Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1986 01 06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA : JANUARY 6, 1986 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION The meeting was called to order by Mayor Greinke at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli, and the Invocation was given by Councilwoman Kennedy. II. ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Frank H. Greinke, Mayor Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar Ronald B. Hoesterey Ursula E. Kennedy Councilpersons Absent: None Others Present: William A. Huston, City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Donald D. Lamm, Com. Development Director Dale E. Wick, Assistant City Engineer Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police Monda Buckley, Administrative Assistant Approximately 30 in the audience III, PROCLAMATIONS 1. LOUIE'S BARBER SHOP - TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY YEAR Mayor Greinke presented a proclamation to Luciano "Louie" Princi- pato, owner of Louie's Barber Shop at 414 East First Street in recognition of his twentieth anniversary year in business. Mr. Principatothanked the Council. 84 IV. COMNUNITY NOTES 1. CALIFORNIA ACADEMIC DECATHLON - FOOTHILL HIGH SCHOOL, SECOND PLACE Mayor Greinke noted that the Foothill High School Academic Decath- lon team placed second in the California Academic Decathlon held at Rancho Santiago College on January 3, 1986. He congratulated the 'students and the Tustin Unified School District on their achieve- :ments. 90 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON USE PERMIT NO. 85-28 - MOBIL OIL COMPANY, 17241 IRVINE BOULEVARD Mayor Greinke declared a conflict of interest on the matter. Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli assumed the Chair. Councilwoman Kennedy noted that due to the absence of the Director of Public Works, she was hopeful the matter would be continued ,"' until her concerns are answered. Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. George Hillyard, representative of Mobil Oil Company, spoke in favor of the appeal to waive the ten foot irrevocable offer of dedication along Irvine Boulevard. He noted that the same problem has existed with other service stations in the City; Mobil Oil is not the property owner; and the property owner is opposed to the dedication. Steve Inman, dealer of subject service station, spoke in favor of the appeal. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 1-6-86 There were no other speakers on the matter, and the public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Councilman Edgar stated that Council has approved similar appeals on the premise that ultimate development of some major arterials needs to be done in its entirety rather than on a piecemeal basis. In the interest of being consistent, it was moved by Edgar, sec- onded by Hoesterey, to waive the requirement for a ten foot!irrevo- cable offer of dedication as required by Use Permit No. 85-28. Councilman Hoesterey expressed concern that Tustin has a tremendous traffic problem. Council must start to look more closely at these dedications and take more action to require same so that when expansion of major arterials is feasible, the City is ab~eH~o do it without financial hardship. Councilwoman Kennedy was very sympathetic with the applicant's request. However, she felt traffic is a greater concern. She feels the solution is to find a very advanced way for Tustin to set the pace for the rest of the County to demand irrevocable right- of-way dedications and then allow businesses to expand over them. Following Council debate, the motion carried 3-1, Kennedy opposed, Greinke abstained. 81 Mayor Greinke resumed the Chair. Mr. Hillyard commended the Council on their sincere interest in the people that live and work in the community. 2. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 85-7 - REVISIONS TO COMMERCIAL PARK- ING STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 963 The staff report and recommendation were presented by the Community Development Director as contained in the inter-com dated January 6, 1986, prepared by the Community Development Department. The Community Development Director responded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened at 7:27 p.m. by Mayor Greinke. There were no speakers on the matter, and the public hearing was closed. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordi- nance No. 963 have first reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following first reading of Ordinance No. 963 by title only by the City Clerk, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, that Ordi- nance No. 963 be introduced as follows: ORDINANCE N0. 963 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS The motion carried 5-0. 