Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 11-02-81 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Workshop Meeting October 27, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. The Planning Agency held a workshop meeting, Tuesday, October 27, [981, at 7:30 p.m. In the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 Cen- tennial Way, Tustin, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Sharp Absent: Saltarelli Also present: Michael Brotemerkle, Community Development Director William Huston, City Manager USE PERMIT 81-29 Applicant: Location: Request: Cal Pacific Properties Newport Avenue between Main Street and E1 Camino Real (formerly Laguna Road) · To develop the subject property for commercial, retail and office use. Chairman Sharp informed the public that on October 21, 1981 at the regular Planning Agency meeting there had been a public hearing on EIR-81-2 and Use Permit 81-29. At that time the Agency'did open the public hearing and after testimony from the public, the Agency did ap- prove certification of EIR-81-2. The purpose of the workshop was to consider additional concerns of the public on Use Permit 81-29 for the proposed development of the Tustin Town Center project. He stated that st~ff would not reiterate their report which was presented on October 21, 1981 but were present to answer any specific questions. The developer was also present to answer any questions. The public workshop was opened. Bob Walton, s~ted he was a resident of Tustin for 20 years and wanted to know why the proposed development (Tustin Town Center) was good for the community. He said he foresees two highrtse, 6 story buildings with over-crowded roads, noise, congestion and the loss of the atmosphere which brought him to Tustin in the first place. Mr. Brotemarkle responded that in analyzing the project and looking at the General Plan of' the community, some of the major points of the General Plan which were adopted in the 60's was to atten~pt to obtain a distinguishable community identity related to community pride and co- hesiveness of political, social and economic factors; to revitalize the economic health of the Town Center area; and upgrade the economic base and reputation of the community based upon the quantity and quality of professional office space in commercial centers. This particular project fits into those particular goals of the community. Betty Truit, questioned why they needed the concept of Town Center in Tustin and what was the ultimate plan for downtown Tustin. Chairman Sharp asked staff if the development was in keeping with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance or was this something new and different from what they had done before. Mr. Brotemarkle referred again to the General Plan and said additionally the property was in conformance with zoning established for it. The Redevelopment Plan was adopted in [976 and zoning derives originally from the General Plan. Mrs. Truit mentioned the 10 story Senior Citizens Development of several years ago and said she was under the impression at that time the Council adopted a regulation limiting height of buildings in downtown Tustin. Mr. Brotemarkle remarked that the question had been asked at the last meeting and there was no highrtse restriction or policy adopted by ei- ther the City Planning Agency or Council restricting structures to three stories based on the Senior Citizens proposal. Greg Butcher, California Pacific Properties, 17941 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, said they have a proposed mixed use development to develop certain amounts of office, retail, financial, entertainment and restaurant space. In doing so they feel the level of development required was extremely important given the economics, and pointed out there was more open space on the ground level because of the height. Richard Fisher, said he was a 7 year resident of Tusttn and the indicated there would be a traffic increase of 3 percent. Chairman Shar~ said it would depend on the intersection; each inter- section close to the proposed development was measured and its capaci- ty determined and none of the capacities were reached. Mr. Fisher asked what was the criteria used for determining the capa- city and was it based on the population of the office buildings. Jack Greenspan, Traffic Consultant, replied that they base projected future traffic on similar uses of other buildings and the common