Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES 11-03-86II. III. IV. MINUTES OF A RE~LAR ~ETIN6 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 'IUSTI#, CALIFORNIA NOVE~I6ER 3, 1.986 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ~LLE6IAIIC~/I#VOCATXON The meeting wa ca11~ to order by Mayor Saltarelli at 7:00 p.m. tn the City Co~nctl Cheers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by ~layor Pro T~ Hoesterey., a~ t~e Invocatlon ~as given by Count11men Edgar. Counctlpe~ons Present: Counctlpemons Absent: Others Present: Donald J. Saltare111, Mayor Ronald B. Hoesterey, Mayor Pro Tee Richard 8. Edgar John Kelly Ursula E. Kennedy None Wllli&m A. Hus~on, City Manager Man Watts, Oeputy City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, Ctty Clerk Robert: S. Ledendecker, Dtr. of Public Works Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police Ronald A. Nault, Finance Otrector Royleen A. White, Otr. of Com. & Admin. Srvcs. Jeff Oavts, Acttng Senior Planner Janet Nester, Administrative Secretary Apgroxtmetely 25 in the Audience PI~OCIJt#ATION "THE Rt'VER~ HOUSE" - T~IRTIETH .,W#IVERSARY F~ Weber accept~ a proclamation fr~ Mayor Saltarelli congratu- lating ~e Reve~ House ~staurant, 900 West First Street, on its ~i~tet~ ~ni versmry. Mr. ~er express~ his thanks to the Counctl. ~ SP~C IAL · MIES£NTATI OR [9~ P~DEb'rRIAN SMtYT AC~I£V~IENT /~RO - AWARDED BY AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO CITY OF ~USTIN Bob Kerr, 01strict Manager, Auto~K)btle Club of Southern California, proudly presented the Hayor with a ~estrtan safety achievement awaff in recognition of lO consecutive years without a pedestrian fataltty o~ ~half of the American Automobile Association. Mr, Kerr quot~ statistics on Tustin's accident record of no fatalttie and 37 pedestrian injuries, compar~ to the average of 416 cities reposing in the same population group with 1.8 fatali- ties and ¢9 injuries. Fie stat~ that the plaque acknowledges the c~ined effo~s of ~ucattonal, engineering, and enforcement pro- grams Tusttn has provtd~ 1ts cttfzens. ~ gave special thanks to the Po~tce Chief and the Otrector Of Public Works and members of their respective depa~ments for pa~ictpation In coordinating and c~lettng the report. Mayor Saltare11I thanked Mr. Kerr. ~ PUBLIC None. CITY COUNCIL MINUT Page 2, 11-3-86 Vl. PUBLIC INPUT 1. N~TIONAL GUARD MELICOPTERS AT LOS N_J~ITOS James H. May, 14642 Pepper Tree Circle. inquired on the Status of his concerns expressed at the September 2 meeting regarding the possible move of National Guard helicopters from Los Alamitos to Tustin and relocation of flight patterns. The City Manager responded that following Mr. May's appearance at the September 2 meeting, staff contacted the Comeending Officer at Tustin and the Commanding General at E1 Toro. It is staff's under- standing that the Marine Corps will not support such a move. They do not have the capacity to handle Marine Corps helicopters, let alone absorb any from the National Guard. Short of Congressional action, such a move will not occur. Tustin is on record opposed to Regarding the fltght patterns, the City Manager stated that the agreement to relocate the Browning Corridor approximately 1/4 mile easterly (toward Myford Road) has not been completed for the following reasons: 1) New landing approach instrumentation required to implement the relocation has still not been installed; and 2) The agreement to relocate the flight corridor has not been finalized. A key issue is that The Irvine Company will dedi- cate to the Navy land south of the Marine base for military housing in exchange for the right-of-way through the base for the road. They've agreed on acreage, but have not finalized how it will be accomplished. Staff will check on how soon that will be finalized and report back tO Mr. May on both issues. VII. CO~S£NT CALENDAR It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoestere¥, to approve the entire Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. 1. APPROVAL OF ~NUTE$ - OCTOBER 22, 19~, ADJOURNED REGULAR ~[TING Z. APP~¥AL OF {]F.J~AND$ IN THE N4OuNT OF $241,262.06 PJ~TIFI~,~T[O# OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $171,347.10 50 3. REJECTIO# OF CLJ~IR NO. 86-43; CLA[HANT: JERRY M. GAN5; DATE OF LOSS: 9/6/86; DATE F%LED WITil C%TY: 9/22/86 Rejected subject claim as recon~ended by the City Attorney. 40 4. R£SOLUT[O# NO. 86-129 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING FINAL Tl~ACT MAP NO. 12868 (Southeast Corner of Browning & Bryan Avenues - East Tustin Residential, Phase Adopted Resolution No. 86-129 as recommended by the Community Development Department. 99 5. TP,~Cr NO. 121~ - RELF. J~SE OF ~UBOIVIS[ON WARRANT7 BONDS (Southerly Side of Walnut Street between Newport Avenue and Orange Street Atnslie Development) Authorized release of Subdivision Warranty Bond No. 3 SM 572 912 in the amount of $2,250 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. 99 6. RESOLUTION NO'. 