HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 06-07-82OF ~ ~8~ ~T~ C0~u~u
COUNCIL CHEERS
300 Centennial Way
~aF 17, 1982
I. CALL
TO O~DER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 4:16 p.m.
Councilpersons Present:
Cou~cilpersons Absent:
O~hers Present:
Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy,
Saltarelli
None
James G. 9~urke, City Attorney
William A. Huston, City Manager
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
~Ltke Brot~kle, Comm. Dev. Director
Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works
Roy Gonzalee, Personnel Director
Ronald Nault, Finance Director
Approximately 20 in the audience
Mayor Edgar read and presented to Mike Turin, Founder/Director
of Share Health Foundation, a procl~tion 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 %he Council and City for the recognition. 84
~~T A~CX
~vm~. - CIT~
~v~. At 4:20 p.m. the Council recessed to a ~eting of the Redevelop-
ment Agency and reconvened at 4:24 with all ~ers present.
870
%~ne Community Development Director presented the staff repor~
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 8g~. Pepperoni's Pizza Store, 651 E.
First Street.
Edward Starns, local businessman.
Maury Lebanoff, 11821 Highview Drive, Santa Aha, owner of sho~-
ping center at corner of McFadden & Walnut Avenues.
Steve Grc~ek, Arbolada Way, Santa Aha, Attorney.
Mark Ray,ack, 1524 S. Van Ness, Santa Aha.
The public hearing was closed at 4:45 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy rem3_nded Council that creation of the
ordinance was prompted by consideration of an arcade next to a
condo~nium 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 o~dinance, understanding that Tustin does
not have a track record in arcades; her reason for concern is
dueto input from Chief Thayer and because it involves children
in possible large groups; and although not meaning to be over-
restrictive, as a ~m~l city with residential abutting commer-
cial, this is a way to be responsible and cautious to the resi-
dential co,unity. She added that she can certainly speak in
CITY ODUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2, 5-17-82
V. PUBLXC
1.
VI. CON~IT
favor of the ordinance unless staff indicates they would rather
have the License a Permit Board review arcades; and even under
that condition, she would still approve the ord/nance.
Councilman Hoesterey stated that all this ordinance does is
place arcades in a geographic area of the City; it does not give
s~e g~delines as to arcades, the D3,mher of machines and people
allowed in a building operating arcades; and he would like to
see an ordinance that makes it a subordinate portion 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 ~hose standards into
print in a manner that isn't unduly restricted.
Councilm~n Saltarelli reiterated his opposition ko the ordi-
n~/1cee
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, the Con, unity 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 ~tscussion, 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 ~he best procedure to
follow in the case of arcades and agendize it for the next reg~-
lar meeting.
The Council joined Councilman Hoesterey in recognizing the
efforts of Dave Patterson, Sgt. Pepperoni's Manager, for spend-
ing a great deal of t/me on the City's behalf on the matter.
The motion carried 5-0.
81
Betty Truitt, resident, commended and thanked the City on the
publication of the ~,mmer recreation program brochure "Tustin
Today." Council acknowledged the Community Services Director's
coordinating of the printing. 41
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- APPTIO'FAL C~ MIN~S- May 3, 1982
(Kennedy abstained)
~ ~ D~%ND$ in the amount of $706,579.87.
~ATXFIC&T~ C~ PAFROL~ in the amount of $100,120.23.
(Greinke registered a ~N0" vote.)