denominator is normally square footage. If you have an office building of so many thousand square feet, you have a traffic generation rate of so many vehicle trips a day for*that number of square feet and that is translated into peak traffic hours. Mr. Greenspan went on to describe how the traffic study was conducted and the total number for this project was 9,300 more car trips a day would be added to the entire traffic system which makes the assumption that all the people who come to and from the project are new traffic. The intersection is the key in analyzing traffic because that is where traffic has to stop. Mr. Greenspan spoke at some length about the principle of the "Level of Traffic Service" concept. Mr. Edgar commented that basically there was published record by the Transportation Commission that Intersection I-5 and 1-55 were the worst intersections in the entire County and that pressure has been applied to Caltrans and the County to get the legislation that would create a separate District so that tax money will be used in this community. Perhaps in three or four years those particular intersections can be improved. It is a problem of certain intersections irrelevant of this project and the project has to stand on its own in terms of traffic generation. There were additional comments from the audience regarding freeway traffic, the need for additional stop lights and the condition of the streets when the development would be under construction and the streets torn up, impeding traffic. Mr. Greenspan stated that temporary situations were not taken into consideration when computing the traffic studies because those condi- tions were not permanent. There was a question as to whether the office space, either built or planned, would double by 1988 as a result of the proposed project. Chairman Sharp said if the project was approved then it would be a part of the doubling, but if it wasn't approved and subsequently addi- tional projects were constructed, piecemeal or whatever, even on the same site, then by the end of the decade the end result would be approximately the same sum of projected additional office spaces. This project would supply approximately 33% of the projected growth of required office space by the year 1988. Mr. Moses said he would like to know if the City was relying on the traffic engineering of Mr. Greenspan or does the City Street Depart- ment have its own studies that are germaine to this instance. Chairman Sharp explained that where an E.I.R. impact study has to be made, it has to go through a formal process. This is a costly process and in an effort to save money the City causes the developer to produce and pay for it, but that first draft doesn't get to the public until the City's staff has had an opportunity to review it in context with their own planning documents. Since Mr. Ledendecker, the City Engineer, was not present, Chairman Sharp suggested Mr. Moses' concern be recorded for answer at the continued hearing on the validity of the studies that the consulting engineer of the applicant has made and the process the City has gone through to validate that. Mr. Hoestery summarized 3 areas of concern: l) the necessity for the buildings, what market studies have been performed and do the demographics support the need for this, especially in ~the area of office space, theatres and restaurants (what type and what market would they serve); 2) with regard to height- is a four story building that is unstructured or unbroken and isn't designed in terraces as imposing on a co,~unity as a six story building that is; and 3) is the traffic problem that is imposed on the community changed to a level far worse because of the project or are they experiencin, g traffic problems whether or not a development goes in. NOTE: Mr. Saltarelli arrived and was counted present. There was a lengthy discussion on the Redevelopment funds the proposed project would generate, how that would benefit the City, where the money would be spent in the community and whether this consideration offset any disadvantages of the project. There was a general discussion of Tustin's long range General Plan; how the General Plan goals are projected, traffic impacts on Main Street and whether this street would ultimately be considered for wi- dening and/or reduced parking. Also discussed was the method of noti- fying the residents of Tustin about proposed projects. Mr. Huston informed the Agency that the