86-130 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL PAVEMENT MARKING PROGRAM ANO DIRECT CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Adopted Resolution No. 86-130 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. 95 Vlll. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION None. IX. Il. III. ti', .OUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 11-3-86 ORDINMJCE FOR ADOPTIOll DEVELOPPlENT AGREElqEMT 8ETI~EN THE CITY OF TUSTXN & .THE IRVINE COlqPMIY RELATING TO UEVELOPMEIIT OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PI.AN PROJECT AREA -OI~D. IILM~ NO. 978 It was moved by Edgar) seconded by Kelly, that Ordinance No. 978 have second reading by title only. Carried $-0. Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 978 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Ed~ar~ seconded by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 978 be passed and adopted as follows: ORl)I~ NO. g?8 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COONCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (EXHIBIT A A1-KACHED HERETO), AS DEFINED BY SECTION 66865.2 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE IRVINE COMPANY PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA Roll call vote: Edgar, Noesterey, Kelly, Kennedy, Saltarelli None None 45; 86-54; B! AYES: NOES: ABSENT: OLD BUSIllESS None. ~ BUSINESS None. REPORTS 1. 3e IR.AIIIIIII~ CO~ISSIOII.ACTIOI~ - OCTOBER ZT, 1986 It wes n~ved by Howsterey? seconded byEdgar, to ratify the entt re Planning Commission Action Agenda of October 27, 1986. The motion carried 5-0. ~ PACIFIC BELl. ~OYEE WORK ~ PtIASIN6 SCHEDULE Following Councilman Kelly's suggestion, Council concurred to direct staff to come back with a recommendation on when it would be a good idea for the City to require implementation of a work-hour phasing schedule when project plans are submitted, depending on the nunf~er of omployees at one c~any. It was then moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. Carried 5-0. 81 Councilwoman Kennedy felt the draft letter should state that staff would be available o. a daily basis to inspect the storm drains and that the City was disappointed to learn that the project would be delayed due to CalTrans' plans for freeway widening. Councilman Edgar thought it important to recognize that the City is committed to collation of the storm drain project as soon as CalTrans completes the necessary right-of-way acquisitions. The draft letter stated same. although he acknowledged that his famil- iarity ~th the issue made it clear to him, and perhaps the letter should contain more personal dialog with the residents. Mayor Saltarelll suggested that Councilwoman Kennedy coordinate with the City Manager and Director of Public Works on some rephras- ing in the letter to perhaps personalize it a little. Councilman Kelly felt staff's recommendation should include a cooperative effort on the homeowners' part to reduce the danger of private.property damage since they are aware that a problem exists. CITY COUNCIL MINUTF Page ¢, 11-3-86 It was then moved by Ed ar, seconded by Kennedy, to direct staff to redraft the letter, wi th Councilwoman Kennedy's assistance, to include additional Council concerns. The motion carried 5-0. gl lllI. OTI~R BUSINESS 1. FREITAS V. CITY OF TUSTIN It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to direct the City Attorney to proceed with settlement of subject' claim as recon~nended in the confidential inter-eom dated October 31, 1986, prepared by 'the City Attorney. The motion carried 5-0. 40 2. DOM~ R~SIDENTIAL AREA Councilman Edgar stated that problems recently encountered in the downtown area have been complex due to lack of good communication. On the one hand, there are dedicated, talented City staff who have envisioned a plan to solve some of the problems downtown, and he thought their motives are solid. On the other hand, there are residents and business persons who want to upgrade the downtown area. They're confronted with knowing they want to preserve what's good downtown, yet they don't want to be committed to what's bad. They also lack a detailed perception of the mechanics on how the downtown area can and should be upgraded. He suggested Tustin commence developing a plan, without the rigid- ity of some plans that become formal and academic, but one that will address the ultimate desires as a con~nunity in terms of the City and downtown residents. He felt it appropriate for City' staff to meet with downtown residents to begin formulating that direction without any preconceived ideas of what it ultimately will be. He defined the boundary for such a plan as being the Costa Mesa Free- way to the Redevelopment area east and west, and from Irvine Boule- vard to Sixth Street north and south. Although the plan would encompass the entire downtown area~ he is primarily addressing preservation of R-1 in a mode that retains the old buildings, the attractive buildings, and at the same time provides a challenge to upgrade those structures that are deficient to something that will be attractive to the whole community. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kenned),, to direct staff to ini- tiate dialog with downtown area residents, on a flexible timetable, with an interest in preservation and the goal of developing a plan to upgrade the downtown residential area, which will gain community support. Council discussion followed. It was clarified that a "town hall meeting" format could be utilized for dialog exchange. Such a plan could ultimately be called a specific plan, as long as it focused on the downtown residential area. It was felt that the First Street Specific Plan already addressed the commercial uses within the defined boundaries. Although R-1 zoning will be maintained, a plan is needed to upgrade/preserve some of the downtown historic structures. The motion carried 5-0. 60 3. BUILDING AT 333 ;I CAI~ING REAL The Acting Senior Planner responded to Councilwoman Kennedy that the Community Development Department received an application for a parking variance at 333 E1 Camino Real. After project review and discussion of several items with the applicant, a four-week continuance was requested from the Planning Commission. The status of escrow on the building is unknown at this time. He stated that the following available parking options were pre- sented to the applicant: purchasing parking in the parking struc- ture (once it is repaired), resurrecting a parking district, and long-term leases with neighboring/adjacent property owners. CI 2UNCIL MINUTES Page 5. 11-3-86 Councilwoman Kennedy requested that the Public Works D~).partment/ Engineering Division and the Police Depart~nt coordinate and rmpo~ back on the safest woy to coordinate tu~ signals throughout the City so t~at they m~ unifo~ly p~ased. This ~uld eliminate confusion on the public's part. Council concurred. 5. TRUO~ PAi~KIM~ AT I~XACOSTATION, NEIJPOJ~T AVENUE AT I-5 ~EE~Y Councilw~an Kennedy repo~ that once again trucks a~ parking at the Texaco Station m Newpo~ Avenue at the I-5 Freeway and at the curb in front of ~e Church on R~hill. 6. ~ID ~[~ ~E~IOM ~ Mayor Pro Tam Hoesterey stat~ that he and Councilman ~dgar met with staff ~garUtng trash collection fees and sch~ules. Based on discussions, he Peco~nd~ that the City issue refund checks in the ~unt of $10.70 to ~sidents ~o have paid their bill. He ~p)ained that ~at ~curred was that a ~serve was set up for a ne~otiat~ amount which Is still un~esolv~ between Great Western and t~e City. It was m~ved by Hoesterey, second~ by Kenned},, to appropriate funds from the ~neral Fund to issue refund checks in the amount of $10.70 to residents Mo have paid their bill. Carried 5-0. 102 7. CXAJ4P~ ~UNCX Oil NOVEMBER 16 AT SXE1J. Ey'$ OU. IFOI~NIA OJISINE - BENEFIT FOR I~"TI~ ~E~ ~NIOR O!NTEI~ Mayor Pro Tam Xoesterey banded Councilwoman Kennedy his check for the Noven/~er 16 Champagne B~unch to benefit the Tustin Area Senior Center, Councilwoman Kennedy received it with thanks and invited everyone to attend the special occasion. 41 8. AM~NDI~IlT TO ~ ~O~IM~ DRDI~ Mayor Pro Tm Hoesterey stat~ that it has been Suggest~ that the ~oking o~inance be om~nded to prohibit smoking of lighted pipes or cigarl in City-owned buildings. It was ~ved by Saltarelli) seconded by Edgar, to agendize the matter for the NovefM)er 17 meeting. Carried 5-0. 8~ g. ~)?ENIIAL N)Rlll ll)~*l'IN Councilman Kelly requested Council comments regarding subject report dated Sept~er 30, lg86, prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman. Mayor Pro Tam Hoesterey stated that unless there is a strong eco- nomic reason to annex the area, the City should avoid annexing great areas that are an expense to existing residents. The report sho~ that there would be an expense, and he v~ould be very cautious about any large annexations. Councilman Kelly stated he looked at the report as a "sophisticated guesstimation." He question~ why the report did not list each parcel, the income from those properties, and then a total. He stat~ he would like to see a report done on such a basis for the particular study area. Councilman Edgar stated that the report clearly shows that when you annex an area that is entirely developed and inhabited, only the property itself is annexed, with no increment from business, com- mercial, or industrial uses. The tax increment from that activity does not pay directly for cost of fundamental services to that area such as police and fire. CITY COUNCIL MINU, Page 6, 11-3-86 Councilman Edgar noted one deficiency of the report is that it did not address major capital infrastructure deficiencies such as streets, storm drains, etc. If annexed, those deficiencies will be the City's funding responsibility, which are big negatives that Council must consider before making a decision. He felt the report was accurate, and to spend 5-10 times as much money for a report covering every parcel in North Tustin would net the same result. The City Manager interjected that the property tax revenue projec- tions in the report are based on actual numbers. The report did not address infrastructures because it would have cost between $50-100 thousand in consultant fees to analyze the condition of roads, storm drains, etc. Council