Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA MINUTES 1982 03 08 MINUTES OF A JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TUSTIN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way March 8, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Hoeeterey at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli Councilpersons Absent: Sharp Others Present: William A. Huston, City Manager Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mike Brotemarkle, Comm. Dev. Director R. Kenneth Fleagle, Planning Consultant BOb Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Ronald Nault, Finance Director Dale Wick, Assistant City Engineer Ed Knight, Associate Planner Alan Warren, Senior Planner Approximately 15 in the audience III. DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN The staff report was given by Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer. A large wall sketch was shown which modified the loss of parking from 6~ to 28 spaces. Angle parking was addressed but we would only be able to load one side of the street with angle parking. He felt it was necessary to have two lanes of traffic in both directions for future increased traffic. Councilwoman Kennedy asked for a five minute recess in order for the Council and the public to look closer at the sketch. RECESS & RECONVENED The Mayor Pro Tern declared a five minute recess at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened at 7:45 p.m. Walter Flaherty suggested that all parking on E1 Camino and the side streets should be restricted to two hours so that workers and trucks do not monopolize the parking. Doug Gfeller said that his concern was not so much the desipn of the plan but the implementation of it. The City would be making a com- mittmerit to spend money for improvements that may have to be torn out if the property is developed and this would be a big waste of money. Councilman Edgar pointed out that the funds are available and the people who live and own businesses on E1 Camino want improvements now and the Council is obligated to advance now. Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey said that the proposed treatment of inter- sections would attract people more than what is between intersec- tions. Councilman Saltarelli thought the whole premise of intruding into the street with landscaping and benches was wrong. People will not be coming to this area to sit around on benches. He was against any intrusions into the street but was in favor of completing the deco- rative work and the sidewalks at each of the intersections. He also was in favor of Mr. Flarety's suggestion of 2 hr. parkinp. Councilwoman Kennedy asked for any input from the residents of the area. ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING Page 2, 3-8-82 Mike Shroup agreed with Mr. Saltarelli that if people wanted a place to sit, they could go to the park that is about a block away. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that staff be directed to proceed with the plans with the following stipulations: l) The decorative treatment of every intersection, crosswalks and curb returns (including the two end intersections) be as presented on the plans but that the mid-block crossing walks be left as a con- cept to be implemented with the development of that area; 2) Curbs to remain in their existing location with no landscaping encro~C~in~I into the streets; 3) Sidewalks to be put back in at the present width with the decorative treatment as planned; and 4) Removal of some trees at each end of E1 Camino and replacement with flowering trees that are not messy. Councilman Edgar continued that an element of this motion is we will not be committed to the maintenance of a lot of these areas. We are giving the consultant and the staff philosophical direction of what we expect to see. This will result in specific plans that will be approved when we advertise for bids and there will be an opportunity at that time to make slight modifications. Elmer Loy, Tustin Fix-It Shop, asked what the time element was on this. Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, responded that we would advertise for bids on May 17th. Depending on what action is taken, perhaps a maximum of 2 weeks, we would award the bid either the last meeting in June or the first meeting in July. Construction is anticipated to be concluded about the first of November. The motion carried 4-0, Sharp absent. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that if capital improve- ments can be funded through Redevelopment funds, including water improvements, they should be. Mr. Edgar agreed with Mrs. Kennedy that this has been ou~palicy but he felt it needed to be reiterated. Mr. Hoesterey commented that the purpose of Redevelopment is to help rebuild an area and there- fore that money should be used to revitalize the area. Motion carried 4-0, Sharp absent. PURPOSE OF MEETING William Huston, City Manager, said that staff would like some gen- eral direction as to what the priorities are for capital improve- ments. He said that Council had received a staff report prepared by Mr. Ledendecker which contains many improvements. It would not be practical to prioritize each project but it would be helpful to know the priorities regarding beautification, traffic, pedestrian safety, undergrounding, etc. With the statistics to be shown tonight, there is no question that we need a long-term capital improvement financ- ing program. Mr. Muston continued that one of the items on the agenda is the sta- tus of selecting a consultant. We will bring a recommendation to the Council in a few weeks. Mr. Ledendecker indicated in his report that we will soon be soliciting proposals for the engineering analy- sis of the water system. He identified by means of a flip chart available resources through the end of next fiscal year for capital improvements as follows: 1) General Fund - $1,115,372 (Includes Community Center reserve of $571,378); 2) Revenue Sharing - $292,846; 3) Gas Tax - $2~5,25~; 4) Park Development - <7,365>; 5) Beautification - $9~,633; 6) RDA - $245,180; a~ 6) Water -???. Councilman Saltarelli expressed that with the economic climate we should defer further beautification projects such as center islands and undergrounding and focus on the water system, street signals, interconnect facilities etc. ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING Page 3, 3-8-82 Councilman Edgar asked staff for more detailed data on the next fis cal year expenditures and revenue. Councilman Hoesterey expressed that our first priority should be public health and safety, including upgrading the water system. He agreed that undergrounding and beautification would not have high priority. Councilwoman Kennedy placed traffic concerns high on the list of priorities. She would be in favor of beautification if it would attract more business to generate more revenue. Councilman Saltarelli said he would not be opposed to a bond issue to accomplish certain identified high priority projects that could be accomplished soon at the cheapest possible price and then pay off the bends with the increment. Councilman Edgar commented that he was in favor of expending money for storm drain on Prospect, signal at First and Prospect, widening of Prospect street, acquiring additional land for parking needs in the NW, NE and SE downtown areas and for expansion of City Hall, upgrading of the water system particularly on main streets, and problems with drainage on Second Street. He was not in favor of condemning Matt Nisson's property on Red Hill and Walnut at this time. In terms of long-term plans he was in favor of closing in the open storm drain on the north of Main Street/easterly of Newport freeway, widening of Red Hill (southerly of Melvin Way) to the ulti- mate right-of-way, and address some of the traffic needs on 17th Street by having the north side widened to its ultimate right-of-way between Prospect and the Newport Freeway. ADJOURNMENT - It was moved by Ed~ar~ seconded b~ Saltarelli, to adjourn at 9:03 p.m. to the next regular meeting on March 15, 1982. Carried 4-0, Sharp absent.