Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1982 05 17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way May 17, 1982 TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 4:16 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli Councilpersons Absent: None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Euston, City Manager Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mike Brotemarkle, Comm. Dev. Director Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Approximately 20 in the audience PROCLAMATION 1. "SHARE HEALTH DAY" Mayor Edgar read and presented to Mike TUrin, Founder/Director of Share Health Foundation, a proclamation recognizing his "Celebration of Life 60 by 60 Run" and designating May 14, 1982, as "Share Health Day." Mr. Turin expressed his appreciation to both the Council and City for the recognition. 84 RECESS -- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REC0NVENED - CITY COUNCIL At 4:20 p.m. the Council recessed to a meeting of the Redevelop- ment Agency and reconvened at 4:24 with all members present. CONTINUED PUBI~C BEARING GAME ARCADES - ORDINANCE NO. 870 The Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommendation. Council/staff discussion followed. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 4:32 p.m. The following persons spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 870: Dave Patterson, Manager of Sgt. Pepperoni's Pizza Store, 651 E. First Street. Edward Starns, local businessman. Maury Lebanoff, 1~821 Highview Drive, Santa Ana, owner of shop- ping center at corner of McFadden & Walnut Avenues. Steve Gromek, Arbolada Way, Santa Aria, Attorney. Mark Raytack, 1524 S. Van Ness, Santa Aria. The public hearing was closed at 4:45 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy reminded Council that creation of the ordinance was prompted by consideration of an arcade next to a condominium project and input from the Police Chief and from cities all over the country. She continued that in spite of what opposing speakers have said, the staff report indicates that staff favors the ordinance, understanding that TUstin does not have a track record in arcades; her reason for concern is due to input from Chief Thayer and because it involves children in possible large groups; and although not meaning to be over- restrictive, as a ~mall city with residential abutting commer- cial, this is a way to be responsible and cautious to the resi- dential community. She added that she can certainly speak in CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 5-17-82 favor of the ordinance unless staff indicates they would rather have the License & Permit Board review arcades; and even under that condition, she would still approve the ordinance. Councilman Boesterey stated that all this ordinance does is place arcades in a geographic area of the City; it does not give some guidelines as to arcades, the number of machines and people allowed in a building operating arcades; and he would like to see an ordinance that makes it a subordinate pertion of a busi- ness instead of having an arcade that's just an arcade. Councilman Greinke stated his opposition to the addition of another set of regulations in the books when they're not needed. The Mayor stated his feelings parallel Councilman Hoesterey's in that he had hoped the ordinance would provide guidance and awareness to the business community as to a set of standards, but it's obvious we've been unable to put those standards into print in a manner that isn't unduly restricted. Councilman Saltarelli reiterated his opposition to the ordi- nance. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, the Community Development Director responded that anyone presently wanting six or more games must come in under general provision of the Use Permit section; and suggested that if Council is unhappy with the ordi- nance, that the City Attorney very clearly define arcade as a Use Permit hearing. Also, if the Planning Agency retains the review function, the secondary review by the License & Permit Board is really unnecessary. After further Council/staff discussion, it was moved by Salta- relli, seconded by Greinke, that Ordinance No. 870 be tabled for no further consideration. Motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to direct staff to give Council a recommendation on the best procedure to follow in the case of arcades and agendize it for the next regu- lar meeting. The Council joined Councilman Boesterey in recognizing the efforts of Dave Patterson, Sgt. Pepperoni's Manager, for spend- ing a great deal of time on the City's behalf on the matter. The motion carried 5-0. 81 V. PUBLIC CONCERNS 1, "TUSTIN TODAY" PUBLICATION COMMENDATION Betty Truitt, resident, cormheaded and thanked the City on the publication of the summer recreation program brochure "Tustin Today." Council acknowledged the Community Services Director's coordinating of the printing. 41 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 3 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Hoesterey. Kennedy abstained on Item 1. Greinke registered a "NO" vote on Item 2 due to its illegibility. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Salta- relli, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Carried 5-0. 1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 3, 1982 (Kennedy abstained) 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $706,579.87. RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $100,120.23. 50 (Greinke registered a '~0" vote.) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 5-17-82 4. RESOLUTION NO. 82-35- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ~SUPPORTING THE ORANGE COUNTY ARTS ALLIANCE PLAN FOR CULTURAL GROWTH Adopt Resolution No. 82-35 as recommended by the Director of 41 COmmunity Services. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 82-36- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRO- POSED ASSESSMENTS ON THE PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE EL CAMINO REAL UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 5 Adopt Resolution No. 82-36 as recommended by the City Engi- neer. 104 6. TREE REMOVAL- 17382 PARKER DRIVE Approve the removal of the Ficus tree at 17382 Parker Drive as a Priority I removal and amend the Priority I removal to include sewer laterals as well as curbs and sidewalks as recommended by the City Engineer. 86.1 7. RESOLUTION NO. 82-37- A Resolution of the City COuncil of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (RED HILL AVENUE RECONSTRUC- TION) (R. J. Noble Company) Adopt Resolution No. 82-37 and if no claims or stop payment notices are filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount as recommended by the Engineering Department · 95 Consent Calendar Item 3 - It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the following: 3. EXTENSION OF USE PERMIT 80-21 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 11336 ( 1651 Mitchell - Windsor Garden Apartments) Approve extension of Tentative Tract Map 11336 with the understanding that no further extensions of the Tentative Map and the Use Permit will be granted as recommended by the Community Development Department. The motion carried 4-1, Hoesterey opposed. 99 VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None VIII. ORDINANCES- FOR ADOPTION 1. oRDINANCE NO. 871 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO FINANCIAL AND PURCHASING PROCEDURES OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 871 have second reading by title only. Carried 5-0 · Following reading of the title by the City Clerk, it was moved bl~ Hoesterey, seconded b~ Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 871 be passed and adopted. In response to Councilman Greinke, the City Manager explained the ordinance will result in possible cost savings by stream- lining purchasing procedures; procedurally there is no cost impact; and it will not create an additional workload. Roll call vote: AYES: Edgar, Greinke, Boesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: None 50 IX. OLD BUSINESS 1. RED HILL AND WALNUT AVENUES INTERSECTION WORKSHOP Following consideration of the report dated May 12, 1982, pre- pared by the Director of Public Works, it was moved bl~ Kennedy, seconded bl~ Hoesterel~, to select May 25, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. for subject workshop meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 94 CITY OOUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 5-17-82 X. NEW BUSINESS 1. BID AWARD-- FAIRHAVEN AVENUE WATER MAIN Bids for subject project were received as follows: Great American Pipeline Company, Inc., Yorba Linda $107,450.08 Five States Plumbing, Inc., Orange $109,317.75 Three D Construction Company, Inc., Los Angeles $119,414.75 P.E.R., Inc., Orange $121,550.58 Brkick Construction Company, E1 Monte $~23,259.00 Gallacher Company, Inc., Costa Mesa $~24,439.73 Precision Pipeline, San Dimas $124,563.05 G.R. McKervy, Inc., Irvine $128,781.60 i~ine Pipeline Company, Inc., Santa Ana $131,382.75 Amick COnstruction C~npany, Inc., Ontario $131,399.90 Monarch Construction, Anaheim $133,588.14 Gabi Construction Company, Inc., La Habra $~35,503.80 Macco Constructors, Inc., Paramount $~45,696.50 G.R. Frost, Inc., Wilmington $146,268.00 City Construction Company, Covina $153,654.18 Norman Construction COmpany, Inc., Norco $159,328.38 The low bid is 7.5% below the Engineer's estimate of $116,180.15, with $76,400.00 presently budgeted for the work. Additionally, City crews will make service tie-ins and connec- tions to existing water mains at an estimated materials cost of $10,000.00. Total required funds for the project will be $107,450.08 plus $10,000.00, or $117,450.08, requiring apprc- priation of an additional $41,050.08 to complete the work. AS recommended in the report dated May 11, 1982, prepared by the Engineering Division, it was moved Kennedy, to award the contract for subject project to Great American Pipeline Company, Inc., Yorba Linda, in the amount of $107,450.08 and authorize appropriation of an additional $42,000 to complete funding for . the project. Motion carried 4-0, Greinke abstaining. 