5O
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3, 5-17-82
4e
1~~ NO. 82-35- A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, SUPPORTING ~HE ORANGE COUNTY ARTS
ALLIANCE PLAN FOR CULTURAL GROWTH
Adopt Resolution No. 82-35 as recommended by the Director of
Co~u~ttnity Services. 41
RE~0~F~ NO. 82-36- A B~solution of ~he City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, SETTING A PUBLIC HEAttING ~ ~IiE PRO-
POSED ASSESS~TS ON THE PROPERTIES LOCAT~u WITHIN THE EL CAMINO
REAL UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 5
Adopt Resolution No. 82-$6 as recommended by the City Engi-
neer. 104
6e
TP~ R~IOVA~ - 17382 PARKER
Approve the r-moral of the Ficus tree at 17382 Parker Drive
as a Priority I removal and amend the Priority I removal to
include sewer laterals as well as curbs and sidewalks as
recommended by the City Engineer. 86.1
R~OhlP~X~ NO. 82-37- A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF I24PROVE~ENT AND A/~THORIZING
RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (RED HILL AVENUE R~CUNSTRUC-
TIUN) (R. J. Noble Company)
Adopt Resolution No. 82-37 and if no cla~m-_ or stop payment
notices are filed w~thin 30 days of the date of recordation
of the Notice of Completion, authorize payment of the final
10% retention amount as recon~ended by the Engineering
Department. 95
C~t Calendar I~e~ 3- It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by
Kennedy, to approve the following:
~SX(ll ~ U~E P~I~IT 89,,,21 AND 'I~'I~.TTV~ ~ ~ 11336
( 1651 Mitchell - Windsor Garden Apartments)
Approve extension of Tentative Tract Map 11336 with the
understanding that no further extensions of the Tentative
Map and the Use Permit will be 9Tanted as recon~aended by the
C~m~nity Development Department.
The motion carried 4-1, Hoesterey opposed.
VII. 01~NC]~ FOR IN'I~I~ICTXC~ - None
~II · ORDI-
naNCeS FOR
AD~TI~
1.
Ol~)llh%~C~ NO. 871 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, ~DING ~HE TUSTIN CITY CODE R~.ATIVE TO
FINANCIAL AND PURCHASING PRO. C~URE$ OF THE CIT~ OF TUST/N
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
by Hoesterey, seconded by 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 s~ream~
lining purchasing procedures; procedurally there is no cost
impact; and it will not create an additional workload.
Roll call vote:
A~ES: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarellt
NOES: None 50
AND ~ A~ I~ECT~O~ ~OP
Following consideration of the report dated May 12, 1982, pre-
pared by the Director of Public Works, it was moved by Kennedy,
seconded by Hoesterey, to select May 25, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. for
subject workshop meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 94
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4, 5-17-82
Bids for subject project were received as follows:
Great American Pipeline Company, Inc., Yorba Linda
Five States Plumbing, Inc., Orange
T~ree D Construction Company, Inc., Los Angeles
P.E.R., Inc., Orange
Brkick Construction Company, E1 Monte
Gallacher Company, Inc., Costa Mesa
Precision Pipeline, San Dimas
G.R. McKervy, Inc., Irvine
Irvine Pipeline Company, Inc., Santa Ana
AmUck Construction Company, Inc., Ontario
Monarch Construction, Anaheim
Gabi Construction Cc~pany, Inc., La Habra
Macco Constructors, Inc., Paramount
G.R. Frost, Inc., Wilmington
City Construction Company, Covina
Normmn Construction Company, Inc., Norco
$107,450.08
$109,317.75
$119,414.75
$121,550.58
$123,259.00
$124,439.73
$124,563.05
$128,781.60
$131,382.75
$131,399.90
$133,588.14
$135,503.80
$145,696.50
$146,268.00
$153,654.18
$159,328.38
The low bid is 7.5% below the Engineer's estimate of
$118,180.15, with $76,400.00 presently budgeted for the Work.
A~ditionally, City crews will make service tie-ins and connec-
tions to existing water mains at an estimated materials cost of
$10,000.00. Total requ/red funds for the project will be
$107,450.08 plus $10,000.00, or $117,450.08, requiring appro-
priation of an add/tional $4],050.08 to complete the work.
As recommended in the report dated May 11, 1982, prepared by the
Engineering Division, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by
Kennedy, to award the con~ract 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 carxied 4-0,
Greinke abstaining. 107
In acoordance with the repor~ dated May 17, 1982, prepared by
the Co~unity Development Department, it was moved by Salta-
relli, seconded by Hoesterey, to direct staff to approve t_he
Tustin Tiller Days C~ittee request to place banners on City
properties which advertise the. festival subject to~ 1) Approval
of the Tustin Unified School District for Site No. I (Col,~hus
T~stin 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 co-~unity 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.
