Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES 01-05-81ORDER II- ALI~I_~NCE & INV(DTION III. ROLL IV. PUBLIC MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED ~KTING T~S?IN CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way December 29, 1980 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Saltarelli at 5:30 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Edgar and the Invocation was ~iven by Mayor Saltarelli. Councilpersons Present: Saltarelli, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy Councilpersons Absent: Sharp Others Present: Dan Blankenship, City Administrator ~ Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner ANNEXATION 'OF CERTAIN INtIABIT~u TBRKITORY DESIGNATED 'IK~INE BLVD.-DEAN[ST. ANNEXATION NO. 121 TO THE CIT~ OF TUSTIN Mayor Saltarelli explained that this was a Public Hearing to hear comments for or against Annexation 121. Any protests must be submitted in writing. He opened the Public Hearing at 5:32 P.M. Mayor Saltarelli explained that the benefits of being annexed are: 1) The City provides more minicipal services than the Coun- ty does; .2) Any registered voter within the City limits can run for office of Member of the City Council; 3) There is a finan- cial benefit from being in the City because with the advent of Propositio~ 13 all property taxes are the same whether you are in the City or not you are taxed at 1% of the market value of your property based on the assessment beginning in 1975 with a 2% limitation per year; 4) The City of Tustin provides for free trash pickup for single family residences; 5) 'We provide about 8 times the service relative to Police as you get with the County because of:the number of cars that we have on the streets at all times and the size of the service area; 6) We provide street sweeping and other types of services which the County does not provide; and 7) The Recreation fees for classes are cheaper for City residents than for County residents. Those speaking against the annexation were: Jeannette L. Fussner, 13282 Woodland Drive Lillian M. Wright, 1661 Melvin Way Selma C. McNally, 1541 Kalua Lane James Kellis, 13152 Dean St. Charlotte Schack, 1671 Melvin Way Hazel Francis, 13212 Dean St. Phillip Thornton, 1651 Melvin Way Jack Wright, 1661 Melvin Way Mary Pelletier, 13061 Chaplet Pl. Staff received a copy of a petition that had been signed by 207 residents who were opposed to the annexation. The City Clerk had not received the original of the petition prior to the Public Hearing. RECESS CONTIHu~) HEARING 1. ADJOU17~ME~T Speaking in favor of the annexation was: Robert Johnson, 13222 Woodland Dr. Mayor Saltarelli explained that if 25% Co%uncil Minutes Page 2, 12-29-80 of the registered voters or if the owners of 25% of the assessed valuation of property within the annexation area filed a protest to the annexation, then the City would be required by law to hold an election to determine whether the area would be annexed to the City of Tustin or remain in the County. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:23 P.M. by Mayor Saltarelli. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to recess at 6:35 P.M. in order, for staff to calculate the number of registered voters on 'the petition and to reconvene at 8:00 P.M. Carried. ]~TING OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL RECON¥~NED AT 8:00 P. M. DecOr 29~ 1980 IRVINE BLVD.--DEAN ST. ~=NNEXATION NO. 121 Staff reported that there were 156 verified registered voters who signed the petitions in opposition to the annexation out of 364 registered voters on the May 5, 1980 Index of Registered Voters. This number was over the 25%, which would require an election to determine the outcome, but less than 50%, which would have terminated the annexation proceedings. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to continue the course of action to the January 5, 1981 regular Council meeting in order for staff to obtain the latest Index of Registered Voters and calculate the percentage of valid signatures and also the percentage of assessed valuation ownership opposed. Councilwoman Kennedy told the audience that the Council would not railroad this annexation through and she gave them her tele- phone number for them to call at any time for information. The motion carried 3-0, Sharp absent and Edgar absent for the 8:00 P.M. meeting. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to adjourn at 8:32 P.M. to the next ,regular meeting on January 5, 1981. Carried 3-0. MINU~ES OF A REGULAR~rING ~I~STIN CITY OOUNCI5 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way January 5, 1981 CAT.L TO ORDER II. ROr,r. III. RECESS The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Edgar at 4:10 p.m. following the regular meeting of the Planning Agency. Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Sharp Saltarelli James G. Rourke, City Attorney Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Eva A. solis, Deputy City Clerk Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Royleen White, Community Services Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Gary Napper, Administrative Assistant Approximately 10 in the audience It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to recess to the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 4:11 p.m. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING RRnEVE~OPM]~T AGENCY January 5, 1981 The meeting; was called to order by Chairman Pro Tem Edgar at 4:11 p.mo Members Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Sharp Members Absent: Saltarelli 3. APPROVAL OF:MINu.i.