Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 08-02-82OF ~ ~STIN CIT~ ~CIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way July 19, 19~2 I - C~?'T- TO ~ER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 4:13 p.m. II. CALL Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Kennedy, Greinke, Hoesterey Saltarelli None James G. ~urke, City Attorney william A. Huston, City Manager Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mike Brot-mrkle, Comm. Dev. Director Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer Charles Thayer, Chief of Police Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director RonaldNault, Finance Director Royleen White, Co~nunity Services Director Dale Wick, Assistant City Engineer R. Kenneth Fleagle, Consultant Approximately 8 in the audience A Resolution of co----ndation and appreciation for outstanding ser- vice and action as a Crossing Guard was presented to Francis Oscar Ostrander by Mayor Edgar. IV. P~S~IC C(~S None V. C~T.~N, DAR It was ~oved by Saltarelli, seconded by Greinke, to approve the Con- sent Calendar. Carried 5-0, with Kennedy registering a "No" vote on Ite~ 4 and Hoestere¥ and Saltarelli registering a "No" vote on Item 5. 1. APPraiSAL ~ ~4ZN~/'J~S- July 6, 1982 2. ~A~CA~ ~ PAlg%O~L in the amount of $103,475.82 5O ~T FO~ ~ST~IC~D PA~E~I~G AT 345 ~ND 350 PASADWA A~;E Authorize the installation of signing to restrict on-street parking during street sweeping hours, 6:00 AM to Noon on Wednesdays on the Pasadena Avenue cul-de-sac adjacent to 345 and 350 Pasadena Avenue and that no warnings be issued in lieu of citations for the first 30 days after the sign. installation. 75 ~S~TI~ NO. 82-56 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING FINAL TRACT NO. 11428 LOCA'~b AT 1122 SYCAMORE AVENUE Adoption of Resolution No. 82-56 as recommended by the C~ munity Development Department. 99 Se ~S~ NOo 82-57 - A B~solution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING T~TATIVE TRACT NO. 11752, LOCATED AT 1971REN CIRCLE Adoption of Resolution No. 82-57 as recommended by the munity Development Department. 99 ~I~ ~O. 82-58 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11829 (18302 Irvine) Adoption of Resolution No. 82-58 as recommended by the Com- munity Development Department. 99 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 7-1~-82 ~]T$~ NO. 82-60- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, ACCEP%~iNG WORKS ~ IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF CTNPLETI~ (CITY H~?.T. AND POLICE D EPART~ T MOOIFICATI~S ) Adoption of Resolution No. 82-60 and assu~ng t. hat no claims or stop 9ayment notices are filed within 30 days of recorda- tion, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount at that e~me as reco.~ended by the Community Development Depart- ment. 39 ~T~ NO. 82-61 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of T~stin, California, ~THORIZING AND DIRECTING ~HE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND SIGN AN AGREEMENT BETWE~ THE CITY OF ~STIN AND ~HE NATI~AL COUNCIL ~ ALC~OLZSM, O~ANGE C0~NTY Adoption of Resolution No. 82-61 as recommended by the Per- sonnel Director. 79 ~INANCE NO. 872 - An Ordinance of the City Council of ~he City of Tus~in, California, AMENDING ~HE T~STIN CITY COOE RELATIVE TO C~%~ERSI~ 0~ ~JLTIPLE DW~T.?,ING UNITS TO C~DOMINIUMS It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 872 have first reading by ~itle only. Carried 5-0. Following ~he read{ng of the title of Ordinance No. 872 by the City Clerk, it was moved b~ Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 872 be introduced and that $750.00 be set as ~he mi~{mum relocation amount. Carried 5-0. 43 VII. O~DINANC~8 F~D~I~- None ~A]TI~ NO. 82-59 - A ~solution of the City Council, City of Tustin, California, ~EQUESTING THE COY~4~C. F24ENT ~ PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATI~ OF UNINH~BIT~-'u TEP~ITO~ KNOWN AS IRVINE- ELIZABETH W~Y ANNEXATI~ NO. 130 TO THE CITY ~ ~'JSTIN It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Sal~arelli, to ado~fc Reso- lution NO. 82-59. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy said ~hat this was a costly annexation. She supported it originally and can ~ve it some lukewarm sup- ~or~ now but feels that the days are over that the Council can a~_nex in areas that cannot ~ay ~heir own way. Mo~ion carried 5-0. 2. PO'SLZC u~3~G - 1982/83 P~EF~iOE~,R.I[NGP~ID8 It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to set August 2nd at the ~ate for Public Hearings for the 1982-83 .Budget and for the Proposed Use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and that applicants be notified. Carried 5-0. 