The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-26-1995MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 26, 1995 CALLED TO ORDER ATTENDANCE LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM 26 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 5:45 P.M. COUNCILMEMBERS Present: MIGUEL A. PULIDO, Mayor (7:40 p.m.) ROBERT L. RICHARDSON, Mayor Pro Tern (5:50 p.m.) TONY ESPINOZA TOM LUTZ PATRICIA A. McGUIGAN LISA MILLS TED R MORENO Absent: NONE STAFF: DAVID N. REAM, City Manager EDWARD J. COOPER, City Attorney JANICE C. GUY, Clerk of the Council WORK STUDY SESSION POLICY DISCUSSION OF CITY'S DEVELOPMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROCESSES Planning and Building Agency Executive Director Robyn Uptegraff explained the planning issues raised by the Council at the last work study session had been grouped under appropriate categories and would be explored at five work study sessions. She provided the Council with an outline of the contents for the meetings, and noted the Logan Area zoning would be scheduled for separate discussion and state and federally mandated regulations and department case statistics would be provided to the Council in memo form. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 28 JANUARY 26, 1995 Policy vs. Process Uptegraff clarified the major differences between "policy" and "process," indicating policy was established by Council and responded to "What do people want?" while process was implemented by staff and answered "How are goals accomplished?" She encouraged Councilmembers to have staff present at meetings with constituents to help determine whether a complaint was a policy or process issue, since this would determine whether Council or staff should be addressing the complaint. Councilmember Richardson requested that staff develop criteria for measuring both the efficiency and effectiveness of the City's planning processes. Definition of "Customer" Uptegraff led the Council in a brainstorming session to determine the City's customers, their primary interest(s), and their time perspectives. Councilmember Mills suggested the primary customers were the citizenry at-large with a long-term perspective and applicants seeking project approval with a short-term view. The Council added the business community, future citizens, and other government agencies, all of whose time perspectives were long-term, but whose primary interests varied. Organizational Roles and Responsibilities Planning Manager Ken Adams showed charts depicting the respective roles of the Planning Commission, City Council, and staff as legislative, judicial, and administrative. He also discussed the percentages of City Council, Planning Commission, and staff involvement in policy and implementation arenas, opining the process (implementation) function was conducted 85% at the staff level; 10%, Planning Commission; and 5%, City Council. Councilmember Mills requested staff provide a list of the land uses requiting Conditional Use Permits; Councilmember McGuigan, Council planning responsibilities transferred to the Planning Commission; and Councilmember Richardson, time frames for discretionary approvals. Planning Commissioner Brown cautioned the Council concerning the pitfalls of arbitrary decision-making to accommodate differing neighborhoods. Departmental Roles Uptegraff noted five agencies were directly involved in development processing: Planning and Building, Public Works, Police, Fire, and Community Development. She introduced senior Planning staff members including Senior Planner Linda Hale, long-term planning; Senior Planner Jeffry Rice, current planning; Associate Planner Joe Edwards, public counter CITY COUNCIL M1NUTES 29 JANUARY 26, 1995 supervisor, and Senior Planner Charles View, development processing/environment. She explained their roles would be elaborated on at future work study sessions. Public Works Agency Executive Director Jim Ross introduced City Engineer George Alvarez and Transportation Development Engineer Pam Lucado, indicating Public Works' role was to support Planning through the evaluation of development impacts on the City's infrastructure, particularly traffic circulation, drainage, and vehicular access. Police Chief Paul Waiters explained the Police Department's role in development processing was to evaluate projects for public safety measures such as security lighting, parking site locations, building addresses, and police access to property to help Fire and Police rapidly locate emergency callers, and introduced Police Community Services Speciaiist Mike McCoy who was responsible for Police site plan review. Fire Chief Bud Carter noted the Fire Department had both Building Code and Fire Code responsibilities relating to development review. He introduced Assistant Fire Marshal Bob Honish and Fire Safety Specialist III Lorie Smith who explained some of the site plan elements checked by Fire such as hazardous materials disclosure, fire access, hydrants and sprinklers. Redevelopment and Real Estate Manager Bob Hoffman explained the Community Development Agency's role in development processing was more often facilitative than regulatory since a primary goai of the Agency was to attract business to the community. introduced Community Development staff members including Economic Development Specialists Bonnie Birch and Sandi Gottlieb and Redevelopment Project Managers Vicki Uehli and Josie LaQuay who serve on the Development Review team. He Uptegraff invited the Councilmembers to attend a Planning Commission training session on land use law scheduled for February 4 and noted the next work study session on February 21, 1995 would address non-conforming uses. ADJOURNMENT - 7:42 p.m. Clerk of the Council CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 30 JANUARY 26, 1995