Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 07-06-82 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting July 6, 1982 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, July 6, 1982, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Edgar at 3:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Saltarelli and the invocation was given by Mr. Hoesterey. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also present: Edgar, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Hoesterey, Greinke None William Huston, City Manager Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works James Rourke, City Attorney Janet Hester, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held June 21, 1982, were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: To be held at 7:30 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Extension of Use Permit 81-23 Applicant: Location: Request: George C. Matthews 600 W. Sixth Street To extend Use Permit 81-23 for a period of one year After presentation of the staff report, Mrs. Kennedy moved extension of Use Permit 81-23 for a period of one year. Mr. Saltarelli seconded. Mr. Greinke suggested the extension be for one year only and after that time no more extensions be granted for the project. Motion carried: 5-0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: EDGAR, SALTARELLI, KENNEDY, HOESTEREY GREINKE None None 2. Site Plan/Architectural Review Applicant: Location: Request: Paragon Group, Inc. Northwest corner of Redhill & Warner Avenues Authorization to develop an industrial/corporate headquarters complex The staff report was presented for Agency information only, no action was required. Planning Agency Minutes July 6, 1982 Page 2 In the staff report, Mr. Brotemarkle stated that two previous areas of concern regarding landscaping and traffic control had been resolved. Mr. Greinke expressed concern over the additional traffic onto Redhill which would be generated, especially in view of the prohibition of left-hand turns onto Redhill. Mr. Ledendecker stated that good access both left and right was available from the adjacent commercial property. The prohibition of left-hand turns was to prevent cross movement on Redhill and hopefully eliminate the opportunity for traffic tie-ups and accidents. The Agency received and filed the report. STAFF CONCERNS: None. AGENCY CONCERNS: Chairman Edgar questioned Staff about the current status of the City's efforts to study fire protection ordinances. Mr. Rourke stated a report would be available to the Agency at the next ~eeting. ADJOURNMENT: At 3:12 to the evening meeting. 7:30 Meeting Chairman Edgar called the evening meeting to order at CALL TO ORDER 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also present: PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Edgar, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Hoesterey, Greinke None William Huston, City Manager Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director James Rourke, City Attorney Janet Hester, Recording Secretary USE PERMIT 82-16 Applicant: Location: Request: Communicom (Cable Television) 580 W. Sixth Street Authorization to place one earth station on top of Boy's Club building After Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report, Chairman Edgar opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Pat Lawrence, president of P.E. Lawrence, Inc., consulting engineers for Communicom stated that after studying several locations within the City, the Boys Club building was found to be the most appropriate. He explained to the Agency, the technical and engineering requirements which dictate placement of the dishes, all which take into account the structure of the building and the surrounding foliage. He stated that according to the standards established by Communicom, the dishes would be able to withstand 125 mile per hour winds at a 90° tilt. Planning Agency Minutes July 6, 1982 Page 3 Mr. James Farnsworth, 17331 Norwood Park Place questioned the specifics of the rental agreement.between Conm~ntcom and the Boys Club. Mr. Edgar, after conferring with the City Attorney, stated that particular issue was a matter between Con~nunicom and the Boys Club and not a matter of public record. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:49 p.m. Mr, Saltarelli moved approval of the placement of the earth station on top of the Boys Club with the amendment that the lease include a "hold harmless" clause protecting the City. Mr. Greinke seconded. After Agency discussion, including dialogue with Mr. Phil Jarvis, Vice President of Engineering for Communicom regarding placement of the dishes, Chairman Edgar called for the vote. Motion carried: 5-0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: EDGAR, SALTARELLI, KENNEDY, HOESTEREY, GREINKE None None PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. AD,.IOURNMENT: At 7:58 to the next regular meeting. Richard B. Edgar, Cha/frmen Tne meeting was called to order by Chairman Edgar at 3:10 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. Agency Members Preeent: Agency ~hers Absent= O~hers Present= 4o Edgar, Kennedy, Greinke, Hoesterey, Saltarelii None James G. ~murke, City Attorney William A. Huston, Exec. Director/City Manager Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary/City Clerk Mike Brotemarkle, C~mm. Dev. Director Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer Ronald Nault, Finance Director Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Royleen ~hite, Community Services Director Alan Warren, Senior Planner Approximately 3 in the audience It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve the m~nutes of June 21, lg82. Carried 5-0. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to award ~he contrac~ to provide construction engineering services for E1 Camino ~al/~-~n Street Improvements to the firm of Berryman & Stephenson, Inc., and authorize the Chairman to execute the subject proposal submitted by Berryman & Stephenson, Inc. Carried 5-0. 95 ~T~ NO. ~DA 82-5 - A Resolution of t/le Ttlstin Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of T~stin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPR~T AND AUTHORIZING RECORDAT~ OF NOTICE OF COMPLETIC~ (~.?.EY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS I, II, & III) It was ~oved by Hoestere¥, seconded by Saltarelli, to adopt ~solution No. RDA 82-5 and if no cla~m~ or stop ~ayment notices, are filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount. Carried 5-0. 95 T~e staff re~ort was reviewed by Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, and following ~iscussion of the type of trees to select and how ~ny "Ficus' trees would be removed, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Greinke, to select "Western Redbud' trees for the North and South ends of E1 Camino Real and to not remove any #Ficus" trees unless they are damaged. Discussion' followed about how many "Flcus" trees would be removed and a substitute motion was made by Hoesterey, seconded by Greinke, to continue this item to an adjourned meeting at 7:30 this date in order for the Agency to survey the area. Carried 5-0. 95 AD~Ou~T - It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to adjourn at 3:34 P.M. to the 7:30 Adjourned meeting this date. Carried 5-0. M~TES C~ AN ADJO~BD REgulAR ~G OF ~E REDEVEL~T ~=~CY OF THE C~TY ~ ~STIN, ~n~F~IA July 6, 19~2 7:30 P.~. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Page 2, 7-6-82 I · ~"~KT.T. TO ~a, eJER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Edgar at 7:59 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. 2. ~ CaT.T. Agency Members Present: Agency Members Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Kennedy, Greinke, Hoesterey, Saltarelli None Jam~s G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, Exec. Director/City Manager Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary/City Clerk Mike Brotemarkle, Co~m. Dev. Director Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer Ronald Nault, Finance Director Dale Wick, Assistant City Engineer Reed Jensen, Water Services Analyst Norwood Williams, Police Captain Approximately 5 in the audience 3. b'~.,BC'I~(~I CEa. ~ ~ ~ NO~H ~D S(~H H~DS (~ ~- C:a~LT~iO ~ Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, reported that there would be 2 "Ficus" trees to be removed on the West side and 3 on the East side of E1 Camino Real just South of First Street. The trees to be planted would probably be 30" or 36" box ~rees. More "Ficus" trees will be planted North of 2nd Street. Mr. Saltarelli suggested that since ~he Agency has until July 19th to make a decision, they should look at a "Western Redbud# tree before making that decision. The City Engineer said that he would try to find one located closer than Disneyland and he would try to get some pictures of the trees. 95 AD, OuST- It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. to the next regular meeting on July 19, 1982. Carried 5-0. 0~ ~z ~TIN CIT~ C~TgCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way J~l¥ 6, 19~2 T ~, ~X?.T. TO (~)ER The meeting was called to order by Mayor EdgaX at 3:34 p.m. II. Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present= Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli James G. Rourke, City Attorney Willia~ A. Huston, C~ty Manager Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mike Brot~_markle, Comm. D~v. Director Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer Alan Warren, Senior Planner Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Royleen White, C~unity Services Director Approximately 3 in the audience PUBLIC None CC~T Co%mcilwom~n Kennedy requested that Consent Calendar item No. 4 be rmoved from the Calendar. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Item 4. Carried 5-0, with Greinke abstaining on Item 2. 1o APPeaL ~ ~ZNUTES - June 21, 1982. 2. ~ ~ B~AB~S in the amount of $202,141.93 ~ATIFICA~ ~ PAFR~EJ~ in the amount of $94,260.97 5O 3e RE~E~ITI(I~ NO.. 82--51 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, COMMENDING AND EXPR~-SSING APPRECIA- TIC~ TO FRANCIS OSCAR OSTRANDER FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE AND ACTIC~ AS A CROSSING GUARD Adoption of Resolution No. 82-51 as recommended by the Police Department · 84 RE~(~I~I~ NO. 82--54- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, INPORMING T~E ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE ~ THE STATUS OF THE CIT~ OF TUSTIN MASTER PLAN C~ ARTERIAr. HIGHWAYS Adoption of Resolution No. 82-54 aS recommended by the Engi- neering Department · 54 RE~g~ITI~ HO. 82-53- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of T~stin, California, URGING ~]{AT A~L BA~OTS AND MATERIALS BE PRINTED IN ENGLISH ONLY AND ~IiAT SAMPLE BA?