~S - December 15, 1980 4e It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the minutes of the December 15, 1980, meeting. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarell absent. RESOLUTION NO. ]{DA 80-8 - A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency RECOGNIZING THE EXEMPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES FROM ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1980-81, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAPTER 1342 OF THE HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION 33678 & 33679. 5e It was moved by Sharp, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt Resolution No. RDA 80-8. Carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Sharp, to adjourn at 4:12 p.m. to the City Council meeting. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. RECOR~NG CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 1-5-81 IV. PUBLIC CONCERNS None V. CONSENT CAT~NDAR 1. 9e 10. MINUTES OF TO,TIN CITY COUNCIL RECONv~ED AT 4:12 P.M. January 5, 1981 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Adjourned Regular Meeting - Dec. 13, 1980 Regular Meeting - Dec. 15, 1980 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $918,991.00 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $89,978.19 ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND RKO.EASE OF BONDS, TRACT NO. 10762 (Tustin Acres - Between Main and Sixth Streets, E of Freeway) Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance and Labor/Materials Bonds for Tract No. 10762 as recommended by the City Engineer in his December 18, 1980, report. SANTA ANAV~TJ.~Y. IR~/GATION CO. (S.A.V.I.) QUITCLAIM (Tustin Arms II, Pasadena Ave.) Authorize the Mayor to execute the quitclaim deed and direct staff to record said document subject to the receipt of thewS90.00 transfer fee as recommended by the City Engi- neer. COUNCIL CHAIRS Approve a supplemental appropriation of $1,850 and authorize the purchase of five Steelcase chairs with dark brown fabric as recommended by the City Administrator. EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT-- EARL ROWENHORST Authorize execution of Employment Contract for Earl Rowen- horst as recommended by the City Administrator. ACCEI>T~/qCE OF P~-BLIC IMPRO%~_/~TS AND ~r~.RASE OF ]~ONDS, TRACT NO. 10495 (Village Homes, in back of Packer's Square) Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, and Monumentation Bond for Tract No. 10495 as recommended by the City Engineer in his December 19, 1980, report. REsoLuTION NO. 81-2 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (City Ball Parking Lot Improvements) Adoption of Resolution No. 81-2 and assuming that no claims or stop payment notices are filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion, authorize pay- ment of the 10% retention amount ($17,943.44) at that time as recommended by the City Engineer. RESOLuTION NO. 80-141 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, SUPPORTING THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM IN ORANGE COUNTY Adoption of Resolution No. 80-141 as recommended by the Administration Department. RESOLUTION NO. 80-142 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (Improvements at Bryan Ave. and Browning Ave.) Adoption of Resolution No. 80-142 and assuming that no claims or stop payment notices are filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion, autho- rize payment of the retention amount of $91,491.28 at that time as recommended by the Engineering Department. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 1-5-81 11. RESOLUTION NO. 80-143 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, DETERMINING AND ADOPTING AN APPRO- PRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1980-81, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAPTER 1205 OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 7910. Adoption of Resolution No. 80-143 as recommended by the Finance Director. 12. 13. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 80-144 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF WALNUT AVE.-BROWNING AVE. AND WALNUT AVE.-FRANKLIN AVE. AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS. Adoption of Resolution No. 80-144 as recommended by the City Engineer. RESOLUTION NO. 80--145 .- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON SAN JUAN STREET FROM ORANGE STREET TO 1220'+ EAST. A~option of Resoi~%ion No. 80-145 as recommended by the City Engineer. ~SOLUTION NO. 81--1 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING APPEAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 80-18 (301W. First Street) Adoption of Resolution No. 81-1 as recommended by the City Council. Item 14 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Kennedy. Following clarification by the City Attorney of Item X, page 4, contained in the December 15 minutes, it was moved by Sharp, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. Item 14 - Resolution No. 81-1 - It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to adopt Resolution No. 81-1. Motion failed 2:2, Kennedy and Sharp dissenting, Saltarelli absent. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar ruled this item be continued to the evening session. ORDINANCES FOR INTKO-- DUCTION (See Public Hearing No. I, Page 6) VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION None VIII. OLD BUSINESS REGULATION OF OOT~OOR AD¥~.K~ISING STRUCTURES & REMOVAL THEREOF The memo dated December 16, 1980, prepared by the City Attorney was received and filed with the understanding that the matter will be held in abeyance. 