Orange County Fire Depart- ment's fire prevention and protection apparatus, in addition to the proposed project's life support systems built into the building, were sufficient and there was adequate fire fighting capabilities overall. Mr. Butcher was requested by Chairman Sharp to reinvestigate the height of the proposed buildings and inform Council at the continued public hearing whether or not they were prepared to lower the buildings and if so to what extent and to try and furnish the Council with a list of buildings within proximity of accessible viewing, which were comparable architecturally to the size, scale and density of his proposed structures. A petition of 88 signatures of the residents of Tusttn Gardens was submitted as evidence that the applicant had made a detailed presenta- tion, including the table model, to those persons affected most close- ly by the development and they supported the project as presented. ADJOURNMENT: The Agency unanimously adjourned the workshop to the continued public hearing at a regular meeting of the Planning Agency on December 7, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, in order to give the appli- cant an opportunity to revie~ the concerns brought up and address those concerns at that time. Maria Ivory Recording Secretary by Chairman, J~ Chairman Pro Tempore, Ronald B. Hoesterey TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting November 2, 1981 The Planning Agenc~ held a regular meeting Monday, November 2, lg81, 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 3:07 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Hoesterey and the invocation was given by Mr. Saltarelli. ROLL CALL Present: Edgar, Noesterey, Kennedy, Sal tarel I i, sharp Absent: None A1 so present: Michael Brotemar~le, Community Development Director William Huston, City Manager james Rourke, City Attorney Maria Ivory, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held October 21, lg81,-were approved with the following correction: Page $, Paragraph 2 should read "Agency" and not "Council" in all places whereapp6oprtate. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Ordinance for Introduction An Ordinance to amend the Planned Development Standards and the Multiple Family Residential District(s) Standards of the Tustin Zoning Code. Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report and said the issue was concerning height limitations of R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts. The proposed Ordinance has been reviewed at the previous meeting under New Business and modified to ordinance form by the City Attorney. The primary emphasis has been that appropriate Agency review be established on all multiple residential projects not just condominiums. The Public Hearing portion on Ordinance NO. 862 was was' opened. There being no one to speak the hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION NO. 2005." ..... . .... A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 862, AMENDING THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY DISll~ICTS ....... "Moved by Kennedy to adopt Resolution No. 2005. The motion was seconded by Edgar. Under discussion Mrs. Kennedy asked if the Planned Development District (P-D) as mentioned by name in the Ordinance also includes Planned Conmmnity District (P-C). Mr. Brotemarkle replied that it does not include P-C and only applies to residential districts, and his directive from the City Council with R-2, R-3, and R-4 was to make these districts co~atible to the P-D district. He pointed out all uses in the P.C. were subject to use permit review. There was a discussion regarding heights as measured from curb grades and Mr. Brotemarkle commented that where there was an undulation or differential they are measured by taking an average of grade, but in mat areas it would be measured essentially from top of curb. He stated this definition of how the height is measured was in the Code. Mr. Saltarelli said he felt it was premature to vote because they had not defined the terms in stating what height means. There was no Planning Agency Minutes November 2, 1981 Page 2 clear definition of underground parking and therefore to approve the amendments to height limitations had no meaning without knowing what height is. Mrs. Kennedy said she did agree there needed to be a consistent measure of height, however, she did not want to wait for everything to be completely perfect because she was