Pursuant to Councilman Greinke's comments, Council concurred to
direct staff to explore the feasibility of establishing a pro-
gram for placement of banners announcing community events. 93
PLa~NE~
As recommended in the report dated May 11, 1982, prepared by the
City Manager, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey,
to authorize creation of the position classification of Assis-
tant Planner (salary range of $1,522 - $1,850) in the Co~nity
Development Department.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5, 5-17-82
4e
In response to Councilman Saltarelli, the City Manager indicated
that the intent is to fill the new position with a person pres-
ently on board, and delete the position that ~erson currently
holds.
Motion carried 5-0.
79
Pursuant to the recommendation contained in the report prepared
by the City Manager dated May 12, 1982, it was moved by
Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to set June 7, 1982, as the date
to consider a proposed increase in the water consumption 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
~T FOR APP~LJvAT. ~ ~aNGE O~D~ - P0~ICE AND CIT~ fi'pT.?.
~U: ,.z'z~NG ~0~IFICA~O~S
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
wi~h location of offices. In reference to Council's direction
to use partitions in lieu of constructing new offices for
employees other than depaz~.-ent 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
Depa~.~...ent (to accom~m~date computer equipment to be
~nstalled 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
Depare. ments - $9,275.00.
Carried 5-0.
39
6. 2I~Ol:O~D ~IFICATIO~ ~ ~3~.~ STREET
Following constderatio~ of the report dated May 17, 1982, pre-
pared by the Community Development Department, it was moved by
Saltarelli, seconded by Greinke, to approve the subject concep-
tual design modification of the Myrtle Street cul-de-sac sub, eot
to the following conditions:
1) No on-street parking on the cul-de-sac;
2) Any net surplus public property' resulting from such a rede-
sign would be sold at public sale in accordance with State
law;
3) Ail 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 ~he installation of the modified
improvements shall be the responsibility of the development
proponents as recommended by the Community Development
Deparement.
In response to Mayor Edgar' s inquiry, Arthur Strock, proj
architect, stated that the owner of the property in q~estion has
been approached and has expressed no interest in selling, which
el/m/nates the 9ossibiltty of incorporating it into the plan
some future date.
Following a question-and-answer period, the motion carried 5-0.
AS recon~aended 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 Newpor~
Avenue Extension for the stipulated fee of $14,065.00 and per
the conditions o~tlined in their proposal dated May 7, 1982 as
recommended by the City Engineer. Carried 5-0. 44
The Community Development Director presented the staff repor~
and recommendation. It was then moved by Greinke, seconded by
Kennedy, to approve Gfeller Development Company's request for
design revision on the "C# Street Plaza by replacing brick band-
~ng on the driveway surface with a "bomonite" or stamped-type
concrete to simulate red brick pavers. Motion carried 5-0.
Sl
~O~T~-~ a~D~ ~0 ~ OFIPOI~ FIRE COOE, 1979
Following consideration of the repoz~c dated May 17, 1982, input
from the City Manager, and Council/staff discussion, Counci~
concurred to direct staff to agendize each amendment to the Fire
Code separately and to address the financial impact on each one.
Tne 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 d~scuesion, the motion carried 5-0. 81
Tom Nielson, Senior Vice President of Irvine Company, co~nented
that the Irvine Company looks forward to working with the City
and that it is in both parties' bes~ interest to come to a com-
mon understanding as to mutual gRals. He introduced two staff
m~-hers - Pike Oliver, Director of Advanced Development Plan-
ning; and Brian Austin, Government Relations Group, who will
also be working closely with City staff.
3. PO~MATIOF OF A PLANNING
Following introductory con~uents by the City Manager, the Com-
munity Development Director expended 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 O-.~ssion
members at League meetings or any function the Commission would
have to perform on behalf of the City or in the C~-m~ssion pro-
cess~ determining what the powers, duties, and responsibilities
of the Planning Commission will be~ the appeals process~ and
other a~m4nistrative matters.