107 2. TILLER DAY BANNERS In accordance with the report dated May 17, 1982, prepared. by the Community Development Department, it was moved by Salta- relli, seconded by Hoesterey, to direct staff to approve the Tustin Tiller Days Committee request to place banners on City properties which advertise the festival subject to: 1) Approval of the Tustin Unified School District for Site No. ~ (Columbus Tustin School); and 2) Removal of the banners by October 22, 1982. Councilman Greinke commented that to promote community spirit, he would like to see service organizations have easy access to means of notifying the public of community events and have staff check into the feasibility of permanent-type places where cables can be strung across the street for banners such as this. The motion carried 5-0. 34 PUrsuant to Councilman Greinke's comments, Council concurred to direct staff to explore the feasibility of estabIishing a pro- gram for placement of banners announcing co~ununity events. 93 3. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE POSITION CLASSIFICAITON OF ASSISTANT PLANNER AS recommended in the report dated May 11, ~982, prepared by the City Manager, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Boesterey, to authorize creation of the position classification o~ Assis- tant Planner (salary range of $1,522 - $1,850) in the Community Development Department. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 5-17-82 In response to Councilman Saltarelli, the City Manager indicated that the intent is to fill the new position with a person pres- ently on bard, and delete the position that person currently holds. Motion carried 5-0. 79 4. SETTING DATE TO CONSIDER PROPOSED INCREASE IN WATER CONSUMPTION ~ RATE Pursuant to the reconunendation contained in the report prepared by the City Manager dated May 12, 1982, it was moved by Hoesterse, seconded by Edgar, to set June 7, 1982, as the date to consider a proposed increase in the water cons~unption rate. The City Manager responded to Councilman Saltarelli that infor- mation on the proposed increase will be set forth in the budget data to be forwarded to Council this week. The motion carried 5-0. 107 5o REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDERS - POLICE AND CITY HALL BUILDING MODIFICATIONS In response to Councilman Saltarelli, the City Manager responded that this change order is not the one previously approved; this deals solely with the computer conduit and has nothing to do with location of offices. In reference to Council's direction to use partitions in lieu of constructing new offices for employees other than department heads, the City Manager stated that when construction started, in looking at the layout of the new finance department relative to the computer system, relocat- ing cabinets, moving in water billing personnel to the front office area, and placement of other department emplyees, it was felt that the original plan was not adequate and that it was better to leave the Finance Coordinator's office status quo. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to authorize the following change orders to the contract with Resnik COnstruction Company for subject project: 1) Installation of electrical conduit wiring and outlets for the main computer and CRT'S (for use in water service bill- ings) - $2,635.00; 2) Installation of conduit from the main computer to the Police Department (to accommodate computer equil~ment to be installed at four locations in the Police Department - $2,940.00; and 3) Installation of new carpet in City Hall with the exception of the Police, Community Development and Public Works Departments - $9,275.00. Carried 5-0. 39 6. PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF MYRTLE STREET CUL-DE-SAC Following consideration of the report dated May 17, 1982, pre- pared by the Community Development Department, it was moved b~ Saltarelli, seconded by Greinke, to approve the subject concep- tual design modification of the Myrtle Street cul-de-sac subject to the following conditions: 1) No on-street parking on the cul-de-sac; 2) Any net surplus public property resulting from such a reds- sign would be sold at public sale in accordance with State law; 3) All necessary engineering and legal documents and plans shall be the responsibility of the development proponents and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and City Attorney; and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 5-17-82 4) All costs associated with the installation of the modified improvements shall be the responsibility of the development proponents as recommended by the Community Development Department. In response to Mayor Edgar's inquiry, Arthur Strock, project architect, stated that the owner of the property in question has been approached and has expressed no interest in selling, which eliminates the possibility of incorporating it into the plan at some future date. Following a question-and-answer period, the motion carried 5-0. 95 7o NEWPORT AVENUE EXTENSION AS recommended in the report dated May 11, 1982, prepared by the Director of Public Works, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Saltarelli, to select the firm of Larry Seeman and Associates to prepare the focused Environmental Impact Report for the Newport Avenue Extension for the stipulated fee of $14,065.00 and per the conditions outlined in their proposal dated May 7, 1982 as recommended by the City Engineer. Carried 5-0. 