HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-1995MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 20, 1995
At 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Clerk of the Council Janice C. Guy
announced the regular meetings of the City Council and the Community Redevelopment Agency
were adjourned to the 2nd Floor Conference Room of the Santa Ana Library, to commence at
6:10 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter.
CALLED TO ORDER
BY MAYOR PRO TEM
6:15 P.M.
2nd Floor Conference Room
Santa Ana Library
26 Civic Center Plaza
ATTENDANCE:
COUNCILMEMBERS
Present:
ROBERT L. RICHARDSON, Mayor Pro Tem
TONY ESPINOZA
TOM LUTZ
PATRICIA A. McGUIGAN
LISA MILLS
TED R MOP.ENO
Absent: MIGUEL A. PULIDO, Mayor
STAFF:
DAVID N. REAM, City Manager
EDWARD J. COOPER, City Attorney
JANICE C. GUY, Clerk of the Council
WORK STUDY SESSION
Planning and Building Agency Executive Director Robyn Uptegraff reviewed the agenda for the
session, indicating the content would include completion of the discussion regarding architectural
review, sign regulations, the environmental review process, and Public Works development
processing issues as time permitted.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 74 MARCH 20, 1995
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Planning Manager Ken Adams explained the Planning Division took a holistic approach to project
review and noted that while a project might meet all planning conditions, the project might not be
architecturally aesthetic. Uptegraff explained this approach differed from most jurisdictions which
conduct review of architectural components only for public facilities.
Councilmembers discussed the economics of architectural review and suggested that architectural
aspects of a project be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission early in the review
process and that a book of examples of aesthetically pleasing projects be prepared to assist
applicants with architectural design.
SIGN REGULATIONS
Associate Planner Vince Fregoso explained the Planning Division's philosophy regarding
commercial signs, indicating that in general signs were to enhance both a structure and the
surrounding area, and that their content was to be limited to name and advertising of the business.
He presented numerous slides illustrating good and poor signage, noting signs which were
"clean," concise and readable improved the overall appearance of a building or project.
Following review of numerous cases involving pole, monument, wall-mounted and mobile signs,
Councilmembers and staff agreed the following would be addressed in the next sequence of
ordinance changes for planning issues:
- flags, pennants, and balloons would be prohibited;
- more flexible standards would be developed for issuance of
sign permits to existing buildings where landscaped setbacks
cannot be altered; and
- an abatement process such as is used for elimination of public
nuisances would be investigated for application to nonconforming
signs.
Adams commented that Sign Code enforcement was labor intensive; Uptegraffindicated staff was
developing a pilot program to use volunteers in this area.
Mayor Pro Tern Richardson suggested Councilmembers review gas station identification signs as
they drive around the City to provide feedback to staff regarding the number that should be
permitted on a site.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
75 MARCH 20, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Environmental Coordinator Maya deRosa briefly reviewed the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and noted their overall
purpose was to protect the environment for the future. She explained the differences between the
documents used to determine environmental impacts of a project o- Categorical Exemption,
Negative Declaration, and Environmental Impact Report (in ascending order of stringency). She
also discussed the pros and cons of using environmental consultants hired by the City versus those
hired by the applicant.
DeRosa reviewed the environmental processing time for the Home Depot and Gateway projects.
Uptegraffindicated that although applicants generally preferred less review, sometimes a decision
to prepare an Environmental Impact Report was more efficient as a means of staving off costly
legal challenges.
RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS/INFRASTRUCTURE REQUiREMENTS/IMPACT FEES
Noting the lateness of the hour, Mayor Pro Tern Richardson suggested Public Works
development processing issues be deferred to the next Work Study Session.
RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION - 8:55 P.M.
The Brown Act permits the City Council to discuss certain matters without members of the public
present, provided the items to be discussed are posted 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting.
The following item was received for the March 20, 1995 Closed Session.
95.A.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (GC.
Section 54956.9a)
Name of Case: In re Orange County and Orange County Investment Pools US Bankruptcy Court Case Nos. SA 94-22272-JR and
SA 94-22273-JR
RECONVENED - 9:03 P.M. - All Councilmembers present except Mayor Pulido
Motion:
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Authorize execution by Mayor and Clerk of the Council of settlement agreement
(Option A) as approved by the City Attorney.
In re Orange County and Orange County Investment Pools, US Bankruptcy Court
Case Nos. SA 94-22272-JR and SA 94-22273-JR
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 76 MARCH 20, 1995
MOTION: Mills
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
AB SENT:
SECOND: Espinoza
Espinoza, Lutz, McGuigan, Mills, Moreno
None
Richardson
Pulido
ADJOURNMENT - 9:03 P.M. - To 5:30 p.m., March 30, 1995 in the Conference Room of the
Santa Ana Library, 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA
CITY COUNCIL M1NUTES 77 MARCH 20, 1995