Counc~lm~n Saltarelli stated he sees the need to ex~and 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 9oing through the same func-
tion if there aren't at least two people intereste~ and perhaps
reversing or mod/fying a decision of the Planning Co~aission.
Mayor Edgar concurred.
The Community Development Director inquired as to particular
areas of concern that Council would like automatically forwarded
to them rather than going ~-brough an appeals process. Council-
man Saltarelli responded that with the former Planning C~£s-
sion, if a controversial item was approved and Council ~id not
concur, Comlcil would rehear the matter; if the Planning C~-
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
carnnot be changed, ~erhaps the Planning Coeuaission should not be
reestablished ·
Mayor E~gar stated that another element in matters denied by the
Planning Co~naission and appealed by the applicant is that when
the proposal came before Council, it would be modified in a
manner which night make it more ~alatable 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 hack to the Plan-
ning Co~ssion.
~nother concern the Director brought up is time, noting it would
be extremely difficult to advertise an item for hearing before
Council, have the ~ission 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 s~me day, where it will be up to three weeks
between the Planning Comm~ssion and City Council hearings.
Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy suggested that perhaps this could be alle-
viated by simply having the meetings beck-up against each other
night to night. The Community Developmen~ Director noted that
newspaper advertisements must be in by T~eeday 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 co-~i~ment 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 co~ission. He stated
it is critical that everyone be on the same wave length so that
when the draft ordinance is presentedw there is no confusion
about 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
1.
Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy stated she would like staff to be flex-
ible, creative, and ingenious about alternatives and not make it
difficult to reestablish the Co---4ssion. 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 el~m4nating 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 Co~sion and Council to avoid any
misunderstandings whereby the Council is not aware of a paz-
ticular 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 Co-w.~ssion 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 directive whereby a decision is to be
made and the matter not continued ~orever, it would be produc-
tive.
The Co~=~nity Development Director in~icated staff could respond
tO some of the specific questions voiced by Co%ulcil ~ossibly by
the next meeting. 81
Council concurred to receive and file the report dated May 10,
1982, from Phyllis T~ttle, City representative on the Orange
County Health Planning Council. 67
The City Manager r-~nded Council of the Executive Session for
discussion of labor negotiations.
2. _ ~_~/%~INZu~ O~VERSZC~S
Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy requested that staff look into possibie
disservice to tenants Of apartments that were approved for con-
dominimn conversion, and then the conversion is withdrawn.
43
3. AB 1197
Councilman Saltarelli suggested that the City Oppose AB 1197
which would increase the weight allowance for garbage trucks.
Council concurred. 61
Councilman Hoesterey echoed Betty Trultt's commendation on ~he
#Tustin Today" recreation program brochure.
Counct!~an 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.
Council concurred that the City is not interested in pursuing
bus benches/shelters in Tustin, even after reviewing the bro-
chure that was distributed. 21
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9, 5-17-82
7. ~.m D.z.v~s*~IO~ FROG~I~ FINDING
In response to Mayor Edgar' s conuuents that perhaps the City
could share some of the funding obligations in terms of services
provided by different agencies to the City on a volunteer
basis, the City Manager pointed out that the City has had an
ongoing relationship with ATSC (Assessment Treatment and Service
Center) in Costa Mesa for juvenile delinquency diversion pro-
gr~m.. Staff intends to recommend said group for some level of
funding in the 1982-83 revenue sharing budget. That group, how-
ever, will be competing with other requests which Council will
consider through a public hearing process. At this point, staff
will be recommending one group, for funding. 29
NO~ ~ST~N SPECIFIC PLAN ~DVISO~ ~TT~E (NTSPAC) ~IGNA-
Councilm~n Greinke acknowledged the resignation of Tony Coco
from NTSPAC and recomended that a letter of commendation be
sent to him for his service on said comittee. Council
concurred. 28
XIII.
At 6:01 p.m., it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by
recess to an Executive Session on labor negotiations, thence adjourn
to a workshop for Red Hill Avenue & Walnut Avenue Traffic Signal
Improvements on May 25 at 7:00 p.m., and thence to the next regular
meeting on June 7, 1982.
MAYOR