Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1981 01 05 MIINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way January 5, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Edgar at 4:10 p.m. following the regular meeting of the Planning Agency. II. ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present:' Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Sharp Councilpersons Absent: Saltarelli Others Present: James G~ Rourke, City Attorney Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk EVa A. Solis, Deputy City Clerk Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Royleen White, Community Services Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Gary Napper, Administrative Assistant ~Appr0ximately 10 in the audience III. RECESS It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to recess to the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 4:11 p.m. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelti absent. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY January 5, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro Tem Edgar at 4:~1 p.m. 2. Members Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Sharp Members Absent: Saltarelli ' 3~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 15~ 1980 It was moved by Hoestere~, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the minutes of the December 15, ~980, meeting. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarell absent. 4. RESOLUTION NO. RDA 80-8 - A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Tustin Community Redevelopment. Agency RECOGNIZING THE EXEMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES FROM ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1980-81, IN ACCORDANCE ' WITH ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAPTER 1342 OFTHE HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION 33678 & 33679. It was moved by Sharp, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt Resolution No. RDA 80-8. Carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. 5. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded; by lShar~, to adjourn at 4:~2 p.m. to the City Council meeting. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 1-5-81 MINUTES OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 4:12 P.M. January 5,1981 N. PUBLIC CONCERNS None V · CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Adjou~ed Re~lar Meeting - Dec. ~3, ~980 Regular Meeting - Dec. ~5, 1980 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the ~ount of $918,991.00 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLLof $89,978.19 3. ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND RELEASE OF BONDS, TRACT NO. 10762 (Tustin Acres - Between Main and Sixth Streets, E of Freeway) Authorize the release of the Faithful Perfomance and Labor/Materials ~nds for Tract No. 10762 as recomended by the City Engineer in his Dece~er ~8, 1980, report. - 4. SANTA ANA VALLEY IRRIGATION CO. (S.A.V.I.) QUITCLAIM DEED (-Tustin;Arms II~=Pa.sadena =Ave.~) Authorize the Mayor to execute the quitclaim deed and direct staff to record said doc~ent subject to ~e receipt of the $90.00 transfer fee as recomended by the City Engi- neer. 5. COUNCIL CHAIRS Approve a supplemental appropriation of $1,850 ~d au~orize the p~Chase of five Steelcase chairs wi~ dark bro~ fabric as reco~ended by ~e City A~inistrator. 6. EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT - EARL ROWENHORST Authorize ~ecution of ~plo~ent Contract for Earl Rowen- horst as reco~ended by the City A~inistrator. 7. ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND RELEASE OF BONDS, TRACT NO. 10495 (Village Homes, in back of Packer's Square) Authorize the release of ~e Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and ~terials Bond, and Mon~entation Bond for Tract No. 10495 as reco~ended by the City Engineer in his Dece~er ~9, 1980, re~rt- 8. RESOLUTION NO. 81-2 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (City Hall Parking Lot Improvements) ..... Adoptionof ResolutiOn N0~' e~ ~aass~g ~hat no cla~s "~"" ' d~-=stop~e~t n6tfces a~e'filed~withi~"30'daYs of ~e ~te 0f ~c0rdation of the Notice of Completion, authorize pay- ment of ~e 10% retention ~o~t ($17,943.44) at ~at time as reco~ended by the City Engineer. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 88-14~ - A resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, SUPPORTING THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM IN ORANGE COUNTY Adoption of Resolution No. 80-141 as reco~ended by ~e A~inistration Depar~ent. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 89-142 - A Resolution 0f the City Council of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AURHOTIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (Improvements at Bryan Ave. and Browning Ave.) Adoption of Resolution No. 80-142 and assming that no claims or stop ~ent notices are filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion, autho- rize ~ent of the retention ~o~t of $91,491.28 at ~at time as reco~ended by the Engineering Depar~ent. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 1-5-81 11. RESOLUTION NO. 80-143 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, DETERMINING AND ADOPTING AN APPRO- PRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1980~81, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAPTER 1205 OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 7910. Adoption of Resolution No. 80-143 as ~reco~mended by the Finance Director. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 80-144 - A Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF WALNUT AVE, -BROWNING AVE. AND WALNUT AVE · -FRANKLIN AVE. AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS. Adoption of Pasolution No. 80-144 as recommended by the City Engineer. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 80--145 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON SAN JUAN STREET FROM ORANGE STREET TO 1220'+ EAST. A~option of Resolution No. 80-145 as recommended by the City Engineer. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 81-1 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING ARPEAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 80-18 (301 W. First Street) Adoption of ResolUtion No. 81-1 as recommended by the City Council, · Item 14 was removed fr~n the Consent Calendar by Kennedy. Following clarification by the City Attorney of Item X, page 4, contained in the December 15 minutes, 'it was moved by Sharp, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. Item 14 - Resolution No. 81-1- It waS-moved Hoestere~, to adopt ResolUtion No- 81~1. Motion failed 2:2, Kennedy and Sharp dissenting, Saltarelli absent. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar ruled this item be continued to the evening session. ORDINANCES FOR INTRO- DUCTION (See Public,HearinglNO. 1, Page 6) VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION None VIII. . I OLD BUSINESS 1. REGULATION OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING STRUCTURES & REMOVAL THEREOF The memo dated December 16, 1980, prepared by the City Attorney was received and filed with the understanding that the matter -: ,willl be held in abeyance.. 2. IRVINE BOULEVARD--DEAN STREET ANNEXATION NO. 121 Mayor Pro Tom indicated this matter would be considered at the evening session. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 1-5-81 IX. NEW BUSINESS 1. HOLT AVENUE TREE REMOVALS Following the City Engineer's response to CounCil questions, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to authorize the removal of eight pall trees along the easterly side of Holt Avenue between Newport Avenue and Irvine Boulevard, and the replanting of eight approved street trees as replacements by Southern California Edison Company, as recommended in the memo dated December 18, 1980, prepared by the City Engineer. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. 2. REFUND OF PARKING DISTRICT FEES Council discussed the request from the Los Anesentes building owners, 220 E1 Camino Real, for a refund of parking district fees paid at the time of building permit issuance, and expressed concerns that there be sufficient parking in the downtown area and the lack of a master plan. The Community Development Direc- tor provided additional information on the m~tter. It was then moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to deny the refund request. The City Admini~trato~ responded that .the Community Padevelop- ment Agency/City Council share responsibility for the downtown area. The Community DeVelOpment Director stated a report could ~., l~, .,~ ~e~lpr/eV~ded~on~the p~rking 'Study at, the-ne~t,meeting. He fur- ther indicated the Downtown Task Force=had previously set policy, with Council's concurrence, that the waiver of parking should only be granted for those existing, noneconforming uses/ buildings, and not be granted to new developments. As suggested by the CommUnity DevelOpment Director,' Council C6ncurred to direct staff to provide to Council in two weeks a comprehensive listing of uses, fees, number of parking spaces paid for, and the total amount of funds generated to provide a better idea of the impact of similar f~ture requests, with a timetable of plans for any future developments. The motion to deny the refund request carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. 3. MISS TUSTIN PAGEANT Following consideration of the memo dated December 18, 1980, prepared by the Community Services Director~ it was moved b~ Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to waive the fees in the approximate amount of $1,200 for use of the Clifton C. Miller Community Center by the Tustin Jaycees on January 8 and 9, February 9,11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, and March 1 for production of the Miss Tustin Pageant. Carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. 