29 Following ~iscussion regar~ing fixed terms, manner of choosing commissioners, co~pensation, etc., it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to continue this ite~ to August 2nd for further study and then consider it 9oint by ~oint at that meet- ing. Motion carried 5-0. 81 1. ~ ~ BID ~0~ F.~. 1981-82 ~I~-~.-r~NEOOS P~ IMP~OF~NTS It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to award the con=tact for subject project to ACME Pipeline & Engineering Inc. of Palmdale, CA in the amount of $42,130.70. 77 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 7-19--82 Councilman Greinke was not in favor of awarding the bid when there was just one bid sub~tted and especially since it was $10,000 above the Engineer's estimate. The City Engineer explained that t_here were several d~fferent types of bid items in this job and two items, one which was a drinking fountain, came in substantially higher than the engineer' s es=~ mate. Councilman Hoesterey said t. here was a possiblity that if we readvertise, the bids would even come in higher than this time. It was moved by Greinke, seconded by ~ennedy, to reject the bids and readvertise. Motion failed 2-3, Edgar, Hoesterey, and Saltarelli opposed. The original motion to award the contract carried 5-0. 77 ~ ~E- ~a~ ~ AND ~ 0~D]~%NC~ NO. 873 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of T~stin, California, REVISING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS CN CER- TAIN STREETS Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, gave the staff report basically as contained in his report dated June 29, 1982. He reco~ended setting the speed limit on Main Street at 40 mph fro~ the Westerly city limits to "B" street, 30 mph from "B" Street to Prospect, and 40 mph from Prospect to Bryan Ave; and for Bryan Avenue at 40 mph from Main Street to Browning Avenue and 45 mph from Browning Avenue to Myford Rd. The area near the school at Farmington would be posted "25 mph when children are present." These speeds would be enforceable with radar. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, that Ordinance No. 873 have first reading by ~itle only with the addition that stop signs be placed at Pacific Street and "B" Street on Main Street. Councilman Hoesterey was concerned that when ~he Town Center is put in we will have traffic becked up and rather than solving a problem, we may be creating one. The City Engineer expressed that we can put in the stop signs but people will still drive 40 mph between the stop signs. He reco~ended not putting in stop signs at either street until warrants are ~aken. We presentIy have a suit from an accident in the area of Pacific over visibility coming over the overpass. The Police Dept. has not had an opportunity to enforce the speed. limit because they could not use radar. Perhaps we should take time to see if enforcement by radar will reduce the speeds. A substitute motion was made by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to continue this item to see if wa can bring the speed l{m4t to 35 mph on Main Street from Pacific to the downtown area. Carried 5-0. 100 VICE~ F~ I~INE "~-~D. FA~ P~OJ~CT It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to select the firm of Greet and Company to provide subject services and autho- rize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest to the subject agreement. Carried 5-0. 95 It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to affirm the ongoing relationship for contractual services for Melad & Asso- ciates and authorize execution of the subject agreement by the Mayor. Carried 5-0. 45 ~ES~TXC~ NO. 82-55 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tostin, california, REQUESTING ~HE CO~9~CEMENT OF PRO- CEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATIO~ AND REORGANIZATICN OF CERTAIN C~N~GUO~S UNINHABIT~U AREAS DESIGNAT":u AS "~JSTIN WATER UTILITY ANNEXATI~ NO. 131" TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 7- 19-82 It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt Reso- lution No. 82-55. Edgar said that this resolution includes a well site on La Veta in Orange and we might want to sell that site to the City of Orange at a future date. R. Kenneth Fleagle, Consultant, responded that there is one pro- perry in Orange, which is on Parcel "D# and one in Santa Ana, which is Parcel "L". T~ese two well sites have not as yet been under d~scussion for transfer of ownership. This would be a separate negotiation. We will wait to submit this to the Local Agency Formation Cc~m~ssion until the determination has been made as to the disposition of sites in Santa Ana and Orange. We will still proceed then as an annexation without reorganization. The City Manager said that whether we proceed or not, it ~.~ not going to limit your flexibility to either retain or sell them at sc~e later point because the sale wouldn't hinge upon whether it is inside or outside the City. These sites will only be annexed as long as the City owns them and uses them for municipal purposes. Motion carried 5-0. 