, GREINKE
SALTARELLI
None
2. Variance 82-6
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
The Wellington Group
14351 Redhill Avenue
Authorization to permit an office building on an R-3
property and to vary with certain requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance No. 157 (as amended)
Mr. Brotemarkle presented the Staff report with the additional comment
that Resolution 2032 failed to address the issue of a stairway within
the 10 foot dedication. In the event Redhill Avenue is widened, the
stairway would have to be moved and should be the responsibility of
the property owner.
The Public Hearing was opened at 3:26 p.m.
Mr. Dean Pollinger, a partner in the project, stated he felt there
were not as many problems with the project as Staff had presented and
if a dedication was required, it could cause problems with the lender.
The Public Hearing was closed at 3:29 p.m.
Mr. Saltarelli moved approval of Resolution 2032 with the deletion of
Condition II C requiring the 10 foot dedication. Chairman Edgar
seconded the motion.
Mrs. Kennedy expressed opposition to the motion. She felt that since
this was a vacant parcel of land that a dedication should be
required. A dedication had been previously waived for an already
existing structure but as a building had yet to be constructed on the
site, the offer of dedication should not be waived.
Mr. Saltarelli stated it would constitute an extra burden to require
the dedication on this project when it had not been required before.
Mrs. Kennedy made a substitute motion to approve the Resolution as
written but the Agency determined that, according to the rule of
Parlimentary procedure, the motion was out of order.
Motion carried: 4-1 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EDGAR, SALTARELLI, HOESTEREY, GREINKE
KENNEDY
None
3. Land Use Amendments 82-1
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Tustin City Council
17311 and 17341 McFadden Street
To change Land Use from multiple-family to commercial
Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report and summarized a letter
from the "B" Street Townhomes Association expressing opposition to the
amendment. The Association felt the change would cause the following
problems:
Planning Agency Minutes
May 17, 1982
Page 3
1. modify the residential character of the neighborhood
2. added noise intrusion
3. added lighting intrusion
4. decrease in property values
Mr. Brotemarkle stated that specific zoning would be determined at a
later date but it would be CG, C-1 or a zone designation which wouild
require a Use Permit. Through proper zoning controls, the problems
noted by the residents could be alleviated.
The Public Hearing was opened at 3:44 p.m.
Maurice Lebanoff recommended the Agency approve the amendment. He has
property in a similar situation that is zoned commercial and has not
had complaints.
Darrell Jyles, student at Tustin High School, spoke in favor of the
amendment.
The Public Hearing was closed at 3:47 p.m.
Mr. Greinke moved to adopt Resolution 2031 which recommends to the
City Council approval of Land Use Amendment 82-1(A).
Motion carried: 5-0 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EDGAR, SALTARELLI, KENNEDY, HOESTEREY,
GREINKE
None
None
PUBLIC CONCERNS
None
OLD BUSINESS
1. Extension of Use Permit 80-21 and Tentative Tract Map 11336.
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Cai-State Associates
1651 Mitchell
Extension of Use Permit 80-21 and Tentative Tract Map
11336.
Mr. Harry Hudson, Cai-State Associates stated that the delay in filing
the final tract map was not intentional. The plan had only two minor
changes; 1) relocation of tennis court lights to decrease lighting
nuisance to neighboring area, and 2) relocation of trash bins to a
less visible area.
Mr. Hoesterey expressed concern over the changes and change in
ownership and felt the new plans should be studied more closely before
making a decision to extend.
Mr. Greinke moved approval of the Extension of Use Permit 80-21 and
Tentative Tract Map 11336. Mr. Edgar seconded.
Motion carried: 4-1 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EDGAR, SALTARELLI, KENNEDY, GREINKE
HOESTEREY
None
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Brotemarkle pointed out an error in the Agenda which put items 1
and 2 in incorrect order. The Agency decided to discuss item 2 first.
Planning Agency Minutes
May 17, 1982
Page 4
2, Temporary Use Permit 59016
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Congregation B'Nai Israel
13221 Newport Avenue
Temporary Banner Sign
Mr. Saltarelli moved approval of Use Permit 59016. Mr. Edgar
seconded.