109 Mayor Greinke recessed the meeting at 7:24 p.m. to allow set-up for the next item. The meeting was reconvened at 7:30 p.m. with all members present. VI. ORAL PRESENTATION 1. BOTTLENECK FEASIBILITY STUDY - SHARON GREENE, ORANGE COUNTY TRANS- PORTATION COMMISSION The Community Development Di ree~or introduced Sharon Greene, staff member, Orange County Transportation Commission. Ms. Greene defined the Bottleneck Feasibility Study as two studies in one. First, it is a Foothill/Eastern I-5 Bottleneck analysis study - looking at whether a direct connection between the existing freeway system and newly-proposed freeways (Foothill and Eastern corridors} is feasible. Secondly, it is a toll road feasibility CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 1-6-86 study - looking at whether toll financing of Foothill and Eastern corridors is acceptable for corridor costs left over in association with the MT & BFP adopted by a number of jurisdictions. She identified the study area boundaries and purposes of the bottleneck study. She stated that the study is clearly being con- ducted in full recognition of the fact that it involves a heavily developed area, and the entire issue of financial feasibility and cost are being taken into consideration. She noted the four study alternatives: 1) "No project"; 2) Freeway Connectors; 3) Arterial Connectors; and 4) Upgrade of Existing Facilities. Ms. Greene closed by stating that preliminary findings will be reported to the technical information exchange group and,,policy committee on January 23. She extended an invitation to a public open house on study results to be held on January 30 at Santiago Junior High School in Orange at 5:00 p.m., with a formal meeting at 7:00 p.m. Kia Mortazavi, member of the Orange County Transportation Commis- sion, explained how the four alternatives were developed. With Ms. Greene's assistance, Mr. Mortazavi then identified the various alternatives on wall maps. Ms. Greene stated that the draft final report will, be completed by June, if not earlier. Ms. Greene responded to questions. Following Councilman Edgar's personal thanks, Mayor Greinke thanked Ms. Greene and Mr. Mortazavi for their presentation. 100 VII. PUBLIC INPUT 1. FORTUNE TELLING BUSINESSES - ORDINANCES NO. 958, 959 AND 960 Dewey Adams, doing business at Newport and McFadden, stated that he felt Section 3818{c}{2} pertaining to a $10,000 bond is exces- sive. He requested Council input on the matter. The City Attorney responded that subject matter is on this eve- ning's agenda. His recommendation will be to continue the matter to January 20 to allow staff review of additional amendments which have been prepared by his office. V I I I. CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 7 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Edgar; Kennedy abstained on Item No. 1 - Minutes of the December 20, 1985,. Special Meeting. It was then moved b~, Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. The motion carried 5-0. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 16, 1985, REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1985, SPECIAL MEETING {Kennedy abstained) 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $938,928.58 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,875.00 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,389.98 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,896.71 50 3; REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 85-48; CLAIMANT: GARY J. BOYKO; DATE OF LOSS: 8/23/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 11/19/85 Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 4. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 85-49; CLAIMANT: ARTHUR WILLIAM BAUER; DATE OF LOSS: 8/23/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 12/2/85 Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney, 40 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 1-6-86 5. RESOLUTION NO. 86-2 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP 85-196 LOCATED AT THE NORTH- EASTERLY CORNER OF VALENCIA AND DEL AMO AVENUES Adopt Resolution No. 86-2 as recommended by the Community Development Department. 99 6o RESOLUTION NO. 86-3 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP 85-197 LOCATED AT 1361 VALENCIA AVENUE Adopt Resolution No. 86-3 as recommended by the Community Development Department. 99 8. RESCO DEVELOPMENT Approve the Developer Participation Agreement between the City and Red Hill Edinger Partnership and authorize its e~ecution by the Mayor and City Clerk as recommended by the Community Devel- opment Department. 45; 86-1 9. RESCO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Approve the agreement between the City and RESCO Development Company for payment of circulation improvement fees for the Chelsea Cafe at 1481 Edinger Avenue; and authorize its execu- tion by the Mayor as recommended by the Community Development Department. 45; 86-2 Consent Calendar Item No. 7 Undergrounding Agreement with Edison Company - It was moved Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to adopt the following: 7° RESOLUTION NO. 86-4 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ENCOURAGING THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED REVISION TO THE RULE 20A ALLOCATION FORMULA FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF ELECTRICAL POWER LINES In response to Councilman Edgar, the Assistant City Engineer stated that staff is in the process of preparing the legal description for the Newport Avenue underground district. District boundaries should be on the Council agenda for approval next'month. ~ Councilman Edgar requested a report regarding the undergrounding fund account showing the beginning balance, the projected cost of Newport Avenue undergrounding, and the ending balance available for the next project. The Assistant City Engineer responded that the Director of Public Works plans to present same to Council in the near future. The motion carried 5-0. 