did not feel it appropriate to spend that amount of fees on the study. Mayor Saltarelli stated that the matter boils down to Council philosophy on whether or not it wants to annex North Tustin, and whether North Tustin residents desire annexation to Tustin. He felt Tustin has a unique living environment, including the greater Tustin Area, that is worth saving. If the two do not ultimately become one larger city with the political power necessary to pro- tect its survival, that unique living environment will be lost in 5-20 years. He expressed hope that Council will look at a long- term program of annexing North Tustin into the City. Councilwoman Kennedy stated that an informal survey or "straw vote" of North Tustin residents should have been conducted prior to spending fees for a consultant's report. This would give the City an idea of how residents not represented by the North Tustin Muni- cipal Advisory Council (NTMAC) or the Foothill Association feel regarding annexation to Tustin. Council discussion followed. Mayor Pro Tm Hoesterey recommended against going any further or spending any more money when preliminary data shows it is not economically feasible at this point. Council's major consensus was to resume dialog following the November 4 General Election at which three member~ will be elected to the NTMAC. Then perhaps a public meeting with the Tustin City Council and NTMAC board could be held with interested citizens from both incorporated and unincorporated areas participating. Any sur- vey by the City would be conducted only after being discussed with 24 NTMAC. 10. SAN JUAN-RED HILL ANNEXATION NO. 123 - PAYMENT FOR CAPITAL IMPROVE- ~ENTS Mayor Saltarelli recommended that the City request the County to pay for capital improvements relative to the San Juan-Red Hill Annexation, for which full payment has not been received. 2¢ XI¥. 11. mJGY'S RESTAURANT The Acting Senior Planner responded to Mayor Saltarelli that the last action taken by the City was to authorize demolition of the building, provided that it is restored to its original appearance. Staff is currently working with the project proponent on some con- ceptual drawings that have been submitted. The matter should come before the Redevelopmen~ Agency within the next few weeks. 81 RE. SS - REDEVELOPMENT; AI~IOURIOqENT At 7:55 p.m., it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kelly, to recess to the Redevelopment Agency; and thence adjourn*to the ,~ext Regular Meeting on Monday, November 17, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 5-0. JMAYOR MI~ OF A REGULAR )~I~LrTIN6 OF THE REI)EVELOPMEIIT AGENCY OF THE Cll~f OF TUSTXN, ~IFORNIA NOVEMBER 3, 1986 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:SS p.m. by Chairman Saltarelli in the City Council Chandlers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. Agency Men~oers Present: Agency MeanDers Absent: Others Present: Donald J. Saltarelli, Chairman Ronald B. Hoesterey, Chairman Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar John Kelly Ursula E. Kennedy None William A. Huston, Exec. Director/City Manager Alan Watts, Deputy City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary Robert S. Ledendecker, Ofrector of Public Works Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director Royleen A. White, Otr. of Com. & Admin. Services Jeff Oavis, Acting Senior Planner Janet Hester, Administrative Secretary Approximately 2S in the audience 3. A{'~OVAL OF MIIliIE$ - 06ql)~ful ~2, 198~, AI~OURWEO ~ ~I~ It was ~v~ by Hoesterey~ second~ by Edgar, to approve Minutes of the Octo~r Zg, ~98~, ~journed Regular M~ting. Motion carried 5-0. 4. ~SI~ ~Vl~ - ~I{Eo ~IES ~0~ ~, 16272 ~L ~ - R~ION ~. ~ 8~13 It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to adopt the following: RE~UTIOII NO. R~)A 8~)-13 - A RESOLUTION O~ THE COI~MUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Ol: THE CITY OF TLISTIN, C~a. IFORNIA, APPROVING lq~E DESIGN OF AN RkO INDUSTRIAL BUILOING TO BE LOCATEI) AT 15272 DEL AMO AVENUE Councilw~n Kennedy reiterated concern that this is the second consecu- tive project which could easily revert to office or industrial use, since it wtll provide 289 parking spaces where only 163 are required. She felt the City should have a moch n~re direct policy and approve what the ulti- mate use will be. Following Agency discussion, the motion carried S-O. 60 It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Kelly, to direct staff to report back on why so many additional parking spaces are being proposed, the co~ari- son of RkO Industrial vs. Office parking and building requirements, and why an industrial building would later convert to office. Carried 5-0. Council concurred with Chairman Pro Tem Hoesterey's request to direct staff to report back with recommendations on amending existing ordinances to accommodate mid-size parking stalls and eliminate compact parking which limits the use of parking lots. 60 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edge.r, to adjourn at 8:03 p.m. to the next Regular Meeting on Monday, November 17, 1986, at 7:00 p.m.