Motion carried:
5-0 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EDGAR, SALTARELLI, KENNEDY, HOESTERY,
GREINKE
None
None
1. Extension of Use Permit 81-22
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Far West Savings & Loan
615 E. First Street
Extension of Use Permit 81-22
Mr. Saltarelli made the motion to approve extension of Use Permit
81-22 for one year only after which time it would be subject to re-
application. Mr. Edgar seconded.
Motion carried: 5-0 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EDGAR, SALTARELLI, KENNEDY, HOESTEREY,
GREINKE
None
None
3. Review of Use Permit 81-13
Applicant: Congregation B'Nai Israel
Location: 13221 Newport Avenue
Mr. Brotemarkle reported that no Agency action was required and that
no problems had evolved from the original.approval of the Use Permit.
He suggested that further review be waived unless specific problems
arose.
4. Extension of Use Permit 81-12
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Tustin Townhomes
14500 Block Holt Avenue
Extension of Use Pemit 81-12
Mr. Glenn Osbourne, Tustin Townhomes appeared before the Agency to
answer questions.
Mr. Saltarelli moved approval of the extension of Use Permit 81-12 for
one year only after which time it would be subject to re-application.
Mrs. Kennedy seconded.
Motion carried: 5-0 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
EDGAR, SALTARELLI, KENNEDY, HOESTEREY,
GREINKE
None
None
STAFF CONCERNS
None
AGENCY CONCERNS
Planning Agency Minutes
May 17, 1982
Page 5
Mr. Greinke expressed concern about the ability of the audience to
clearly hear Agency proceedings. He suggested all Agency and Staff
members be sure to speak into the m~crophones.
ADJOURNMENT: At 4:15 to the next regular meeting on June 7, 1982.
R~ard _. Edgar, Cha~an~
Janet Hester, Recordfng Secretary
5-18-82
OF ,w~ ~.~,-v~OPIq~T A~CY OF
· ~ CITY OF T~ST~,,
May 17, 1982
C~T~. TO O~E~
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Edgar at 4:20 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California.
Agency Members Present:
Agency Members Absent:
Others Present:
Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli
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
Ed Knight, Associate Planner
Approximately 20 in the audience
3,, ~:~PI~OVXT. OF MINU'I~S
The minutes of the May 3, 1982, regular meeting were corrected to show
Mr. Greinke as not being absent, but as stepping down because of a poten-
tial conflict of interest. Chairman Edgar added that it is appropriate to
reflect that Mr. Greinke is not a member of the Agency.which consists of
only four members. It was then moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Salta-
relli, to approve the minutes of May 3, 1982, as corrected. Carried 3-0,
Kennedy abstaining.
4, APPI~'AI, OF
It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by
Demands for the month of April, 1982,
recommended by the Director of Finance.
Saltarelli, to approve General
in the amount of $23,914.79 as
Motion carried 4-0. 81
5. S~---r~mG DAT~ -- WO~OP TO ~-EW ST~T~S OF SO~/~TRA~ PI~kT~CT A~EA
AS recommended in the report dated May 1~, 1982, prepared by the Executive
Director, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Saltarelli, to set June 21,
1982, as the date for a workshop to consider the status of the South/
Central Project Area. Carried 4-0. 81
The Executive Director noted that this is not a required public hearing,
but merely an agenda item to consider the status of the project area. In
response to Councilwoman Kennedy, the Executive Director stated that mem-
bers of the Conunittee would be invited to attend the workshop.
6. EL CAMINO ~aT./MAIN ST~T IMP~TS STATUS ~EPORT
The report dated May 12, ~982, prepared by the Director of Public Works
was received and filed by unanimous informal consent. 94
7. A~CX (~f'~S - None.
Se
RECO~D~G S~
ADJmT
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to adjourn at 4:24 p.m. to
the next regular meeting on June 7, 1982. Carried 4-0.
CHAIRMAN /
MINU~S OF A ~u~A~
OF ~ ~STIN CIT~
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 Centennial Way
May 17, 1982
I o ~T.T.
III.
1.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 4:16 p.m.
Councilpersons Present:
Councilpersons Absent:
Others Present:
Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy,
Saltarelli
None
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
William A. Huston, City Manager
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
Mike Brotemarkle, Comm. Dev. Director
Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works
Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director
Ronald Nault, Finance Director
Approximately 20 in the audience
Mayor Edgar read and presented to Mike Turin, Founder/Director
of Share Health Foundation, a proclamation recognizing his
"Celebration of Life 60 by 60 RLm" and designating May 14, 1982,
as "Share Health Day." Mr. Turin expressed his appreciation to
both the Council and City for the recognition. 84
RECESS -
~ECU~v~ - CITY
COUNCIL At 4:20 p.m. the Council recessed to a meeting of the Redevelop-
ment Agency and reconvened at 4:24 with all men~ers present.