104 IX. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION X. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1o ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 85-6 - LOCATION OF SCHOOL USES IN PROFESSIONAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONES - ORDINANCE 957 957 .ave second reading by title only. - second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 957 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 957 be passed and adopted as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 957 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 85-6 AUTHORIZING SCHOOL USES, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, IN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (Pr) AND INDUSTRIAL (M) DISTRICTS Roll call vote: AYES: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: None 109 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 1-6-86 2, AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE - REGULATIONS OF FORTUNE TELLING BUSINESSES - ORDINANCES NO, 958, NO, 959 AND NO, 960 As recommended by the City Attorney, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to continue consideration of the following to January 20, 1986: ORDINANCE NO, 958 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, (ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 85-9) AMENDING SECTION 9232b AND SECTION 9233c OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE OPERATION OF FORTUNE-TELLING BUSINESSES ORDINANCE NO. 959 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2523 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE (FORTUNE TELLING) ORDINANCE NO, 960 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF FORTUNE-TELLING The motion carried 5-0. 31 3. FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 10) - ORDINANCE NO. 961 It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 961 have second reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following first reading by title only Of Ordinance No. 961 by the City Clerk, · it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 961 be passed and adopted as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 961 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION SECTIONS OF THE FI~T STREET SPECIFIC PLAN Roll call vote: AYES: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: None 81 XI. OLD BUSINESS None. XII. NEW BUSINESS 1. INSTALLATION OF NO PARKING SIGNS FOR STREET SWEEPING PURPOSES {ROSELEAF AVENUE, PACIFIC STREET & MIMOSA LANE) As recommended in the inter-com dated December 26, 1985, prepared by the Engineering Division, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to authorize the installation of no parking signs for street sweeping purposes from 6:00 a.m. to Noon on Fridays on Rose- leaf Avenue between Yorba Street and Mimosa Lane,:Pacific Street northerly of Roseleaf Avenue, and Mimosa Lane between Vinewood and northerly of Roseleaf Avenue. After a question-and-answer period, the motion carried 4-1, Salta- relli opposed. Recognizing persons in the audience wishing to speak on the matter, Council concurred to reconsider subject item. Bruce Traywick, 14651 Pacific Street, felt that the street sweeping policy was a misapplication in this instance and spoke in opposi- tion to the recommendation. Tony Mealey, Sycamore Street resident, expressed interest in enforcement of the street sweeping policy on his street. Me was referred to contact the Administrative Assistant. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 1-6-86 Keith Koster, 17331 Vinewood, expressed concern that vehicles restricted from parking on adjoining streets may overflow onto Vinewood. He spoke in favor of restricting parking on Vinewood. Because the survey resulted in a tie, Vinewood was not included in the restricted parking, and he requested a resurvey be conducted to contact the two property owners who did not respond. Mr. Koster was informed of the procedure and policy for conducting another questionnai re survey. Nan Hocker, Vinewood resident, spoke in opposition to restricted parking on Vinewood. The original motion carried 4-1, Saltarelli opposed. 75 3. REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF NO PARKING SIGNS FOR STREET SWEEPING ON BOTH SIDES OF PASADENA AVENUE FROM 15500 PASADENA TO 15657 PASADENA It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to deny the request for removal of no parking signs for street sweeping purposes on both sides of Pasadena Avenue from 15500 Pasadena to 15657 Pasadena as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer in the inter-com dated December 26, 1985. Carried 5-0. 75 4. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS - POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING EXPANSION OF OUTSIDE PROPERTY STORAGE AREA - RESOLUTION NO, 86-5 As recommended in the inter-com dated December 17, 1985, prepared by the Chief of Police, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar., to adopt the following: RESOLUTION NG. 86-5 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE BUILDING EXPANSION OF THE PROPERTY STORAGE AREA- POLICE DEPARTMENT FACILITY AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Motion carried 5-0. 82 XII I, REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - DECEMBER 23, 1985 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to ratify the entire Planning Commission Action Agenda of December 23, 1985. The motion carried 5-0. 80 XIV, OTHER BUSINESS 1. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 85-1 (PHASE II) IMPROVEMENTS - BRYAN AVENUE & BROWNING AVENUE The City Attorney stated that Council awarded the contract for sub- ject project to Fleming Engineering, Inc., Buena Park, in the amount of $562,535.75 at its December 16, 1985, meeting. To date, Fleming Engineering has advised that they have been unable to com- ply with specifications regarding insurance. The second lowest bidder, Sully Miller Contracting Co., Orange ($564,045.50), has been contacted by the Engineering Department. They have advised that they are able to comply with specifications regarding insurance. It was moved b~/Saltarelli, seconded b;/Greinke, to place Fleming Engineering on notice that if they cannot comply with insurance requirements by 5:00 p.m., January 8, 1986, their bid award will be revoked and the contract awarded to the second lowest bidder, Sully Miller Contracting Co., Orange, in the amount of $564,045.50. Motion carried 5-0. 25 2. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney requested a Closed Session for discussion of 1 egal matters. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 1-6-86 3. WELCOME TO DIRECTOR, IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT Mayor Greinke welcomed and recognized Peer Swan, Director of the Irvine Ranch Water District. Mr. Swan thanked the Mayor. 4. ORANGE COUNTY CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE Mayor Greinke referenced a letter from the Orange County Centennial Committee requesting a representative to serve in culmination of the celebration of Orange County's lOOth birthday in 1989. He out- lined some of the duties involved. The Mayor stated he would be m~king an appointment to subject committee in the near future. 5. LAFCO APPOINTMENT Council discussed the upcoming appointment to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Council concurred 'to authorize Councilman Edgar to conduct an in~'ormal poll of the Council, and vote accordingly at the January 9 LeagUe meeting a~ which subject appointment will be made. ~- 24 Councilwoman Kennedy expressed her recommendation for Phil Schwartz or Evelyn Hart for appointment. 6. ORANGE COUNTY CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE BY-LAWS As requested by the Orange County League of Cities, Council con- curred to approve the proposed changes to the by-laws of the Orange County City Selection Committee. 68 7. RED HILL AVENUE RAILROAD CROSSING Councilwoman Kennedy relayed problems with the Red Hill Avenue ,,,, railroad crossing, specifically half-hour traffic delays and the surface condition over the crossing. She requested that the Engi- neering Department contact the appropriate parties regarding same. 101 XV. RECESS - REDEVELOPNENT - RECONVENED At 8:35 p.m. it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to recess to the Redevelopment Agency. The motion carried 5-0. Following adjournment of the Redevelopmerit Agency meeting, a recess was called at 8:39 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:47 p.m. with all members present. XVI. MARKETING POLICY FOR TUSTIN Mayor Greinke explained that in an effort to relay a positive message to the public from Tustin on its heritage and future, he formed a com- mittee with Walt Fredricksen and Dan O'Connor to market this idea. He reflected on elements which are unique to Tustin which have made it what it is today. The committee then contacted The Irvine Company for assistance, and a concept presentation is to be made this evening. He then introduced Cora Newman, The Irvine Company, and Robin White- sides, Intercom, who presented the general marketing concepts to Coun- cil which include: 1) A Positioning Statement; 2) A brochure for use by the Chamber of Commerce and City for new residents and businesspersons; 3) A calendar for marketing which could be used as a City fund-raiser; 4) A script outline for a slide show presentation; and 5) A public relations consultant with a media plan. Mayor Greinke thanked both Cora Newman and Robin Whitesides for the presentation. CXTY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 1-6-86 XVII. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION - ADJOURNMENT At 9:07 p.m. the meeting was recessed to a Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the City is a party, the title of which is Lopez & Potts vs. City of Tustin, et al, Orange County Superior Court; and thence adjourned to the next regular meeting on January 20, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. by unanimous informal consent. MAYOR