2. IRVINE BOULEVARD--DEAN STREET ANN~ATION NO- 121 Mayor Pro Tem indicated this matter would be considered at the evening session. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 1-5-81 IX. NEW BUSINESS 1. HOLT A~Nu~ TREE REMOVALS Following the City Engineer's response to Council questions, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to authorize the removal of eight palm trees along the easterly side of Holt Avenue between Newport Avenue and Irvine Boulevard, and the replanting of eight approved street trees as replacements by Southern California Edison Company, as recommended in the memo dated December 18, 1980, prepared by the City Engineer. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. I~FuND OF PARKING DISTKICT FEES Council discussed the request from the Los Anesentes building owners, 220 E1 Camino Real, for a refund of parking district fees paid at the time of building permit issuance, and expressed concerns t~at there be sufficient parking in the downtown area and the lack of a master plan. The Community Development Direc- tor provided additional information on the matter. It was then moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to deny the refund request. The City ~dministrator responded that the Community Redevelop- ment Agency/City Council share responsibility for the downtown area. The Community Development Director stated a report could be provided on the parking study at the next meeting. He fur- ther indicated the Downtown Task Force had previously set policy, with Council's concurrence, that the waiver of parking should only be granted for those existing, non-conforming uses/ buildings, and not be granted to new developments. As suggested by the Community Development Director, Council concurred to direct staff to provide to Council in two weeks a comprehensive listing of uses, fees, number of parking spaces paid for, and the total amount of funds generated to provide a better idea of the impact~of similar future requests, with a timetable of plans for any future developments. The motion to deny the refund request carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. 3. MISS TUSTIN PAGEANT Following ~consideration of the memo dated December 18, 1980, prepared by the Community Services Director, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to waive the fees in the approximate amount of $1,200 for use of the Clifton C. Miller Community Center by the Tustin Jaycees on January 8 and 9, February 9, 11, 13, 14, 1~, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, and March 1 for production of the Miss Tustin Pageant. Carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. BID AWARD - NEWPORT A¥~NUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION INST~?~.%- TION & INTERCONNECT SYSTEM Bids were received as follows: Electrend, Inc., Santa Ana Grissom and Johnson, Inc., Santa Ana Steiny and Co., Anaheim Baxter-Griffin, Stanton Smith Electric Supply, Stanton Paul Gardner Corp., Ontario $330,800.00 $342,400.00 $353,000.00 $373,374.00 $405,999.00 .$407,781.00 As recommended in the memo dated December 23, 1980, prepared by the City Engineer, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to award the bid to lowest bidder, Electrend, Inc., Santa Ana, in the total amount of $330,800.00 subject to final approval of CalTrans and the Federal Highways Works Administra- tion. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. X o BUSINESS RECESS TO EVENING C~r.T. TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 1-5-81 5. RE~.~SSIFICATION POLICY The Personnel Director provided clarification and responded to Council questions on the proposed reclassification policy. As reconunended in the memo dated December 30, 1980, prepared by the Personnel Director, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to approve the proposed procedure involving reclassi- fication and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution implementing the procedure through a modification of the Person- nel Rules and Regulations. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. 6. DRIVE-IN POSTAL Fa%IL BOX ACCESS The Mayor Pro Tem indicated this matter would be considered at the evening session. 7. PURCHASE OF H.P. 2640 B CRT Following the Finance ,~irector's comments regarding the com- puter, it was moved by.~.Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to autho- rize the purchase of One H.P. 2640 B for $2,300.00 with the appropriation to be made from the self-insured Workers' Compen- sation Fund (loan to be set up for three years, at appropriate interest, with option to repay more or pay off early without penalty). Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. Councilman Edgar expressed concerns regarding purchasing a complete system, rather than on a piece-by-piece basis. The City Administrator noted that reliability was a main factor considered in the H.P. 2640 B CRT purchase. 