IV. CO~
PUBLIC BEARING
1. GAME ~ES - O~DINANCE NO. 870
The Community Development Director presented the staff report
and reco~endation. Council/staff discussion followed.
The Mayor opened the public hearing at 4:32 p.m. The following
persons spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 870:
Dave Patterson, Manager of Sgt. Pepperoni's Pizza Store, 651 E.
First Street.
Edward Starns, local businessman.
Maury Lebanoff, 11821 Highview Drive, Santa Aha, owner of shop-
ping center at corner of McFadden & Walnut Avenues.
Steve Gromek, Arbolada Way, Santa Aha, Attorney.
Mark Raytack, 1524 S. Van Ness, Santa Aha.
The public hearing was closed at 4:45 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy reminded Council that creation of the
ordinance was prompted by consideration of an arcade next to a
condominium project and input from the Police Chief and from
cities all over the country. She continued that in spite of
what opposing speakers have said, the staff report indicates
that staff favors the ordinance, understanding that Tustin does
not have a track record in arcades; her reason for concern is
due to input from Chief Thayer and because it involves children
in possible large groups; and although not meaning to be over-
restrictive, as a small city with residential abutting commer-
cial, this is a way to be responsible and cautious to the resi-
dential community. She added that she can certainly speak in
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2, 5-17-82
favor of the ordinance unless staff indicates they would rather
have the License & Permit Board review arcades; and even under
that condition, she would still approve the ordinance.
Councilman Hoesterey stated that all this ordinance does is
place arcades in a geographic area of the City; it does not give
some guidelines as to arcades, the number of machines and people
allowed in a building operating arcades; and he would like to
see an ordinance that makes it a subordinate portion of a busi-
ness instead of having an arcade that's just an arcade.
Councilman Greinke stated his opposition to the addition of
another set of regulations in the books when they're not needed.
The Mayor stated his feelings parallel Councilman Hoesterey's in
that he had hoped the ordinance would provide guidance and
awareness to the business con~nunity as to a set of standards,
but it's obvious we've been unable to put those standards into
print in a manner that isn't unduly restricted.
Councilman Saltarelli reiterated his opposition to the ordi-
nance.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, the Community Development
Director responded that anyone presently wanting six or more
games must come in under general provision of the Use Permit
section; and suggested that if Council is ~nhappy with the ordi-
nance, that the City Attorney very clearly define arcade as a
Use Permit hearing. Also, if the Planning Agency retains the
review function, the secondary review by the License & Permit
Board is really unnecessary.
After fLLrther Council/staff discussion, it was moved by Salta-
relli, seconded by Greinke, that Ordinance No. 870 be tabled for
no further consideration. Motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed.
It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to direct
staff to give Council a recommendation on the best procedure to
follow in the case of arcades and agendize it for the next regu-
lar meeting.
The Council joined Councilman Hoesterey in recognizing the
efforts of Dave Patterson, Sgt. Pepperoni's Manager, for spend-
ing a great deal of time on the City's behalf on the matter.
The motion carried 5-0.
81
V. PUIILIC
C~CEI~S
VI.
C~r.~NDAR
Betty Truitt, resident, commended and thanked the City on the
publication of the summer recreation program brochure "Tustin
Today." Council acknowledged the Community Services Director's
coordinating of the printing. 41
Item 3 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Hoesterey. Kennedy
abstained on Item 1. Gretnke registered a "NO" vote on Item 2 due
to its illegibility. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Salta-
relli, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Carried
5-0.
APP~OFAL (~ MINU~S- May 3, 1982
(Kennedy abstained)
APPROVAL OF DE~ANDS in the amc%mt of $706,579.87.
~AT~FICAT~O~ OF PAFROnn in the amount of $100,120.23.
(Greinke registered a '~NO" vote.)
50
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3, 5-17-82
4e
Se
RE~OI~JTI(~ NO. 82-35- A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, SUPPORTING THE ORANGE COUNTY ARTS
ALLIANCE PLAN FOR CUL~JRAL GROWTH
Adopt Resolution No. 82-35 as recommended by the Director of
Community Services.