4. BID AWARD: NEWPORT AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION INSTALLA- TION & INTERCONNECT SYSTEM Bids were received as follows: Electrend, InC., Santa Ana $330,800.00 Grissom and Johnson, Inc., Santa Ana $342,400.00 Steiny and Co., ~naheim $353,000.00 Baxter-Griffin, Stanton $373,374.00 Smith Electric Supply, Stanton $405,999.00 Paul Gardner Corp., Ontario $407,781.00 As recommended in the memo dated December 23, 1980, prepared by the City Engineer, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by HoestereX, to award the bid to lowest bidder, Electrend, Inc., Santa Aria, in the total amount of $330,800.00 subject to final approval of CalTrans and the Federal Highways Works Administra- tion. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 1-5-81 5 · RECLASSIFICATION POLICY The Personnel Director provided clarification and responded to Council questions on the proposed reclassification policy. As recommended in the'!m~mo dated Deeember 30, 1980, prepared by the Personnel Director, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded Hoesterey, to approve the proposed procedure involving reclassi- fication and direct'staff to prepare the appropriate resolution implementing the procedure through a modification of the Person- nel Rules and Regulations · Motion carried 4: 0, Saltarelli absent · 6. DRIVE-IN POSTAL MAIL BOX ACCESS The Mayor Pro Tem indicated this matter would be considered at the evening session. 7. PURCHASE OF H.P. 2640 B CRT Following the Finance Director' s comments regarding the com- puter, it was moved by Hoestere~, seconded by Edgar, to autho- rize the purchase of one H.P. 2640 B for $2,300.00 with the appropriation to be made from the self-insured Workers' Compen- sation Fund (loan to be set up for three years, at appropriate interest, with option to repay more .or pay off early without penalty). Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. Councilman Edgar expressed concerns regarding purchasing a complete system, rather than on a piece-by-piece basis. The City Administrator noted that reliability was a main factor considered in the H.P. 2640 B CRT purchase. ~ - 8. AWARD OF BID FOR STREET STRIPING Bids were received for measured quantity - items numbered 1 · through 6, with the remaining items being of undetermined quan- ' tities, as follows!: !~ J & SSign Co., Inc., Orange ~ $18,526.00 Safety Striping Service, Fillmore $19,483.80 Orange County Striping Service, Irvine $20,653.00 AS recormnended in the memo dated January 5, 1981, prepared by the City Engineer, it was moved by Sharp, seconded by Kennedy, to award the bid for Street striping services to J & S Sign Co., ! Inc,.,! Orange, in the aamount of $18,526.00. Carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. X ·OTHER ' BUSINESS 1. COUNCIL WORKSHOP The City Administrator stated he would request council's consid- eration at the evening session of rescheduting the Council Work- shop which was cancelled in December. XI. RECESS TO EVENING At 4:55 p.m., it was moved by Sharp, seconded by Hoestere~, to recess to the 7: 30 p .m. evening session · Motion carried 4: 0, saltarelli/ absent. ' ~ ! '= ' MEETING OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 7:30 P.M. January 5, 1981 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar at 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 1-5-81 ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Edgar, H6esterey, Sharp, Kennedy - ';~CouncilpersensAbsent~ Sal'tarelli ~ !. ,~. ,'-i~Others..Present:~tJames.~C~Rourke~ City,At,torney ..... ,~ ~ ,. . Dan Blankenship, City Administrator ..... M~ry E~ Wynn, City Clerk ~ Michael Brotemarkle, Community DeVe~0pment Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director ' RoyleenWhite, Community Services Director Charles Thayer, Police Chief Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director R. Kenneth Fleagle, Consultant Approximately 30 in the audience III. SLIDE PRESENTA- TION The slide presentation on san~.~An~T~a~SpoF.ta~on~?rridor Alterna- tives was made by A1 Hollinden showing the needs, statistics, and alternatives for expanding our freeways and transportation system. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PRE-ZONE 80-2 (E side of Holt, S of Warren Avenue) ORDINANCE NO. 839 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING THE PRE-ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON HOLT AVENUE UPON APPLICATION PZ-80-2 The staff report was given by the Cozununity DeVelopment Direc- tor explaining that this was the implementing Pre~Zone as recom- mended by the Planning Agency. The basic proposaI is a Pre-Zone to PD-3000. There were= a numberof conditions recommended to be imposed on this particular proposal in order to insure that the development does not further'fragment the area as it is now with approximately 7 different drives. He clarified condition "F. As part of the use permit process, all properties covered by the zone change must be developed in an integrated manner which WOuld provide for reciprocity during development between the individual lots," by saying that this was put in loose language to not necessarily tie it to any specific road alignment or lot size in the project but to allow it to be determined by the Planning Agency at the time a site plan is submitted. It is not meant to necessarily mean that all the properties have to be developed simultaneously but that there must be a reciprocity either in arChitecturaldesign, traffic circulation, or internal neighborhood feeling. Councilwoman Kennedy was concerned that this be kept at the lowT est possible density. Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director, clarified that the density could be controlled through the use permit process. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Edgar. ,;'-:" ArnoldzHamala, aPPliCant ~or this Pre~zone, said-that he~ plans ! ~F !Y t~~ deY~l°P I. at somewhere~around.,one unit per 3,~0~ :ft. of land area which would be about 10 or ll,units on his property or probably 20 or 21 units in his combined development, but this would be determined when the site plan is submitted. With Mr. Brotemarkle's explanation Of condition No. F, all the conditions are acceptable to him and his co-applicants but because Parcel 5 is not part of his planned development, he wants assurance that his development will not be tied to Parcel 5. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 1-5-81 The public hearing was closed at 8:08 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Edgar~ ~ CouncilWoman Kennedy asked Mr. Brotemarkle how he would reword Condition No. F in order to show that it is not going to be tied to Parcel 5. He responded that condition No~ F ties it to the Use Permit pro- cess and rather than make it more specific, we should leave it to the detemination of the Agency under the Use Permit process. Therefore, if Parcel 5 is included, well and good, but if not and it can show a reciprocity that is satisfactory to the Agency, then it can still be an approved project. It was move~ bY Sharp, seconded b~.H0esterey, that ordinance No. 839 have first reading by title only. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. Following the reading of the title Of Ordinance No. 839 by the City Clerk, it was moved b~ Sharp, seconded by Hoestere~, that Ordinance No · 839 be introduced. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent · V. PUBLIC ' - CONCERNS None %I. OLD BUSINESS 2. IRVlNE BOULEVARD--DEAN STR ANNEXATION NO. 121 The City Adr~inistrator 'reported that the most current Index of Registered Voters shows 378 voters in this annexation and 189 protests would terminate the annexation. Staff verified 171 protests from registered voters. The assessed valuation analysis Was not completed due to the short time since the hear- ings,= the holidays and scheduled vacations, preventing any Council action tonight other than giving dual direction to staff according to the results of the assessed valuation analysis. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by KennedT, to direct staff to prepare a resolution setting the decision for the next regular election, or if the assessed valuation comes in over 50 percent, to prepare a resolution tel~ninating the proceedings. James ECkstaedt~ 13201 Dean St., and Judith Lamar, 13392 Wood- land Dr., expressed their displeasure that the results of the assessed valuation analysis was not ready for this meeting. They were assured by staff and the Council that the results would be ready for the January 19, 1981 meeting. The motion carried 4-0, saltareili absent. VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. DRIVE-IN POSTAL MAIL BOX ACCESS Dan Worthington, 1722 Mitchell Avenue ~6, Tustin, proposed that the City investigate the possibility Of authorizing placement of driVe-up postal mail boxes accessible from the driver's side of a car either in a shopping center or in a center. divider on 1st Street, Newport Avenue or Irvine Boulevard. He explained that bucket seats in late model cars make it difficult to reach the present mail boxes. He asked that the City take initiative in setting up these locations · Mayor Pro Tem Edgar Said that the staff report points out the hazards of placing a mail box in a center divider, not only for the parson depositing the mail but for the postman who would be picking up the mail. However~ the concept of putting one in a shopping center might be a good idea. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 1-5-81. . Mike Bzotemarkle,= Community Development Director, said that his experience in the past has been that the Post Office comes to the City and proposes either a self-service center or a postal mail dropl on a piece of private property orr~ a Shopping center and it ~is no different thanhandlinga Fotemat or key shop. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that a letter to the Postmaster be prepared forl ~the Mayor's signature indicating our interes~ . in. a drive-up mail box, acc~essible to the driver' s side of a car, in a shopping ce~ter~!a. nd i~dentifying Mr, Dan Worthington as an interested citizen, Carried 4-0, Saltarelli VIII. OTHER ' BUSINESS 1. WORKSHOP SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 12, 1981 The City Administrator asked if the Council would be available for a Workshop on January 12, 1981, and the7 concurred that 7:00 p.m.. would be an appropriate time. I '= i 2 · COMMUNICATION WITH DOWNTOWN BUSINESSMEN Councilman Hoestorey proposed that the Council have some kind of communication conduit with the downtown businessmen and he sugT gested that Councilman Edgar become the task force leader for that area and that it be understood that this is for information gathering only and is not a commission. Council concurred. In response to COuncilman Edgar's question as to the time of the next meeting, the Community Development Director said that the task force is in abeyance. now until We have a developer present a proposal on some of the property !that we ha~e been investi- · . gating- He said that staff had been working with the Chamber Community Development Commission as well as the Development Task Force, which is composed of Ithree businessmen and four members Mr, Edgar said that he would try to schedule a night meeting, 3. EXPENDITURES UNDER THE GANN INITIATIVE Councilman Hoesterey=~ mentioned · the · blackboard display of the Gann Initiative and expressed that the Council needed to look at our expenditures as. a total package when new expenditures come before us. This can be discussed l in. more detail at the work- 4. COMMENDATION TO STAFF Councilwoman Kennedy commended Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, and his staff for their speedy and courteous response in chang- ing a sidewalk and crosswalk in an area recently annexed that had been a controversial matter in the County for over a year. = = 5. SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Councilwoman Kennedy said that she .was not satisfied with the way the Senior Citizens are selected for the Senior CitiZen Royleen White, Community Services Director, responded that the City has no control over the list of those qualified for the housing but if she had the names of those dissatisfied, she ~ould follow up and See why they Qere not selected. ' '" · Mayor- Pro Tem Edgar said that we could get ·information from HUD as to their rules regarding qualified applicants, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 1-5-81 6. COMMENDATION TO CONTRATOR Mayor Pro Tem Edgar asked that a letter of commendation be writ- ten to H. A. Sessler, Inc., contractor for the improvements at Bryan and Browning Avenues, for a job well done and completed 50 days ahead of schedule. Council concurred. 7. SMOKE DETECTOR ORDINANCE Mayor Pro Tem Edgar inquired if the ordinance regarding smoke detectors had been completed. The City Attorney responded that his office was in the process of completing it. 8. EL CAMINO UNDER GROUNDING Mayor Pro Tem Edgar asked if the undergrounding for the E1 Camino area would go to bid in two weeks. Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, responded that they are coordi- nating the Southern California Edison and Pacific Telephone plans and the City Attorney is preparing the papers. Hopefully his department will have the paperwork by the 19th of this month. 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION Councilman Hoesterey requested a brief executive session for discussion of personnel matters. Council concurred. 10. CONTINUANCE OF VARIANCE 80-2 AND APPEAL OF VARIANCE 80-18 Inasmuch as there was an impasse on Planning Agency Old Business No. 1 (Variance No. 80-2, Sign for Wuv's Restaurant) and City Council Consent Calendar No. 14 (Resolution No. 81-1, ApproVing Appeal of Variance No. 80-18, 301 W. First Street), it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to continue these two items to the next meeting on January 19, 1981. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. IX. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. to an Executive Session for personnel matters, thence to a Workshop on January 12, 1981, at 7:00 p.m. in the Lunch Room at the Maintenance Building, and thence to the next regular meeting on January 19, 1981. Carried.