8. A~RD OF BID FOR STREET STP. IPING Bids were received for measured quantity items numbered 1 through 6, with the remaining items being of undetermined quan- tities, as follows: J & S Sign Co., Inc., Orange Safety Striping Service, Fillmore Orange County Striping Service, Irvine $18,526.00 $19,483.80 $20,653.00 As recommended in the memo dated January 5, 1981, prepared by the City Engineer, it was moved by Sharp, seconded by Kennedy, to award the bid for street striping services to J & S Sign Co., Inc., Orange, in the amount of $18,526.00. Carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. COUNCIL WORKSHOP The City Administrator stated he would request Council's consid- eration at the evening session of rescheduling the Council Work- shop which was cancelled in December. At 4:55 p.m., it was moved by Sharp, seconded by Hoesterey, to recess to the 7:30 p.m. evening session. Motion carried 4:0, Saltarelli absent. MK~fING OF T~STIN CITY COUNCIL RECCH~ED ATT:30 P.M. January 5, 1981 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar at 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 1-5-81 II. ROLL Councilpersons Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Sharp, Kennedy Councilpersons Absent: Saltarelli - Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Royleen White, Community Services Director Charles Thayer, Police Chief Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director R. Kenneth Fleagle, Consultant Approximately 30 in the audience III. SLIDE PRESENTA- TION The slide presentation on Santa Aha Transportation Corridor Alterna- tives was made by A1 Hollinden showing the needs, statistics, and alternatives for expanding our freeways and transportation system. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PRE-ZONE 8~-2 (E side of Holt, S of Warren Avenue) ORDINANCE NO. 839 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING THE PRE-ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON HOLT AVENUE UPON APPLICATION PZ-80-2 The staff report was given by the Community Development Direc- tor explaining that this was the implementing Pre-Zone as recom- mended by the Planning Agency. The basic proposal is a Pre-Zone to PD-3000. There were a number of conditions recommended to be imposed on this particular proposal in order to insure that the development does not further fragment the area as it is now with approximately 7 different drives. He clarified condition "F. AS part of~the use permit process, all properties covered by the zone change must be developed in an integrated manner which would provide for reciprocity during development between the individual lots," by saying that this was put in loose language to not necessarily tie it to any specific road alignment or lot size in the project but to allow it to be determined by the Planning A~ency at the time a site plan is submitted. It is not meant to necessarily mean that all the properties have to be developed simultaneously but that there must 'be a reciprocity either in architectural design, traffic circulation, or internal neighborhood feeling. Councilwoman Kennedy was concerned that this be kept at the low- est possible density. Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director, clarified that the density could be controlled through the use permit process. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Edgar. Arnold Hamala, applicant for this Pre-Zone, said that he plans to develop at somewhere around one unit per 3,000 ft. of land area which would be about 10 or 11 units on his property or probably 20 or 21 units in his combined development, but this would be determined when the site plan is submitted. With Mr. Brotemarkle's explanation of condition No. F, all the conditions are acceptable to him and his co-applicants but because Parcel 5 is not part of his planned development, he wants assurance that his development will not be tied to Parcel 5. V. PUBLIC CONCERNS VI. OLD EUSINES~ VII. NEW BUSINESS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 1-5-81 The public hearing was closed at 8:08 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Edgar. Councilwoman Kennedy asked Mr. Brotemarkle how he would reword condition No. F in order to show that it is not going to be tied to Parcel 5. He responded that condition No. F ties it to the Use Permit pro- cess and rather than make it more specific, we should leave it to the detemination of the Agency under the Use Permit process. Therefore, if Parcel 5 is included, well and good, but if not and it can show a reciprocity that is satisfactory to the Agency, then it can still be an approved project. It was moved by Sharp, seconded by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 839 have first .reading by title only. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. Following the reading of 'the title of Ordinance No. 839 by the City Clerk, it was mov~ by Sharp, seconded by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 839 be'~ introduced. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. ~ None 2. Il{VINE BO~ARD--DEAN STREET ANNW~%TION NO. 121 The City Administrator reported that the most current Index of Registered Voters shows 378 voters in this annexation and 189 protests would terminate the annexation. Staff verified 171 protests from registered voters. The assessed valuation analysis was not completed due to the short time since the hear- ings, the holidays and scheduled vacations, preventing any Council action tonight other than giving dual direction to staff according'to the results of the assessed valuation analysis. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to direct staff to prepare a resolution setting the decision for the next regular election, or if the assessed valuation comes in over 50 percent, to prepare a resolution terminating the proceedings. James Eckstaedt, 13201 Dean St., and Judith Lamar, 13392 Wood- land Dr., expressed their displeasure that the results of the assessed valuation analysis was not ready for this meeting. They were assured by staff and the Council that the results would be ready for the January 19, 1981 meeting. The motion carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. 