Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 11-17-86MINUTES OF A REOULAR ~ETING OF Tile CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF llJSTIN, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 3, 1986 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION The meeting was called to order by Mayor Saltarelli at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey, and the Invocation was given by Councilman Edgar. II. ROLL CALL Council persons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: Donald O. Saltarelli, Mayor Ronald B. Hoesterey, Mayor Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar John Kelly Ursula E. Kennedy None William A. Huston, City Manager Alan Watts, Deputy City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Robert S. Ledendecker, Dir. of Public Works Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director Royleen A. White, .Dir. of Com. & Admin. Srvcs. Jeff Davis, Acting Senior Planner Janet Hester, Administrative Secretary Approximately 25 in the Audience III. PR(X;LM~ATION 1. 'THE REVERE HOUSE' - THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY Fred Werter accepted a proclamation from Mayor Saltarelli congratu- lating The Revere House restaurant, 900 West First Street, on its Thirtieth Anniversary. Mr. Werter expressed his thanks to the Council. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATION 1. 1985 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD - AWARDED BY AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN ~IFORNIA ll) CIllf OF llJSTIN Bob Kerr, District Manager, Automobile Club of Southern California, proudly presented the Mayor with a pedestrian safety achievement award in recognition of 10 consecutive years without a pedestrian fatality on behalf of the American Automobile Association. Mr. Kerr quoted statistics on Tustin's accident record of no fatalities and 37 pedestrian injuries, compared to the average of 416 cities reporting in the same population group with 1.8 fatali- ties and 49 injuries. He stated that the plaque acknowledges the combined efforts of educational, engineering, and enforcement pro- grams Tustin has provided its citizens. He gave special thanks to the Police Chief and the Director of Public Works and members of their respective departments for participation in coordinating and completing the report. Mayor Saltarelli thanked Mr. Kerr. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 11-3-86 VI. PUBLIC INPUT 1. I~TIONAL ~DARD ItELICOPTERS AT LOS ALANITOS 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 Commanding 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 same. Regarding the flight 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) 2) New landing approach instrumentation required to implement the relocation has still not been installed; and 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. 101 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR VIII. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to approve the entire Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1986, ADJOURNED REGULAR t~EETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEIWLANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $241,262.06 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $171,347.10 5O REJECTION OF CLAIM gO. 86-43; CLAIMANT: JERRY N. GANS; DATE OF LOSS: 9/6/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 9/22/86 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 44) 4. RESOLUTION NO. 86-129 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 12868 (Southeast Corner of Browning & Bryan Avenues - East Tustin Residential, Phase i) AdOpted Resolution No. 86-129 as recommended by the Community Development Department. 99 TRACT NO. 12106 - RELEASE OF SUBDIVISION W/~RRAN~ BONOS (Southerly Side of Walnut Street between Newport Avenue and Orange Street, Ainslie 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 RESOLUTION NO. 86-130 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL PAVEMENT MARKING PROGRAM AND DIRECT CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Adopted Resolution No. 86-130 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. 95 ORDI~NCES FOR INTRODUCTION None. FY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 11-3-86 IX. Xa XI. XII. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ll(E CITY OF TUSTIN & THE IRVINE COMPANY RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT OF ll(E EAST TOSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA -ORDINANCE NO. 978 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kelly, that Ordinance No. 978 have second reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 978 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 978 be passed and adopted as follows: OPJ)INANCE NO. 978 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO), AS DEFINED BY SECTION 65865.2 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: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kelly, Kennedy, Saltarelli None None 45; 86-64; 81 OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS PLANNING COIIIISSION ACTIONS - OCTOBER 27, 1986 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to ratify the entire Planning Commission Action Agenda of October 27, 1986. The motion carried 5-0. 80 PACIFIC BELL ENPLOYEE WORK HOUR P~U~SING 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 number of employees at one company. It was then moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. Carried 5-0. 81 3. INFLUENTIAL SQUARE STORM ~RAIN Councilwoman Kennedy felt the draft letter should state that staff would be available on 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 completion 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 with the issue made it clear to him, and perhaps the letter should contain more personal dialog with the residents. Mayor Saltarelli 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 MINUTES Page 4, 11-3-86 XIII. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to direct staff to redraft the letter, with Councilwoman Kennedy's assistance, to include additional Council concerns. The motion carried 5-0. 91 OTHER 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 recommended in the confidential inter-rom dated October 31, 1986, prepared by the City Attorney. The motion carried 5-0. 40 2. DOWNTOWN ~ESIDENTIAL 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 community 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 Kennedy, 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. 6O 3. BUILDIN(~ AT 333 EL CAMINO 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. 'TY COUNCIL MINUTES ,age 5, 11-3-86 4. UNIPORM PHASING OF TURN SIGNALS Councilwoman Kennedy requested that the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division and the Police Department coordinate and report back on the safest way to coordinate turn signals throughout the City so that they are uniformly phased. This would eliminate confusion on the public's part. Council concurred. 94 TRUCKS PARKING AT TEXACO STATION, NEWPORT AVENUE AT I-5 FREEWAY Councilwoman Kennedy reported that once again trucks are parking at the. Texaco Station on Newport Avenue at the I-5 Freeway and at the curb in front of The Church on Redhill. 6. SOLIO WASTE COLLECTION FEES Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey stated that he and ~Council~m~n Edgar met with staff regarding trash collection, fees and. schedules. Based on discussions, he recommended that the City issue ref~d checks in the amount of $10.70 to residents who have paid th~ic bill. He eXplained that what occurred was that a re~erve=was~set up for a negotiated amount which is still unresolved between Great Western and the City. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, ~ appropriate funds from the General Fund to issue r~fund checks in,he amount of $10.70 to residents who have paid their bill. Carried~5-O. 102 e CHAMPAGNE BRUNCH ON NOVEMBER 16 AT SHE. LLEY'S CALIFORI~IA CUISINE - BENEFIT FOR TUSTIN AREA SENIOR CENTER ) Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey handed Councilwoman Kennedy his check for the November 16 Champagne Brunch to benefit the Tustin Area Senior Center. Councilwoman Kennedy receiv..eJJ it with thanks and invited everyone to attend the special occasi~. 41 8. AMENDMENT TO lltE SMOKING ORDINANCE Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey stated that it ~has been suggested that the smoking ordinance be amended to prohibdt smoking of ~ighted pipes or cigars in City-owned buildings. It was moved b~ Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, ~o-agendize the matter for the November 17 meeting. Carried 5-0. ?" 88 9. POTENTIAL NORTfl TUSTIN ANNEXATION Councilman Kelly requested Council comments regarding subject report dated September 30, 1986, prepared by Stanley ~m Hoffman. Mayor Pro Tem 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 shows that there would be an expense, and he would be very cautious about any large annexations. Councilman Kelly stated he looked at the report as a "~ophisticated guesstimation." He questioned why the report did not list each parcel, the income from those properties, and then a total. He stated 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 MINUTES Page 6, 11-3-86 XIV. 10. 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 Tem 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 members 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 NTMAC. 24 SAN JUAN-RED HILL ANNEXATION NO. 123 - PAYNENT FOR CAPITAL IMPROVE- MENTS 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. 24 11. RUBY'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 Redevelopment Agency within the next few weeks. 81 RECESS - REDEVELOPHENT; ADJOURNMENT At 7:55 p.m., it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kelly, to recess to the Redevelopment Agency; and thence adjourn to the next Regular Meeting on Monday, November 17, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 5-0. CITY CLERK MAYOR