44 8° "C" STREET PLAZA DESIGN REVISION The Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommendation. It was then moved b~ Greinke, seconded by Kennedy, to approve Gfeller Development Company's request for design revision on the "C" Street Plaza by replacing brick band- ing on the driveway surface with a "homonits" or stamped-type concrete to simulate red brick pavers. Motion carried 5-0. 81 -- XI. REPORTS 1. POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1979 EDITION Following consideration of the report dated May 17, 1982, input from the City Manager, and Council/staff discussion, Council concurred to direct staff to agendize each amendment to ~he Fire Code separately and to address the financial impact on each one. 51 2. PROCESS FOR PREPARING SPECIFIC PLAN FOR IRVINE COMPANY LAND (PETERS CANYON) The City Manager presented the staff report and recommendation. As recommended in his report dated May 11, 1982, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to approve in conceptual form a process for preparing the specific plan for the Irvine Company land and authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with the Irvine Company which sets in motion the planning process. Following Council/staff discussion, the motion carried 5-0. 81 Tom Nielson, Senior Vice President of Irvine Company, commented that the Irvine Company looks forward to working with the City and that it is in both parties' best interest to come to a com- mon understanding as to mutual goals. He introduced two staff members - Pike Oliver, Director of Advanced Development Plan- ning; and Brian Austin, Government Relations Group, who will also be working closely with City staff. 3o FORMATION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION Following introductory comments by the City Manager, the Com- munity Development Director expanded verbally on the staff report dated May 11, 1982, prepared by the Community Development Department. He requested Council verification/direction of assumptions staff has made for formation of a Planning Commis- sion, which include off-Monday 7:30 evening meetings based on historical context and the need for newspaper advertisements; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 5-17-82 establishing an appropriate budget for attendance by Commission members at League meetings or any function the Commission would have to perform on behalf of the City or in the Commission pro- cess; determining what the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Planning Commission will be; the appeals process; and other administrative matters. Councilman Saltarelli stated he sees the need to expand the appeal period to either 10 days or to the next Council meeting (instead of the present 5-day appeal process), whereby all actions Of the Planning Commission would become final. Also, he felt it should take two Councilmembers to appeal an action, instead of just one, to eliminate going through the same func- tion if there aren't at least two people interested and perhaps reversing or modifying a decision of the Planning Commission. Mayor Edgar concurred. I~e Community Development Director inquired as to particular areas of concern that Council would like automatically forwarded to them rather than going through an appeals process. Council- man Saltarelli responded that with the former Planning Commis- sion, if a controversial item was approved and Council did not concur, Council would rehear the matter; if the Planning Commis- sion denied a controversial item and the applicant filed an appeal, the Council would rehear the matter. This was one of the reasons the Planning Commission was eliminated and if it cannot be changed, perhaps the Planning Commission should not be reestablished. Mayor Edgar stated that another element in matters denied by the Planning Commission and appealed by the applicant is that when the proposal came before Council, it would be modified in a manner which might make it more palatable for approval, yet this represents misuse of the system. The Community Development Director responded that the proper course of action in such an instance would have been to refer the matter back to the Plan- ning Commission. Another concern the Director brought up is time, noting it would be extremely difficult to advertise an item for hearing before Council, have the Commission continue the item, and then have a hearing that would have to be readvertised. There will probably be a longer delay in items that before might have been on the two agendas the same day, where it will be up to three weeks between the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy suggested that perhaps this could be alls- viated by simply having the meetings beck-up against each other night to night. The Community Development Director noted that newspaper advertisements must be in by Tuesday to make the Thursday edition of the local paper, and meeting on Tuesday nights would cause a week's delay before the notice could get published. On the other hand, with Monday being the most common holiday and four meetings a month being scheduled for two bodies, Monday night meetings