afraid of what might get through in the meantime. City Attorney was asked if there was any legal recourse if a building were built higher than what was approved. Mr. Rourke responded that the question was complex but basically if the City staff issues a building permit and authorizes construction, the property owner was pretty well privileged to build in conformance with those permits issued. If there was a problem with staff following the desires of the Council then that is something which needs to be worked out in-house. The City's position would be difficult in forcing a builder to conform to anything other than the permits and plans approved. Mr. Saltarelli comented that Sections 3 and 4 of the prgposed Ordinance were not appropriate. Substitute motion by Saltarelli to continue the matter to the December 7, 1981 meeting for further,clarification. The motion was seconded by Kennedy. Under discussion Mr. Hoesterey said he could not support the substitute motion because there was an inequity between building apartments and building condominiums and would like to see the original motion approved with the understanding that they would start amending it to satisfy the original intent that an apartment house does not go up next to an R-[ building so there would at least be a stop gap in the interim. The substitute motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Kennedy, Saltarelli and Sharp NOES: Hoesterey and Edgar PUBLIC CONCERNS: None STAFF CONCERNS: None AGENCY CONCERNS: None ADJOURNMENT: At 3:30 p.m. upon motion of Edgar the Agency adjourned to November 16, 1981 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Kennedy and carried unanimously. Maria Ivory Recording Secretary by The motion was seconded by Chairman, James B. Sharp Chairman Pro Tempore, Ronald B. Hoesterey Novmker 2, 1981 The meeting was called ~o order by Chair~wn Sharp at 3:28 p.m. in the City Council Chang~ers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. Agency Mmhers Present: Agency M--~ers Absent: Others Present:- Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Sal~arelli, Sharp None James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, City Manager Mary E. W!~nn, City Clerk Mike Brot-~-~kle, C.-u~. Dev. Director Ken Fleagle, Planning Consultant Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Ron Nault, Finance Director Royleen White, Cma--,mity Services Director Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk Jeff Davis, Planning Intern Approx/mately 20 in the audience It was moved by Sal~arelli, seconded by Hoestere~, ~o approve the minutes of the October 21, 1981, meeting. Mo~ion carried 5-0. 4. ~ AV~Y~ B~r~ TRAIL R~OLIFFX~ NO. ~ 81--12 - A Resolu~ion of the Tustin C.'-.L..~unity Redevelop- sent ~en~ of ~e City of ~, ~ifo~ia, ~V~NG ~S ~ ~I- FIfTIeS FOR ~ A~ BI~ ~ BE~ ~ ~~ The Director of Public Works provided additional data re costs, physical features, and bicycle ~raffic counts. Right-of-way and cons~ruc~cion costs for the ~rail between Main S~reet and Irvine Boulevard totalled approxi- mately $142,500, shared equally between City and County Aarw funds. With cons~rxlc~lon of the trail, an additio~-I $18,373 in AHFP funds wes received for widening of Newport Avenue to 31 feet. Construction costs for the inter/m bike. trail between Main and E1 Csm~no Real totalled $21,000. The ~rail is not within the overall County Master Plan. If the bike trail were to be re~u~ved, the County would reco_-~_~nd that future AHFP funds be withheld to offset their cons~runtion costs. Othe= methods of berm cons~_-xlc=ion were investigated, bu~ proved unfeasible due to sloping, drainage, and encroachment. Bicycle counts were provided which were taken on a Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, between Irvine Boulevard and E1 Camino Real from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. S~aff feels if the bike trail system is connected to t_he County system on North Newpoz~c and ex~ended to the south, usage would increase. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to adop~ Resolu~ion No. RDA 81-12. In response to the Mayor, the Director indicated that unless there is a physical barrier, bicyclists will encroach ~to the s~reet, end the berm will be replaced with 8' high concrete material, grey in color, similar to the sidewalk. Counci~n Saltarelli thanked staff for an excellent rspOr~o Motion carried 5-0. Councilman Edgar expressed his approval of the draft, and requested that staff ~ake each. item individually and report back with specific options. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Page 2, 11-2-81 It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Salter.iii, to accep~ the follow- ing Tustin Co~mtunity Redevelo~ent Agency Policies and to set another workshop in 3-4 months: Priority for the expenditure of tax increment revenue will be given to projects which stimulate and facilitate sales tax generating cial projects. Agency funded capital improvements within public rights-of-way (infra- structure) should be in=agra=md with private develop, nfs which are consist.n= with the Agency's adopted redevelop.n= project area plans. Agency funded capital improvements within public rights-of-way should be prioritized and scheduled so as not to preclude the option to finance critical non-capital improvement projects. Consistent with California Redevelop.n= Law, the Agency will exercise its powers of m~nent do~ain, conde~nation, or negotiatmd ac~Juisition and sale of land where such actions result in achievement of objec- tives se= forth in redevelo[mnent 9rojec"a area plans. These powers shall only be exercised where it can be demonstrated that wi~hou~ Agency par~icipation, a develop.n= (consistent with the objectives of t_he project area plan) would not otherwise proceed. A financial analysis will be ~repared which identifies the most appro- priate means of financing Agency projects. The financial analysis will be prepared raking into account State laws concerning debt (inc%~-ring debt to receive annual tax increment) and the Agency' s project plans (level and rate of Agency expenditures). Land usa, economic base and financial feasibility studies will be pre- pared for the Irvine land to determine the need for Agency participa- tion in develops.n= of this area. 7. Project area plans will be prepared for the Bonita/Bryant area and the South Tustin area (bounded by Newpoz~ Avenue and Freeways I-5 and 55). A legal and financial analysis will be prepared concerning the use of Town Canter Project Area ~ax increment funds for public improvements (e.g., Newpozff: Avenue extension) outside t_he projec~ Area, hu~ which benefit it (e.g., improved ~raffic circulation). Mrs. Kennedy requested that & clause be added ~o Item 4 reading, "powers of ~tnent domain would be used as a last resoz~." Agency m~mhers Ssi=a- r.iii and Hoestsrey felt it would restrict the Agency; Mr. Edgar felt he could either accept or re~ec~ the clause. Mrs. Kennedy continued that she has seen a ~endency over the last few years by the Agency to aocep~ ea~Lnent domain earlieri she hesitates to list it first as a possibilit7 to acquire land~ and she is reluctant to use it unless there is absolutely no other, way to proceed. The motion by Kennedy to add subjec~ clause to Policies Item 4 died for lack of a second. After fur=her Council discussion, ~he original mo=ion carried 5-0. 81 Following discussion on scheduling of the workshop, it was the consensus to set a ~ate in January, 1982. None. It was moved by Hoes=er.y, seconded by Edgar, to adjourn at 3=52 p.m. to the next regular meeting on November 16, 1981. Carried 5-0. CHAIRMAN PRO %'EM RECORDING SECRETARY COUNCT'r. 300 Centennial Way TO ~ The meeting was called ~o order by Mayor Sharp at 3:52 Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons ~beent: O~hers Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp None James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, City Manager Mary E. WFnn, City Clerk Mike Brotm~kle, Comm. Dev. Director Ken Fleagle, Planning Consultant Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Ron Naul=, Finance Director Royleen White, Com~uni~y Services Director Eva' Solis, Deputy City Clerk Jeff Davis, Planning Intern Approximately 20 in ~he audience III. PUBLIC C~-~-~ None Item 6 was r~moved from the Consent Calendar by. Sal~trelli for dis- cussion in Execu~ive 8ession~ Item 7 was removed by Kennedy~ and Item 9 by E~gar. It was then ~oved by Kennedv,. seconded bV Edqar, ~o approve ~he r~wainder of =he Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5~0. 1. A~t~OVA~ 0~ ~ - October 21, 1981 Adjourned Regular Meeting 2. ~ OW ~ in ~he amount of $484,584.42. Ra~Xw~C~A~ OW PAI~w~-~- in the amount of $196,036.94. 5O ~ OW ~ OW ~ Lo E~LIOTT~ ma~- OW LOSS: CL~X~ ~Oo 81--27 Deny claim of ~obert L. Elliott as recommended by the City A~torney. 40 NO. 81-28 Deny claim of Richard M. Hoy~ as recommended by ~he City Attorney. 