~?.OTS BE PRINTED IN AT LEAST TEN-POINT TYPE Adoption of Resolution No. 82-53 as requested by the City Council. 48 CCB~T ~r.~AR ITeM NO. 4 RE~CE~I~ NO. 82-52 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AUTHORTZING ~I~E DESTRUCTION CF CER- TAZN CITY RECORDS, TO-WIT, RECORDINGS OF POLICE '£,-',.EPHONE AND RADIO COMMUNICATICIqS AS PROVIDED BY GOVERNM~I~T COUE SECTI(I~ 34090 · 6 Adoption of Resolution No. 82-52 as recommended by the City Attorney · Councilwoman Kennedy asked if there was anyway we could keep any tape that is significant. The City Attorney responded that they do retain any important tapes on a cassette that is still an official record of the Police Dept. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 7-6-82 Ve It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to adopt Resolution No. 82-52. Carried 5-0. Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy asked if staff could send some kind of commen- dation to all Crossing Guards for their service to the City. The City Manager responded that staff would have a report for the next meeting. 82 O~IN~NCE NO. 872 - An Ordinance of the City Council, City of Tustin, California, AM~DING ~HW. TJSTIN CITY COOE RELATIVE TO CC~VERSI~ ~ ~LTIPLE DWn~.T.TNG UNITS TO C~DOMINIUMS Mike Brot~arkle, Cou~unity Develo~ent Director, reported that this Ora~nance was to clarify Council's intent that relocation benefits should be paid on a ~er unit basis rather that individual tenant basis. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy expressed that $600 for relocation assistance is adequate now but may have to be updated in the future. Mr. Brotemarkle explained that $600 is the minimm~. The amount ~id would be the greater of twice the last months rent or $600. The City Attorney said we could address that problem with a cost of living annual adjustment or w~ could do it by fixing an amount by Resolution each year. Counci]-~n Hoesterey brought up that in Section 1 (a), it refers to "each person who is a tenant" and he felt that was contradictory to benefits being on a per unit basis. He suggested this wording should be changed to avoid any further misunderstandings about relocation assistance. The City Attorney said he would change the wording in the ordinance. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, to continue to July 19, 1982. Carried 5-0. 43 VI. ~INAN_~_ F~D(~(~ - None Mayor Edgar reported that some residents had requested this for the evening meeting. .It was moved by Hoestere¥, seconded by Kennedy, to continue this item to the 7:30 p.m. meeting. Carried 5-0. 75 1. APPOIN~T A~ The City Manager reported that this item was continued from the last meeting for consideration of residents for representative. This item has not had any formal advertising. Gloria Alm, the previous representative recommended that a m~-her of staff be appointed because of their knowledge of the Housing Authority. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy said that she would like to recruit for a resident who is knowledgable in this field. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to appoint a member of staff as representative and to recruit a resident who is know- ledgable in the Housing Authority. Motion carried 5-0. 67 2. A~ARD O~ BID F~ F.Y. '81-'82 ~A~DIC~PP~ ~ C~STR~CTX~ It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to award the con- tract for subject project to Nobest Incorporated of Westminster, C~, in the amount of $7,098.00 and authorized staff to add additional work to the contract to utilize all of the funds available for handicapped ramp construction. Carried 5-0. 92 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page S, ?-6-S2 7 It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to award the con- tract for subject project to Grissom & Johnson Inc. of Santa Ana, CA, in the amount of $?79,839.19. The City Manager said that the report was developed on the basiS of last year's budget and that w~ have included money in the '82-'83 City and Redevelopment Agency budgets. Mayor Edgar expressed ~hat the allocation for Redevelo~_~_nt Funds would probably be more ~han for Gas Tax and asked staff to re~ort back with an estimated allocation. Mr. Huston said that staff can have a repor~ at the next Budget Workshop. Motion carried 4-0, Greinke abstaining. 95 Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, reported that this intersection did not meet the warrants for a signal. There have only been 3 acci- dents from January, 1977 through May, 1982. Staff's recommendation is to no~ put in a signal but to continue to monitor the intersec- tion · No action was taken c~ this matter. 