24 P&w~mG ~ ~ NECK C~ ~IANS WI~H S~MP~D (~) C~ The City Manager recommended that the Council include the narrow neck center medians on Irvine Blvd. from Yorba to Mountain View and from Newport Freeway to Prospect to be paved with stamped concrete in conjuntion with the Irvine Blvd. FAU Project. With regard to the other projects, there are two things that need to be considered: 1) Any differential between what is funded out of RDA would come out of the Gas Tax fund. and 2) We need to look at this cost relative to the monies needed for M~ulton Parkway. ~he Moulton Parkway prelim~ nary estimate from the Engineering study will be available the first week in August. Also each time we allocate additional Redevelopment money, that is less money available to cover any start up costs on the bond program. If the Council postpones any action on sites through wj. until the second meeting in August, you would still have time to include them as part of the FAU project. Councilman Saltarelli suggested that we might want to consider changing some of the wide portions of islands on Newport, south of First Street, in order to allow more stacking room. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to include sites "A" and "B", which are on Irvine Blvd., from Yorba to Mountain View and from Newport Freeway to Prospect, and consider the o~her sites after we have the financial input. The City Manager said this would be included on the August 16th agenda. Motion carried 5-0. 95 Received and filed. 95 VISO~S Mayor Edgar reported that he went to the meeting of the Board of Supervisors and they lacked sensitivity and voted to approve this gate fee without considering cc~m~ttee reports or cities' feelings. It was improper and illegal and I think that we should join the other cities of Orange County and Sanitation CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 7- 19-82 District in taking the Board of Supervisors to task. Jim Rourke, the City Attorney, said that he and several of the attorneys in his office had conferred on the matter and have talked with other concerned Orange County City Attorneys and a meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday morning in the City Attorney's office in Anaheim and all Orange County City Attor- neys have been invited to send a representative. We have done some very preltm{~ary research and w~ think that the County is on very thin ice in this matter but in any event, after this meeting on Wednesday, we expect to come up with some recommenda- tions to the League as to how we m~kght then proceed. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that we authorize Attorney Rourke to participate and share with the other cities of Orange County in whatever legal items can be pursued. Carried 5-0. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to review the subject survey letter and direct staff to mail same to the twenty-five property owners whose properties do not contain curbs and gutters. Mayor Edgar felt the reference to sidewalks would react nega- tively. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy agreed and volunteered to rewrite the letter for the next meeting. Council concurred to leave open until the next meeting. 92 Received and filed. 107 2e 4e ~u~,,.n ~=~C SIGNALS Councilman Saltarelli reported that the Redhill traffic signals had been out of synchronization for four days. The City Engi- neer responded that this was due to one being knocked down but they have been reset. 4~H ~ uu~X Councilwoman Kennedy had received a letter thanking ~he City of Tustin and the Police Department for the fine work they did in controlling all phases of the 4th of July program. Councilman Hoesterey suggested that staff should send a response back from the Mayor and Council to people who take the time to send letters of commendation. Mr. Huston responded that staff tries to acknowledge every letter that comes from residents. Councilman Greinke reported that he and Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy had luncheon with Supervisor Stanton which was very productive as far as communications. Also he attended the League of Cali- fornia Cities meeting in Monterey and gained some ideas on finance, some fresh approaches from cities and about 500 differ- ent suggestions that he would like staff to duplicate for the other Councilpersons. lw~-TT~C~L SIGNS Mayor Edgar reported some political signs from the April elec- tion are still up on Moulton Parkway and in industrial park. ADJ~T - .It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to adjourn at 5:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting on August 2, 1982. Carried 5-0. CITY CLERK MAYOR