1 . DP~VE--IN POSTAL MAIL BOX ACCESS Dan Worthington, 1722 Mitchell Avenue #6, Tustin, proposed that the City investigate the possibility of authorizing placement of drive-up postal mail boxes accessible from the driver's side of a car either in a shopping center or in a center divider on 1st Street, Newport Avenue or Irvine Boulevard. He explained that bucket seats in late model cars make it difficult to reach the present mail boxes. He asked that the City take initiative in setting up these locations. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar said that the staff report points out the hazards of placing a mail box in a center divider, not only for the person depositing the mail but for the postman who would be picking up the mail. However, the concept of putting one in a shopping center might be a good idea. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 1-5-81 OTHER Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director, said that his experience in the past has been that the Post Office comes to the City and proposes either a self-service center or a postal mail drop on a piece of private property or a shopping center and it is no different than handling a Fotomat or key shop. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that a letter to the Postmaster be prepared for the Mayor's signature indicating our interest in a drive-up mail box, accessible to the driver's side of a car, in a shopping center and identifying Mr. Dan Worthington as an interested citizen. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. WORKSHOP SC~ULED FOR JANUARY 12, 1981 The City Administrator asked if the Council would be available for a WorkShop on January 12, 1981, and they concurred that 7:00 p.m. would be an appropriate time. 2. COMMUNICATION WIT~ DOWNTOWN BUSINESSMEN Councilman 'Hoesterey proposed that the Council have some kind of communication conduit with the downtown businessmen and he sug- gested that Councilman Edgar become the task force leader for that area and that it be understood that this is for information gathering only and is not a commission. Council concurred. In response to Councilman Edgar's question as to the time of the next meeting, the Community Development Director said that the task force is in abeyance now until we have a developer present a proposal on some of the property that we have been investi- gating. He said that staff had been working with the Chamber Community Development Commission as well as the Development Task Force, which is composed of three businessmen and four members of the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Edgar said that he would try to schedule a night meeting. 3. F~PE~IDITuRES UNDER THE GANN INITIATIVE Coun¢ilman~ Hoesterey mentioned the blackboard display of the Gann Initiative and expressed that the Council needed to look at our expenditures as a total package when new expenditures come before us. This can be discussed in more detail at the work- shop. 4. COMMENDATION TO STAFF Councilwoman Kennedy commended Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, and his staff for their speedy and courteous response in chang- ing a sidewalk and crosswalk in an area recently annexed that had been a controversial matter in the County for over a year. 5. SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING Councilwoman Kennedy said that she was not way the Senior Citizens are selected for Housing. satisfied with the the Senior Citizen Royleen White, Community Services Director, responded that the City has no control over the list of those qualified for the housing but if she had the names of those dissatisfied, she would follow up and see why they were not selected. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar said that we could get information from HUD as to their rules regarding qualified applicants. IX. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 1-5-81 6. COMMENDATION TO CONTRACTOR Mayor Pro Tem Edgar asked that a letter of commendation be writ- ten to H. A. Sessler, Inc., contractor for the improvements at Bryan and Browning Avenues, for a job well done and completed 50 days ahead of schedule. Council concurred. 7. SMOKE DE~iU~CTOR ORDINANCE Mayor Pro Tem Edgar inquired if the ordinance regarding smoke detectors had been completed. The City Attorney responded that his office was in the process of completing it. 8. EL CAMINO UNq)E~GROUNDING Mayor Pro Tem Edgar asked if the undergrounding for Camino area would go to bid in two weeks. the E1 Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, responded that they are coordi- nating the .Southern California Edison and Pacific Telephone plans and the City Attorney is preparing the papers. Hopefully his department will have the paperwork by the 19th of this month. 9. ~UTIVE SESSION Councilman Hoesterey requested a brief executive session discussion of personnel matters. Council concurred. 10. CONTINUANCE OF VARIANCE 80-2 AND APPEAL OF VARIANCE 80-18 for Inasmuch as there was an impasse on Planning Agency Old Business No. 1 (Variance No. 80-2, Sign for Wuv's Restaurant) and City Co%~lcil Con~ent Calendar No. 14 (Resolution No. 81-1, Approving Appeal of Variance No. 80-18, 301 W. First Street), it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to continue these two items to the next meeting on January 19, 1981. Carried 4-0, Saltarelli absent. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. to an Executive Session for personnel matters, thence to a Workshop on January 12, 1981, at 7:00 p.m. in the Lunch Room at the Maintenance Building, and thence to the next regular meeting on January ~9, 1981. Carried.