1. ~ NO. 10281 - 09JL~AGE FACIL~'T~ INFCI;;I~ATIQ~AL ~ Bob Ledendeoker, City Engineer, reported that it had been determined that during the course of construction, there was a high spot into the channel that caused about a half inch depth of water to back up. The developer has been contacted and will be grinding down the high spot so there will be a continual movement of wa=er and no ponding · Discussion followed regarding the ponding of water and mosquitos. Mr. Ledendecker said that quite a few areas in the downtown area ' lack curbs and gutters or cross gutters at the intersections. He said that there are plans to redo the streets and that would help the s~anding water problem bu{ the plans are more than five years in the future. Mayor Edgar suggested that curbs and gutters on Second Street m~gh= alleviate the problem. Mr. Ledendecker said that a few years back, the City sent out questionaires to see if the residents wanted curbs and gutters and the majority did not want them. Councilman Saltarelli moved, seconded by Hoesterey, that a survey be done by letter that would basically say: "The City Council has been made aware of ~he fact that there is a problem with casual water in your area and ~erhaps mosquito breeding and we are conducting a sur- vey as ~o how many property owners wish to consider having curbs, 9~tters and perhaps sidewalks placed in front of their houses. The issue of funding this could be by a combination of City funds as well as proper~y owner funds and although no figures would be avail- able at this time, as a preliminary non-binding situation, would you prefer to have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks o= to have no change." Motion carried 5-0. 47 Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy commended staff for the great fireworks on the 4th of July. Council agreed. There were approximately 8,000 in attendance, about 1,500 or 2,000 more than last year. Mayor Edgar suggested that a'nice letter of comendation be sent to the School District and the staff. Mayor Edgar co~ended Community Services and Engineering for the excellent report on Park development. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 7-6-82 ADJ~T- It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, adjourn at 4:18 p.m. to the 7:30 p.m. meeting. Carried 5-0. OF ~HE ~STIN CIT~ C~ONCTn C~JNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way J~y 6, 19e2 7:30 I. CALL TO ~ER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 8:05 p.m. AGENDA C~DER VII. un B~SINESS III. IV. Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Kennedy, Hoesterey, Saltarelli Greinke ' None James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, City Manager Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mike Brot~m~rkle, Couun. Dev. Director Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer Dale Wick, Assistant Engineer Norwood Williams, Police Captain Ronald Nault, Finance Director Reed Jensen, Water Services Analyst Approximately 25 in the audience 1. ~X~BA STreET C~-ST~EET PAR]~NG ~ to The following spoke in opposition to the on-street parking: R. G. Watkins, 14242 Mimosa Lane Ralph Blower, 14241 Acacia Dr. Walter R. Scbm{d, 17402 Jacaranda Ed Amorm~nd, 17281 Norwood Park Pl. Marian Farnsworth, 17331 Norwood Park Pl. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy said that she felt this is a matter that should be solved by the two owners of the buildings. They have not been able to work out an agreement. She supported staff's reconunen- dation. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, that request for on-s~reet 9arking on Yorba Street be denied because it is a safety hazard. Connct]m-n Saltarelli said he would support the motion but thought staff ought to monitor the situation and if it gets any worse, maybe parking should be put on one side of the street. The City Engineer said that each time he went to the site, there were between 6 to 20 vacant spaces. They were the fartherest spaces from the building. Motion carried 5-0. 75 pO~z. TC ~S - None 1. RESC~UTIm NO. 82-44 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of T~stin, California, ADJUSTING WATER SERVICE RATES William Huston, City Manager, reported that the Council has the staff report which includes one report dated June 2, 1982, and Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, gave the staff report and recom- mended that the on-street parking request be denied. The plan resulted in sub-standard lanes and staff feels that there are seri- ous liability problems if this striping plan is implemented. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 7-6-82 dated June 30, 1982. He pointed out that the only changes in the rate struoture are on Page 1, Section 1.b of Resolu=ion 82-44. It is reco---ended that the rate for water usage charges over 600 c~bi¢ feet be increased to $0.537 per 100 cubic feet. The Publio Hearing was opened at 8:43 p.m. There being no ¢o~nents or objections, the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, ~o adop~ Resolution No. 82-44 with a change in Section 1.b to increase ~he water usage charges for over 600 cubic feet to $0.51 per 100 cubic feet. It was pointed out by Mayor Edgar that the Council would be review- ing these rates again in Janury, 1983. Moron carried 5-0. Mayor Edgar asked for a confirmed date on the water study analysis. Mr. Huston responded that this would be scheduled for the next Council meeting. 107 Counci]~n Hoesterey reported complaints regarding odors in the industrial complex between 9 and 11 p.m. He asked for a List of companies that might burn off chemicals at their plants. Mr. Huston responded that staff woul~ check into the matter. 2. IRV~NE ~r.~D. FA~ C~TRACT Mayor Edgar asked about t. he addition of some improvements for center islands into the FAU Irvine Blvd. contract. Staff responded that the repor~ is 75% complete. 