RESOI~]T~O~ NO. 82-36- A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRO-
POSED ASSESSMENTS ON THE PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE EL CAMINO
REAL UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 5
Adopt Resolution No. 82-36 as recommended by the City Engi-
neer. 104
TRE~ ~AL - 17382 PAI~K~a~ D~T~E
Approve the removal of the Ficus tree at 17382 Parker Drive
as a Priority I removal and amend the Priority I removal to
include sewer laterals as well as curbs and sidewalks as
recommended by the City Engineer. 86.1
7e
~O~ NO. 82-37- A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (RED HILL AVENUE RECONSTRUC-
TION) (R. J. Noble Company)
Adopt Resolution No. 82-37 and if no cla~m~ 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 as recommended by the Engineering
Department. 95
Cc~sent Cale~d~v Item 3- It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by
Kennedy, to approve the following:
E~',~SI(H~ ~ ~SE P~T 8~-21 ~ND ~'rt~ ~ MAP 11336
(1651 Mitchell - Windsor Garden Apartments)
Approve extension of Tentative Tract Map 11336 with the
understanding that no further extensions of the Tentative
Map and the Use Permit will be granted as recommended by the
Community Development Department.
The motion carried 4-1, Hoesterey opposed.
VII. OI~IN~NC~ POI~. INTROOUCTION - None
VIII. ORDI-
NANCES
ADOPTIO~
ORDINanCE NO. 871 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE THSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO
FINANCIAL AND PURCHASING PROCEDURES OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance
No. 871 have second reading by title only. Carried 5-0.
Following reading of the title by the City Clerk, it was moved
by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 871 be
passed and adopted.
In response to Councilman Greinke, the City Manager explained
the ordinance will result in possible cost savings by stream-
lining purchasing procedures; procedurally there is no cost
impact; and it will not create an additional workload.
Roll call vote:
AYES: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli
NOES: None
5O
IX. OLD
1. R~D ~ ~ND ~%I~NUT AVenUES IN'-~u~ECTIO~ WOPuu~uOP
Following consideration of the report dated May 12, 1982, pre-
pared by the Director of Public Works, it was moved by Kennedy,
seconded by Hoesterey, to select May 25, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. for
subject workshop meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 94
CITY ~0UNCIL MINUTES
Page 4, 5-17-82
X. N~
1. BID AWARD - FAIRHA¥~ AF~E ~A'X~K ~
Bids for subject project were received as follows:
Great American Pipeline Company, Inc., Yorba Linda
Five States Plumbing, Inc., Orange
Three D Construction Company, Inc., Los Angeles
P.E.R., Inc., Orange
Brkick Construction Company, E1 Monte
Gallacher Company, Inc., Costa Mesa
Precision Pipeline, San Dimas
G.R. McKervy, Inc., Irvine
Irvine Pipeline Company, Inc., Santa Aha
Amick Construction Company, Inc., Ontario
Monarch Construction, Anaheim
Gabi Construction Company, Inc., La Habra
Macco Constructors, Inc., Paramount
G.R. Frost, Inc., Wilmington
City Construction Company, Covina
Norman Construction Company, Inc., Norco
$107 450.08
$109317.75
$119 414.75
$121550.58
$123 259.00
$124439.73
$124 563.05
$128781.60
$131 382.75
$131.399.90
$133588.14
$135.503.80
$145696.50
$146.268.00
$153,654.18
$159,328.38
The low bid is 7.5% below the Engineer's estimate of
$116,180.15, with $76,400.00 presently budgeted for the work.
Additionally, City crews will make service tie-ins and connec-
tions to existing water mains at an estimated materials cost of
$10,000.00. Total required funds for the project will be
$107,450.08 plus $10,000.00, or $117,450.08, requiring appro-
priation of an additional $41,050.08 to complete the work.
As recommended in the report dated May 11, 1982, prepared by the
Engineering Division, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by
Kennedy, to award the contract for subject project to Great
American Pipeline Company, Inc., Yorba Linda, in the amount of
$107,450.08 and authorize appropriation of an additional $42,000
to complete funding for the project. Motion carried 4-0,
Greinke abstaining. 107
In accordance with the report dated May 17, 1982, prepared by
the Community Development Department, it was moved by Salta-
relli, seconded by Hoesterey, to direct staff to approve the
Tustin Tiller Days Committee request to place banners on City
properties which advertise the festival subject to: 1) Approval
of the Tustin Unified School District for Site No. 1 (Columbus
Tustin School); and 2) Removal of the banners by October 22,
1982.