4~ ~ NO. 81--25 Deny claim of Rod L. Carpenter as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 Authorize the following salary adjus~ments: ~tntenance Worker, Kenny Schultz from Step D, $1316 to Step F, $1451; ~aintenance Worker, Fred Luna from Step B, $1194 to Step D, $1316; and A~nistrative Secretary, Donna Treat from Step B, $1399 to Step D, $1543. ~~ NO. 81--118 - A Resolution of ~he City Council of ~he Cl~y of Tustin, A~£~ORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT (8) CONDO- MINIUM UNITS IN AN R-3 ZONE LOCAT~:u AT 1~62 SYCAMO~ AVENUE ON APPEAL OF PLANNING AGENCY USE PERMIT ACTION Ado~ion of Resolution No. 81-118' as proposed by =he City Council. CITY COUNCIL MINb'r~-S Page 2, 11-2-81 ~,~I~ ~O. 81-120 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin ~CEPTING WOP/(S OF I24PRO%~EMENT AND AU~ORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (Centennial Park Sidewalk Improvements Phase II - Changing Times Enterprises, Inc. ) Adoption of Resolution No. 81-120 and ass,~{ng no claim- or stop payment not-%ces are filed within 30 days of t-he date of recordation of ~he Notice of C0~pletion, authorize payment of the final 10% retention at t_hat ~{me as recomended by the Engineering Department. 77 ~0~ NO. 81--121 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING Pi4%NS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR RED HILL AVENUE WA'i--:R MAIN Adoption of Resolution No. 81-121 as recommended by the Engineering Depa& ~aent 10. ~&~TI~ ~0. 81--119- A Resolu=ion of the City Council, City of T~s~in, California, REQUESTING THE COMMEnCemeNT OF INGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF UNINHA~ITP-u TERP~TORY KNOWN AS NEWPORT/V~NDE~?.T9 ANNEXATION NO. 129 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN Adoption of Resolu~ion No. 81-119. 24 11. Fz~m?. ~ OW ~u-~-zC imedia& ~ ~LEA~E 0~ B0~DS - ~ ~O. 10852 (NW ~rner of Pla~ Drive ~d I~e ~ev~d) Acce~ ~1 ~lic ~prov~ ~hin ~act No. 10852 and au=horize the release of ~he following bonds: ~nd ~. 7~20~28, F~f~ Perforce- $8,500.00; ~nd No. 7120~28, ~r a~ ~erials - $4,250.00; and ~nd No. 71'20129, ~nu- ~n~tion - $2,200.00 as ~com~ded by ~e City ~g~eer. C~ Ca~c~m~ I~ 7 - It was moved by Edgar, seconded b~ Salta- relli, to adopt the following resolution: ~S~TI~ ~O. 81-118 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT (8) CO~O- MINIUM UNITS IN AN R-3 ZONE LOCA. k.:.'. AT 1'162 SYCAMO~ AVENUE ON APPEAL OF PLANNING AGENCY USE PERMIT ACTION Motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. CmoS: Ca~en4ar I~ 9 - Counc~!man Edgar s~ated that the concept of deleting any other projects from t_he Capital budget should be addressed in the context of a precise tabulation of funding obliga- tions, responsibilities, and a balance sheet. He requested that his motion be interpreted that deletion of any it-m~ from the capital budget is inappropriate, bu~ obviously the motion in itself does not delete anything. It was moved by Edgar, seconded b~ Kennedy, to adopt the following resolution, and direct the City Clerk to adver- tise for bids: ~F~TIO~ NO. 81-121 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROviNG PLJ~NS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR RED HILL AVENUE WATER MAIN Motion carried 5-0. 107 Mr. Edgar continued that when the next Redevelopment Agency workshop is held the first of the year, also included for discussion should be an analysis of the Water Depa&~.-ent construction and finances, and an update on capital improvements so that Council may develop a strategy for the remainder of this, and next, fiscal year. Council concurred. 50 None VT. ORDI-- NA~C~ FOR AIX)PTI~ 1. O~DIN~ NO. 860 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 4, P~RT 2 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE REGARDING THE REGULATION OF AMBULANCES CITY COUNCIL ~ES Page 3, 11-2-81 VII. O~D VIII It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordi-~_nce No. 860 have second reading by title only. Csx-tied 5-0. Following reading of the ~itle by the City Clerk, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, ~hat Ordinance No. 860 be passed Councilman Saltarelli suggested ~hat in ~he ~uture when amend- ~ent~ are ~ade to the Code, ~hat staff indicate what those changes, deletions, and additions are in t_he same manner as is done for ~he legislature, i.e., by "x'ing" ~hem out. Roll Call VOte: A~ES: Edgar, Hoester~y, Kennedy, Sal~arelli, Sharp