3. C(~ZC(~ PROG~G Counci~-~n Hoesterey asked about how much time Communicom was going to provide for City programs. The City Attorney responded that his office is'working on that issue. ~DJ~T- It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to adjourn at 8:59 p.m. to the next regular meeting ~ July 19, 1982. Carried 5-0 · ~ennedy: ~e_nnedy: K ~nedy: B~b: E Far: gar: B~b: Frank: On the Second street drainage problem, you have asked that they relieve the pump in the drain or whatever it is that is causing the standing water? Right, when we went out and reviewed it, we had our survey people go out and shoot some elevations and during the course of construction there was a high spot into the channel that probably backed up maybe a half inch of water (half inch of depth). At that time, there was no evidence of any mosquito larva of any kind in that particular drainage swale. So we have contacted the developer and he will be grinding that high spot down so there will be a continual movement of water and no ponding. It will be a drainage facility that we will have to keep an eye on and it will be the obligation of the homeowner's association to keep it free of debris so that it will not pond water also. That was only half of the problem though because the residents in that area continually complain about the standing water at the corner of "A" and Second which is only relieved when that is hacked up. I get a complaint about every 2 months. Quite a few of the areas in the downtown area lack curb and gutter or cross cutters at the intersections. This particular intersection is one of the intersections that does not have a concrete cross gutter. Consequently, we do from time to time get a lot of standing water in there. But I think that in talking with the Vector Control Mosquito Abatement is that they have indicated to us that they will keep an eye on it even in the public right of way. They have indicated to me that one of the biggest cause of mosquitos this time of year throughout Orange County is standing water in paople's yards. They may have flower pots that have accumulated water in pans or whatever and quite a bit of it comes from that. Very seldom do you get mos- quito larva in a public right of way where you have cars going through and water going through and washing it on through. Do we have any plans to help with the standing water problem there? We do, but they are down the road. We have plans throughout the downtown area to eventually redo the streets but they are not even in our five year program in that area. My own concern and I am sure Ursula's feeling is that even though we can't do everything at once, there should be some continual addressing of the more significant problems and I would feel that perhaps a few curbs and gutters on Second Street that might alleviate the water flow problem would be an intelligent thing to do rather quickly. I don't know how costly it would be. Well, a few years ago, I rems, her we were going to do extensive improvements in the downtown area which included curbs and gutters and sidewalks and whatever and we had sent questionaires out to the bulk of the people or practically the whole town of the older area below First St., and the major- ity of the people did not want the area improved at that time. Their out- look may have changed at this point. We could certainly go through that inquiry again and see what their feelings were but they did not want to have what shrubbery and trees that would have to be removed or taken out to accomodate ..... Wasn't that response primarily a response (tape turned) It was fortunately one of the streets that required minimal impact to any shrubs or bushes or anything of that nature. I don't buy Vector Controls deal with the standing water in the hack yard.. I think it is really standing water in a street that we are seeing. I know I get bit, I don't know how many times. I live at 3rd and "A" Street and the mosquitos are just a tremendous problem for us. They are as big as your fist sometimes it seems like when they bite you. The water is standing in the whole area in the street because there is not enough flow from the street to correct that problem. I know the City tried to along "A" Street to improve and they did somewhat but the grade of the street itself tends to let the water collect and when there is not curbs in there to let the water flow, we are going to have this problem constantly but I think Vector Con- trol just saying it is our back water pots is hogwash. It is something they could spray and probably help us with. -1- Kennedy: Edgar: Greinke: Bob: Edgar: Greinke= Edgar: Edgar: Bob: Edgar: Saltarelli: Edgar: Saltarelli: Well, I'll look into that part and maybe we could survey that area again. What I would like to suggest is that perhaps when we look at our limited resources, I think that it is clear that a lot of people are resentful of sidewalks, and I think that part of their resentfulness relates to the fact that people don't want bushes and shrubs taken away. But I think that if we limit ourselves strictly to curbs and gutters, it would be healthy for us to make a limited program, perhaps even this coming year, of improving sc~e of the curbs and gutters to alleviate some of the flow of water, and I think that Second Street would be the prime opportunity there. Bob, how difficult would it be for us to determine if we put the curbs in, would the water still flow in the area? It would not be difficult to determine, in fact, the natural slope of the City itself is in a southeasterly direction and it will flow. It is not on a very steep