Councilman Greinke commented that to promote community spirit,
he would like to see service organizations have easy access to
means of notifying the public of community events and have staff
check into the feasibility of permanent-type places where cables
can be strung across the street for banners such as this.
The motion carried 5-0.
Pursuant to Councilman Greinke's comments, Council concurred to
direct staff to explore the feasibility of establishing a pro-
gram for placement of banners announcing community events. 93
AI~ORIT__.AT~O~I TO C~.ATE POSI~ ~m~SIFICA~O~ OF ASSISTANT
PLANNER
As recommended in the report dated May 11, 1982, prepared by the
City Manager, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey,
to authorize creation of the position classification of Assis-
tant Planner (salary range of $1,522 - $1,850) in the Community
Development Department.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5, 5-17-82
4e
5e
In response to Councilman Saltarelli, the City Manager indicated
that the intent is to fill the new position with a person pres-
ently on board, and delete the position that person currently
holds.
Motion carried 5-0.
79
S~'---'-NG DATE ~D (X~SIDER P~0POS~D INCREASE IN ~A~ C0~SOMPT~Ot~
RAT~
Pursuant to the recommendation contained in the report prepared
by the City Manager dated May 12, 1982, it was moved by
Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to set June 7, 1982, as the date
to consider a proposed increase in the water consumption rate.
The City Manager responded to Councilman Saltarelli that infor-
mation on the proposed increase will be set forth in the budget
data to be forwarded to Council this week.
The motion carried 5-0.
107
P.~EST FOR APPI~OVAL (~ ~a_NGE O~ERS - POLICE ~ CIT~ ~T.?.
B~IT~ING ~OOIFICAT~(H~S
In response to Councilman Saltarelli, the City Manager responded
that this change order is not the one previously approved; this
deals solely with the computer conduit and has nothing to do
with location of offices. In reference to Council's direction
to use partitions in lieu of constructing new offices for
employees other than department heads, the City Manager stated
that when construction started, in looking at the layout of the
new finance department relative to the computer system, relocat-
ing cabinets, moving in water billing personnel to the front
office area, and placement of other department emplyees, it was
felt that the original plan was not adequate and that it was
better to leave the Finance Coordinator's office status quo.
It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by
authorize the following change orders to the
Resnik Construction Company for subject project:
1)
2)
3)
Hoesterey, to
contract with
Installation of electrical conduit wiring and outlets for
the main computer and CRT's (for use in water service bill-
ings) - $2,635.00;
Installation of conduit from the main computer to the Police
Department (to accommodate computer equipment to be
installed at four locations in the Police Department) -
$2,940.00; and
Installation of new carpet in City Hall with the exception
of the Police, Con~unity Development and Public Works
Departments - $9,275.00.
Carried 5-0. 39
Following consideration of the report dated May 17, 1982, pre-
pared by the Community Development Department, it was moved by
Saltarelli, seconded by Greinke, to approve the subject concep-
tual design modification of the Myrtle Street cul-de-sac subject
to the following conditions:
1) No on-street parking on the cul-de-sac;
2) Any net surplus public property resulting from such a rede-
sig~ would be sold at public sale in accordance with State
law;
3) All necessary engineering and legal documents and plans
shall be the responsibility of the development proponents
and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and
City Attorney; and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6, 5-17-82
XI.
4)
Ail costs associated with the installation of the modified
improvements shall be the responsibility of the development
proponents as recommended by the Community Development
Department.
In response to Mayor Edgar's inquiry, Arthur Strock, project
architect, stated that the owner of the property in question has
been approached and has expressed no interest in selling, which
eliminates the possibility of incorporating it into the plan at
some future date.
Following a question-and-answer period, the motion carried 5-0.