NOES = None 22 O~I~LNC~ NO. 861 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING A~ICLE 3, CHAPTER 4, PART PERTAINING TO TOW TRUCKS It was moved by Hoeeterey, seconded by Edgar, t. hat Ordinance No. 861 have second reading by title ~ly. Carried 5-0. Following reading of the title by the City Clerk, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded bF Edgar, that Ordinance No. 861 be passed and adopted. Councilman Sal~arelli objected veh_~w~_n~ly to Ordinaxxce No. 861, stating it places ~he burden of proof an the proper~¥ o~ner. The City Attorney reported that the City Code, as' it no~ reads the requir~nen~s as ~o what type no,-toes have ~o be posted and when a ~ow ~r~k can ~ow someth/_ng away, eto., have largely been preeml~ced by the State, and there is not much the City can do abou~ it. S~aff can look at it and see if there are some other ways or s~.m flex/bill=y, bu~ he didn't think there would be too mu~h there. Following Council discussion, the substitu~e motion by Kennedy ~o conezLnue the matter died for lack of a second. Roll call vOte: ATES: None NOES: Edgar, Hoes~erey, Kennedy, saltarelli, Sharp 82 Councilman Edgar requested that staff look into the matter and possibly come up with a compromise ~o provide a balance. O~DX~I~CE NO. 859 - An Ordinance of =he City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ADOPTED AS AN URGENCY MEASURE PROHIBITING STRUCTURES IN T~- R-3 MULTIPLE FM~ILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IN EXCESS OF PRESCRIBED HEIGHTS WITHIN CERTAIN DISTANCES OF PROP-- EI~/ ZONES R-A, E-4, AND R-1. It was ~oved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, ~o continue Ordi- nance No. 859. Carried 5-0. 81 As recommended in t-he me_~o_'dated October 17, 1981, prepared by the City Manager, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, ~o continue =his ma=tar ~o the November 16 meeting. Motion carried 83 Pursuant to ~he m~-~ dated October 23, 1981, prepared by t_he City Clerk, it was moved by Hoesterey., seconded by Edgar, to confirm Council action of January 19, 1981, not to consolidate City elections with County elections. Carried 5-0. 48 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 11-2-81 OFFICIAL RBpI~,S~I'~a'FZVE & ~'~1~ A~,O.u~x,':,, %'0 P~D8 As recommended in the me-w3~ dated October 20, 1981, prepared by ~he Finance Director, it was moved by Edqar, seconded by Hoesterey, to reappoint Councilm-n Hoesterey, Official Represen- tative, and Councilwo~n Kennedy, Non Nault, and Loni F~hlin, Alternates, to the Public Agencies Data System (PADS) Board. Motion carried 5-0. 50 T~. ot. mt~ The City Manager requested an Executive Session for discussion of personnel and legal matters. As rec~m..%nded by the City Attorney, it was moved b~ Edqar, sec- onded by Kennedy, to authorize revised settlement in =he matter of Nanc~ Kuras on the basis of 38% disability rating ($7,396.31), plus unpaid medical legal costs of $350.00, w~th future medical expenses to be s,,~tted to the Workers Co~pansa- tion Appeals Board for determination. Carried 5-0. 79 AS reco-~aended by =he City Attorney, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Eoeeterey, to authorize settlement in the matter of Rober~ Conway in =he amount of $~6,432.50 plus future medicals. Mo~ion carried 5-0. 79 3. ST~m? ANImaLS I~ ~ In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, the City Manager reported that s~aff needs to study =he matter further, but stated =hat the contrac~ does not indicate that the County shall be the first responding agency on an animal control complaint, and staff will attem~ to clarify the issue and repoz~c back to Coun- cil. Mayor Sharp relayed an incidence wherein a dog was struck by a vehicle and the difficulty in getting the proper agency to respond. 23 ~..L--'i'2'~aT SX'L~E) ~i' ~ OF U.S. POST Councilwoman Kennedy stated she has received complaints regard- ing the political stand operating in front of the U.S. Post Office on the issue of nuclear power, and requested that staff investigate the matter and report back to Council. 42 It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to adjourn at 4:24 p.m. to an Executive Session for discussion of personnel and legal mat- ters, and thence to the 7:30 p.m. evening session. Carried 5-0. 7:30 P.H. ~:ET'XNG The City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Sharp at 7:33 p.m. Councilpersons Present: Councilper sons Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp None James ~. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, City Manager Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mike Brotemarkle, Com. Dev. Director Ron Nault, Finance Director Approximately 40 in the audience CITY COUNCIL ~/NUTES Page 5, 1'1-2-81 ~2~ZIOB ~0. 81-122 - A Resolution of ~-he City Council of ~he City of Tustin, California, DETERMINING AND ADOPTING AN APPRO- PRIATIONS LI/~IT FOR THE FISCAL ~ 1981-82, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A~TICI~E XIIIB 0F THE CONSTITU'£rON OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND C~k~ 1205 OF THE RE~O~. AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 7910 The Finance Director presented ~he staff repor~ and recomenda- =ion and responded to Council questions. The ~ublic hearing was opened a= 7:38 p.m. There being no com- ments or objections, it was moved b~ Edgar, seconded b~ Kennedy, to ado~ Resolution No. 81-122. Carried 5-0. 29 O~ZN~NC~ ~o 862 - An Ordinance of ~he City of Tustin, Califor- nia, ~2~ENDING A~ICLE 9, C~R 2, OP THE TUSTIN CITY CODE ~.RTI~E TO LAND USE AND ZONING William Huston, City Manager, rec~.~ended that since the Plan- ning Agency had continu~d ~his matter, it would be appropriate open ~he public hearing a~ continue as an o~en hearing. The public hearing was opene~ a= 7:40 p.m. There being no com- mon=s or obJec~ions, it was moved b~ Edgar, seoonde¢[ bF Kennedy, ~o continue as an open public hearing to ~he nex~ meeting. Carried 5-0 · 110 None. The Mayor pointed out ~hat ~here were a n-tuber of s~udents in the. au£htence ~o observe ~he meeting. As re~nded in the m~m- ~atad October 14, 1981, prepared by ~he City ~-ager, it was moved b~ Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, ~o au~hori~e ~he following salary adjustments: Maintenance Worker, Kenny Schul=z from Step D, $1316 to Step F, $1451; Maintenance Worker, Fred Luna from Step B, $1194 to Step D, $1316~ and Ad~uhnis~rative Secretary, Donna Treat from Stap B, $1399 to Step D, $1543. Carried 4-1, Sal~arelli opposed. 79 Cherrill Webb presented an oral re~or~ basically as contained in ~he agenda packet. Terry ' Sorrensen, President ' of the Tustin Jaycees, ~rssented plaques ~o Councilpersons Hoesterey, Kennedy, and Edgar who par- ticipated in the Tiller Days Parade and to t~e Police Department for their help. Councilman Edgar c~ented Chat ~he judges of ~he Parade compli- mented the Jaycees on ~he way t_he ~arade was managed. A round of applause was given for Cherrill Webb Eot her manage- ment of the Tustin Tiller Days Fair and the Jaycses Eot their management of t_he Tus~in Tiller Days Parade following Councilman Hoesterey~s c~ent that anyone who volunteers their time ~ t.he City deserves a ~ood round of applause. ~4 VI. OTm~ B~INESS 1. ~4uK=ACI~i~ ~ A~ Councilman Saltarelli suggested that any future resurfacing of Redhill Avenue should be done a~ night to ellminat~ traffic 9robl~ even if we have to 9ay overtime. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 11-2-81 Councilman Hoesterey s=ated that he had received a "thank you" letter from represen~atives of our sister city, M~=amata, New Zealand, who visited our City recently and were very impressed. Councilw(~an Kennedy asked if the students in t-he audience had any questions or concerns. The Council responded ~o ~he following oA%estions by .%igh school studen~ observing the meeting: 1. Spence Craddook, 17671 West_bury Lane, asked when Col,--hus Tus~in Park would be completed; Lee Cecala, 1801 Lance Drive, suggested ~utting a stadium at Coll--hUS Tustin Park which would bring in revenue instead of a b~lding; 3. Another student asked about the s!rnchronizing of traffic lights on Redhlll; and 4. Marsha Jonninger questioned the need for a~other park. It was moved by 8oesterey, seconded by Edgar, to adJ'ourn at 8:18 p.m. to the heX= regular meeting on Novemk~r 16, 1981. MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 300 Centennial Way ~.w~ ~ 9, 1981 5:00 P.M. The meeting was called ~o order by ~ayor Sharp at 5:11 p.m. Councilpersons Presen=: Councilpersons Absen=: O~hers Prssen=: Edgar, Hoes~erey, Kennedy, Sal~arelli, Sharp None James G. Rourke, City A~orney william A. Hus~on, City Manager ~y E. Wynn, City Clerk The Council recessed ~o an Execu=ive Session for legal and personnel matters a= 5:12 p.m. The Council reconvene~ and adjourned a= 6:10 p.m. to the nex~ regular meeting on Nova, a~er 16, 1981. ' MAYOR PRO TEM