grade. We are going to frc~ time to time get some minor pond- lng but I think the key thing is when we have an old curb and gutter and we have an asphalt pavement against it, that the subgrade of the street up next to the curb from cars being parked, it depresses in it and you start ponding water and a curb and gutter would certainly eliminate or reduce a lot of this but the problem being is funding for it. As you all know that going through the Capital budget this year that there is just non funds existing. We could certainly come up with an estimate on a street by street basis and also outline what impacts would be involved. I do not believe that we should avoid or go around and create a ponding situation if we are going to try to eliminate any future drainage problem, we are going to have to tackle the proble~ at the time of maybe taking a few trees or shrubs out which people don't want to lose. I would personally respond to the fact that the curb and gutter belongs in its ultimate position. I would not want to change that direction. But I would say let's not at this stage of time, both on the basis of funding and also on the basis of impact not to suggest the sidewalks. You know, something that we might consider is to maybe assist the residents in the financing of this, offering some type of a long term financing program where we could give them a reason to want to put the curbs and gutters in over maybe a 10 year period or something that is not that much of an expense to them right now but is a definite improvement if there is a need for it. I would like to see us pursue that. I think it's appropriate. What kind of estimate of time would you have, Bob, to just make a rough analysis of this? Well, I would like to coma back, possibly in two weeks and give you a recap of what time we think. Right now, I would have to say sometime between 4 to 6 months to come up with an indepth study. But I'd like to pin point that a little better at the next meeting. Well, basically, what you can do by the next meeting is to have just a very rough analysis of where it is necessary and a rough estimate of what the cost might be. I don't believe I will be able to have a rough analysis or an estimate. We have roughly a week's turn around time and we do have a heavy program with our projects bidding at the present time. I think that we will be able to give you a pretty good idea when we can complete the entire study by the next Council meeting. That will be good. It seems to me that there was a very solid concensus that the people down there did not want curbs, gutters and sidewalks the last time that we did that. Before we have the staff embark on a very long and arduous deal we should probably send out a mail survey or something "Would you like, curbs, gutters and sidewalks and" I would exclude sidewalks. Because the sidewalks is the bigger issue. O.K., curbs and gutters that they didn't want. I would hate to go to the time to do all that and the expense unless we had a strong majority that wanted to do it. Certainly financing is available through an assessment -2- Kennedy: ~ ltarelli: Kennedy: t_.b: ] ~gar: Kennedy: ] [gar: 'lgar: Kennedy= Igar: Saltarelli: ~nnedy: Huston: Edgar: Edgar: ~ennedy: Bob: district or the 1911 act, I suppose. But as I recall it was like 80 or 90% of the people that said "No, we don't want any curbs at all." Through the chair, in the meantime, we have between First and Second, these very large condominiums that are watering for hours at a time and are flood- ing the street and that wasn't there when that original survey was made. I mean, things are changing. That's what I mean, let's take the survey before we do the study. I think survey is great. If I might get a clarification on the survey now. We would be surveying the people who presently do not have curb and gutter only? Because there are a lot of homes that do have curb and gutter and it would be redundant to sur- vey them. You might get a skewed result and we would not be including side- walk? My own personal feeling, is don't include the sidewalks. Don't even discuss the sidewalks because that will be a controversial issue that will muddy the water. A lot of people don't want the sidewalk and that will be what they are resisting and to state curbs and gutters and just use your good judge- ment as to how to survey and just make this a rough estimate. And you know I don't even have a good feel for the magnitude of the problem in terms of how many approximate feet of curb or gutter that we need. We may only have one street, Second Street. Well, we have Second, but then that could have other problems. I am not sure that that will solve the problem entirely. There are several streets down through there. We have "B" St., "A" St., Second, there are still portions of Myrtle end Pacific and there are quite a few streets that lack the curb and gutter in there. Now I assume that the limits that we are going through would be from First St. southerly to sixth Street. I would agree. First to sixth, and the Newport Freeway to "C" St. Is there a precedent that this is always at the homeowner's expense? No, we have already funded it ourself, that would be an option down the stream. We were able with some of t_he Community Dev. money a few years ago to put some of the curbs and gutters in. I would say that is a secondary issue. Let's just fin~ the feelings