95
7 · NBWPORT AVenUE ~SION
As recommended in the report dated May 11, 1982, prepared by the
Director of Public Works, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by
Saltarelli, to select the firm of Larry Seeman and Associates to
prepare the focused Environmental Impact Report for the Newport
Avenue Extension for the stipulated fee of $14,065.00 and per
the conditions outlined in their proposal dated May 7, 1982 as
recommended by the City Engineer. Carried 5-0. 44
8, 'C' STREET pI~t]~% DE$I~I~ ~v~$IO~
2o
The Co~muunity Development Director presented the staff report
and recon~endation. It was then moved by Greinke, seconded by
Kennedy, to approve Gfeller Development Company's request for
design revision on the "C" Street Plaza by replacing brick bend-
ing on the driveway surface with a "bomonite" or stamped-type
concrete to simulate red brick pavers. Motion carried 5-0.
81
POSSI~T.m A~D~TS TO ~g~ ~IFO~ FIRE COOE, 1979 EDIT~
Following consideration of the report dated May 17, 1982, input
from the City Manager, and Co~ncil/staff discussion, Council
concurred to direct staff to agendize each amendment to the Fire
Code separately and to address the financial impact on each one.
51
PROCESS FOR PIt~AR.~NG SPECIFIC ~ ~OR ~RV3~E CO~IP~ ~
The City Manager presented the staff report and reconunendation.
As recommended in his report dated May 11, 1982, it was moved by
Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to approve in conceptual form
a process for preparing the specific plan for the Irvine Company
land and authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with the
Irvine Company which sets in motion the planning process.
Following Council/staff discussion, the motion carried 5-0. 81
Tom Nielson, Senior Vice President of Irvine Company, commented
that the Irvine Company looks forward to working with the City
and that it is in both parties' best interest to come to a com-
mon understanding as to mutual goals. He introduced two staff
members - Pike Oliver, Director of Advanced Development Plan-
ning; and Brian Austin, Government Relations Group, who will
also be working closely with City staff.
3. FORMATI~ OF A PLANNING CO~ISSIO~
Following introductory comments by the City Manager, the Com-
munity Development Director expanded verbally on the staff
report dated May 11, 1982, prepared by the Community Development
Department. He requested Council verification/direction of
assumptions staff has made for formation of a Planning Commis-
sion, which include off-Monday 7:30 evening meetings besed on
historical context and the need for newspaper advertisements;
CITY COUNCIL MINUTF. S.
Page 7, 5-17-82
establishing an appropriate budget for attendance by Cc~mission
members at League meetings or any function the Commission would
have to perform on behalf of the City or in the Commission pro-
cess; determining what the powers, duties, and responsibilities
of the Planning Commission will be; the appeals process; and
other administrative matters.
Councilman Saltarelli stated he sees the need to expand the
appeal period to either 10 days or to the next Council meeting
(instead of the present 5-day appeal process), whereby all
actions of the Planning Commission would become final. Also, he
felt it should take two Councilmembers to appeal an action,
instead of just one, to eliminate going through the same func-
tion if there aren't at least two people interested and perhaps
reversing or mmdifying a decision of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Edgar concurred.
The Community Development Director inquired as to particular
areas of concern that Council would llke automatically forwarded
to them rather than going through an appeals process. Council-
man Saltarelli responded that with the former Planning Commis-
sion, if a controversial item was approved and Council Bid not
concur, Council would rehear the matter; if the Planning Commis-
sion denied a controversial item and the applicant filed an
appeal, the Council would rehear the matter. This was one of
the reasons the Planning Commission was eliminated and if it
cannot be changed, perhaps the Planning Commission should not be
reestablished.
Mayor Edgar stated that another element in matters denied by the
Planning Commission and appealed by the applicant is that when
the proposal came before Council, it would be modified in a
manner which might make it more palatable for approval, yet this
represents misuse of the system. The Community Development
Director responded that the proper course of action in such an
instance would have been to refer the matter back to the Plan-
ning Commission.
Another concern the Director brought up is time, noting it would
be extremely difficult to advertise an item for hearing before
Council, have the Commission continue the item, and then have a
hearing that would have to be readverttsed. There will probably
be a longer delay in items that before might have been on the
two agendas the same day, where it will be up to three weeks
between the Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy suggested that perhaps this could be alle-
viated by simply having the meetings back-up against each other
night to night. The Community Development Director noted that
newspaper advertisements m~st be in by Tuesday to make the
Thursday edition of the local paper, and meeting on Tuesday
nights would cause a week's delay before the notice could get
published. On the other hand, with Monday being the most co~on
holiday and four meetings a month being scheduled for two
bodies, Monday night meetings could also become a problem.