could also become a problem. The Mayor commented that in making a determination to reestab- lish a Planning Commission, a commitment will be made that some deficiencies will exist and some will be unavoidable. He inquired if staff desired formal Council direction. The Com- munity Development Director responded that staff will come back with alternatives in a study draft at the July 6 meeting, and then set the matter for public hearing. The City Manager suggested that staff respond to Council's com- ments in report form at the next regular meeting, since it may/ may not affect Council's position on the commission. He stated it is critical that everyone be on the same wave length so that when the draft ordinance is presented, there is no confusion abut what's being created. Also, there are implications that have to be explored from a legal/procedural standpoint, and if they're going to affect Council's approach, they should be addressed so that creation of the Commission can be framed in more specific terms. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 5-17-82 Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy stated she would like staff to be flex- ible, creative, and ingenious about alternatives and not make it difficult to reestablish the Commission. She continued that perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on the speed with which items are approved. Also, she would like to see a fair budget, perhaps eliminating attendance at League meetings and utilizing inhouse training at less cost. The Community Development Director stated the big problem is the mechanics of what is being done at this point and some of the legal questions that may arise. Staff is trying to assure that a more effective means of communication is established between the new Planning Commission and Council to avoid any misunderstandings whereby the Council is not aware of a par- titular action taken by the Planning Commission. Mayor Edgar offered a personal observation that in the past, it would have been more productive had the Planning Commission made a poor decision, thereby enabling immediate appeal to the Coun- cil, rather than continuing a matter endlessly; and if there were any way to issue a directire whereby a decision is to be made and the matter not continued forever, it would be produc- tive. The Community Development Director indicated staff could respond to some of the specific questions voiced by Council possibly by the next meeting. 81 4, ORANGE C0UNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL - INFORMATIONAL REPORT Council concurred to receive and file the report dated May 1982, from Phyllis Turtle, City representative on the Orange County Health Planning Council. 70 XIIo OTHER BUSINESS The City Manager reminded Council of the Executive ~ession for discussion of labor negotiations. 2, C0DOMINIUM CONVERSIONS Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy requested that staff look into possible disservice to tenants of apartments that were approved for con- dominium conversion, and then the conversion is withdrawn. 43 3, AB 1197 -WEIGHT ALLOWANCE FOR GARBAGE TRUCKS Councilman Sal~arelli suggested that the City Oppose AB 1197 which would increase the weight allowance for garbage trucks. Council concurred. 61 4. TUBTIN TODAY BROCHURE Councilman Hoesterey echoed Betty Truitt's commendation on the "Tustin Today" recreation program brochure. 5. LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING - NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilman Greinke thanked Council for the opportunity to attend the League of Cities meeting for newly elected officials and stated it was very informative and helpful. 6, BUS SHELTERS Council concurred that the City is not interested in pursuing bus benches/shelters in Tustin, even after reviewing the brc- chure that was distributed. 21 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 5-17-82 7. JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM FUNDING In response to Mayor Edgar ' s co~ents that perhaps the City could share some of ~e f~ding obligations ~ terms of services provided by different agencies to the City on a volunteer basis, the City ~nager ~inted out ~at ~e City has had ongoing relationship with ATSC (Assessment ~eatment and Service Center) in ~sta Mesa for juvenile delin~ency ~version pr~ gr~s. Staff intends to reco~end said group for some level of f~ding in ~e 1982-83 revenue sharing budget. ~at ~oup, ho~ ever, will be competing with other requests which Co~cil will consider ~rough a public hearing process. At this ~int, staff will ~ reco~ending one goup for funding. 29 8. NORTH TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NTSPAC) RESIGNA- TION Co~cilmn Greinke acknowledged the resi~ation of Tony Coco from NTSPAC and reco~ended ~at a letter of co~endation sent to him for his service on said co~ittee · Council conchred · 28 ADJOURNMENT At 6:0~ p.m., it was mved b~ HoestereX, seconded b~ Greinke, to recess to an Executive Session on labor negotiations, thence adjourn to a workshop for Red Hill Avenue & Walnut Avenue Traffic SiSal Improvements on May 25 at 7:00 p.m., and thence to the ne~ regular meeting on June 7, 1982. ~YOR