first. Well, I think it is a significant issue. If you know you are going to get it for free as opposed to you are going to have to pay for it over a time, it certainly is going to affect the vote. It would affect mine. Until you know the cost, its - if the cost is such that it can be ignored in the gas tax fund, combined with the Revenue Sharing, but if it is signifi- cant cost, to accelerate it, you would have to-- I think that the impression that I have, compared to some of the things that we have done, it is a small cost. I couldn't even hazard a guess at this point, because I don't know the exact amount that would be involved. I think before we make any judgment, we should have a report where Bob has an opportunity to think things through, and give of som~ options. One more comment on this. We should be sensitive to areas that are con- cerned. If we get 90 "yes" and 140 "No". I would like to see where the 90 Yes' are and see if those aren't all together in one problsm area. I don't want to have a populate vote by the whole area. I would suggest that it could be handled on a street by street or block by block basis. That could be analysed when we get the questionaire back because it will have an address on it. -3- Huston: Edgar: Bob: Edgar: Huston: Edgar: Hoesterey: Huston: Edgar: Saltarelli: Huston:. Hoesterey: Edgar: Saltarelli: Just to clarify, does the Council want to have a report back before the sur- vey goes out? I think a general report scoping the magnitude of the problem and some very, very crude comments, for example, one of the co~unents I would visualize Bob might easily make is that there is no land acquisition. And that is true, is it not, Bob? Again, the majority of it would be no land acquisition. There may be some at the intersections and until we get into it in a little detail--- Just kind of a scoplng report, not very specific, obviously it can't be very detailed but g~ve some kind of crude feel of what we are talking about and also the request of the citizens as to their iterest. O.K., so you want the survey in connection with. The reason I asked there seemed to be a little .... I think we should do them both, it that the consensus? I'd rather see the survey. I don't want to tie Bob's time up at the same time we are doing the downtown area and going out for a lot of bids to put together something that we may not even consider doing. I think if we get the survey and everybody says "No, absolutely not, we don't want to see any concrete in the area", then I would hate to tie Bob's time up putting that together. I would interpret that to mean the survey shouldn't deal with the issue of financing because we can't address that ~ntil we know what is the scope of the problems. Of course, if we put in the s%~rvey that it is going to be financed through an assessment d~strict, I think Councilman Saltarelli is right, that will kill it, versus maybe some combination or maybe it is a gas tax funded project over a period of time, that would definitely affect the results of the survey. I am just suggesting that do the survey at this point, and we will have to acknowledge that it won't deal with the issue of funding because we really can't address it .... I think it should not address the issue of funding. That's my feeling. I think it should. We could point out in the survey that it would be funded through either assessment district, or gas tax, or a combination thereof. We can point out that there are alternative ways to finance it. The guy reading the letter is going to want to know. Do you want curb and g~tters if it cost you $1,000 Or if it is free. Not give them an option but say would you still want it if it cost "X" amount. Just pick a ball park figure. Well, the only thing is I don't want to lead the person who is responding because if we look critically at the downtown area, I think that we have an obligation for an entire community to upgrade the area and if the gas tax is a legitimate expenditure for that, and it is something that we can afford, then I think we should spend gas tax money for it in some kind of an intel- ligent proportion. But I think that there is as much advantage to be derived by upgrading downtown as there is in many of the other ways that we spend our gas tax. On the other hand, if it becomes exorbitant, then I would certainly beck off. Well, maybe a general letter that said something like "The City Council has been made aware of the fact that there is a problem with casual water in your area end perhaps mosquito breeding and we are conducting a survey as to how many property owners wish to consider curbs, gutters and perhaps side- walks placed in front of their house. The issue of funding this could be by a combination of City funds as well as property owner funds and although no figures would be available at this time, as a preliminary non-binding situa- tion, would you prefer to have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks or to have no change" might give you what you want to know before we spend $10,000 of staff time. Council concurred. -4- K~.~nedy: negative feature to many people. S~tarelli: Well, some of them have them. Hoesterey: I second Mr. Saltarelli's motion. E )ar: Is there any discussion of that presentation? Put sidewalks last though. I am inclined to not mention sidewalks because I know that is going to be a Any opposed? Unanimous. -5-