The Mayor Commented that in making a determination to reestab-
lish a Planning Commission, a commitment will be made that some
deficiencies will exist and some will be unavoidable. He
inquired if staff desired formal Council direction. The Com-
munity Development Director responded that staff will come back
with alternatives in a study draft at the July 6 meeting, and
then set the matter for public hearing.
The City Manager suggested that staff respond to Council's com-
ments in report form at the next regular meeting, since it may/
may not affect Council's position on the co~m~tssion. He stated
it is critical that everyone be on the same wave length so that
when the draft ordinance is presented, there is no confusion
about what's being created. Also, there are implications that
have to be explored from a legal/procedural standpoint, and if
they're going to affect Council's approach, they should be
addressed so that creation of the Commission can be framed in
more specific terms.
CITY ~0UNCIL MINUTES
Page 8, 5-17-82
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy stated she would like staff to be flex-
ible, creative, and ingenious about alternatives and not make it
difficult to reestablish the Commission. She continued that
perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on the speed with
which items are approved. Also, she would like to see a fair
budget, perhaps eliminating attendance at League meetings and
utilizing inhouse training at less cost.
The Community Development Director stated the big problem is
the mechanics of what is being done at this point and some of
the legal questions that may arise. Staff is trying to assure
that a more effective means of communication is established
between the new Planning Commission and Council to avoid any
misunderstandings whereby the Council is not aware of a par-
ticular action taken by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Edgar offered a personal observation that in the past, it
would have been more productive had the Planning Commission made
a poor decision, thereby enabling ir~ediate appeal to the Coun-
cil, rather than continuing a matter endlessly; and if there
were any way to issue a directive whereby a decision is to be
made and the matter not continued forever, it would be produc-
tive.
The Community Development Director indicated staff could respond
to some of the specific questions voiced by Council possibly by
the next meeting. 81
XII. O~
B~SIN~
1.
Council concurred to receive and file the report dated May 10,
1982, from Phyllis Tuttle, City representative on the Orange
County Health Planning Council. 67
The City Manager reminded Council of the Executive Session for
discussion of labor negotiations.
2. O0~DO~INI~ OO~FERSIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy requested that staff look into possible
disservice to tenants of apartments that were approved for con-
dominium conversion, and then the conversion is withdrawn.
43
3. AB 1197 - W~z~TAI/~WANCE L;ORGA~B,~B ~
Councilman Saltarelli suggested that the City Oppose AB 1197
which would increase the weight allowance for garbage trucks.
Council concurred. 61
4. TUST~N ~0~AX B~OU~UK~
Councilman Hoesterey echoed Betty Truitt's co~endatlon on the
"Tusttn Today" recreation program brochure.
Councilman Greinke thanked Council for the opportunity to attend
the League of Cities meeting for newly elected officials and
stated it was very informative and helpful.
6 · B~S S~ELTE~S
Council concurred that the City is not interested in pursuing
bus benches/shelters in ~ustin, even after reviewing the bro-
chure that was distributed. 21
CITY COUNCIL M/NUTES
Page 9, 5-17-82
7. duv~IL~ D-v~ZON PROGRAM F~DING
In response to Mayor Edgar's comments that perhaps the City
could share some of the funding obligations in terms of services
provided by different agencies to the City on a volunteer
basis, the City Manager pointed out that the City has had an
ongoing relationship with ATSC (Assessment Treatment and Service
Center) in Costa Mesa for juvenile delinquency diversion pro-
grams. Staff intends to reco~m~end said group for some level of
funding in the 1982-83 revenue sharing budget. That group, how-
ever, will be competing with other requests which Council will
consider through a public hearing process. At this point, staff
will be recom~ending one group for funding. 29
SPECIFIC PLAN ADVISORY O0~'~-,'~ (NTSP/~C) RESIG~A-
Councilman Greinke acknowledged the resignation of Tony Coco
from NTSPAC and recommended that a letter of commendation be
sent to him for his service on said committee. Council
concurred. 28
XIII.
At 6:01 p.m., it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Greinke, to
recess to an Executive Session on labor negotiations, thence adjourn
to a workshop for Red Hill Avenue & Walnut Avenue Traffic Signal
Improvements on May 25 at 7:00 p.m., and thence to the next regular
meeting on June 7, 1982.
MAYOR