Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1983 07 18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA JULY 18, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION The meeting was called to order by May~r Hoesterey at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Alle- giance was led by Ma3~r Pro Tem Kennedy, and the Invocation was given by Councilman Edgar. IZ~ ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Ronald B. Hoesterey, Mayor Ursula E. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar Frank H. Greinke (7:35 p.m.) Donald J. Saltarelli Councilpersons Absent: None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney Robert S. Ledendecker, Dir. of Public Works Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Captain N. Willjams, Police Department Ronald A. Nault, Director of Finance Royleen A. White, Director of Community and Administrative Services Donald D. Lamm, Community Development Dir. R. Kenneth Fleagle, Planning Consultant Approximately 100 in the audience III, PUBLIC CONCERNS 1. REQUEST FOR SPONSORSHIP Jennifer Kalasky, 17432 Amaganset Way, speaking on behalf of Outstanding Teens of America, requested sponsorship funds in order to participate in subject program. Miss Kalasky noted her scholastic achievements, extra-curricular activities, and volun- teer community work. She stated that Outstanding Teens of America is a recognition program for leadership, service and academic achievements. The matter of sponsorship was referred to the City Attorney for legal opinion. The City Attorney stated he would review the material and report back to the Coun- cil. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, Miss Kalasky stated that she must meet a July 24 deadline. 89 IV, PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 PRELIMINARY BUDGET The Director of Public Works, in the City Manager's absence, stated that staff has no additional input to what has been pre- viously recommended by the City Manager. The continued public hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. There were no speakers on the matter. Councilman Edgar stated that the response received to his request for greater detail on the Water Fund Debt Service Sur- charge Analysis report indicates that all funds used for repay- ment of the debt are not drawn from the debt surcharge, but that a portion comes from general revenue. He continued that the water fund debt service surcharge should be kept in a separate fund, accruing interest, and all of the bond and acquisition debts (including interest) should be paid from subject fund entirely, recognizing that there may be times when said fund may have to be subsidized. Councilman Edgar requested that staff provide an analysis of his proposal. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 7-18-83 Councilman Edgar also stated that a good report was provided on the cash advantage of getting a new well drilled with proper blending. He figured the cash advantage to be approximately $12,000 per month, and felt this is a terrific driving force to get it done as quickly as possible, respecting the fact i~hat it 'must be done properly. Councilman Saltarelli expressed his concern that information is lacking on several major items, i.e., the fire service contract, an estimated figure for employee wage increases, and state entitlement funds (pending adoption of the State budget}. It was then moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to continue t~e public hearing on the Preliminary Fiscal Year 1983-84 Budget tO August 1, 1983. Councilman Saltarelli suggested that the Mayor be included in discussions with the County relative to the fire service contract. Motion carried 4-0, Greinke absent. 29 2. PROPOSED USE OF FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 REVENUE SHARING FUNDS The Mayor opened the continued public hearing at 7:15 p.m. There were no speakers on the matter. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to continue the public hearing on Proposed Use of Fiscal Year 1983-84 Revenue Sharing Funds to August 1, 1983. Carried 4-0, Greinke absent. 29 3. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - VIDEO GAMES - ORDINANCE NO. 888 The Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the inter-com dated July, 5, 1983, prepared by the Community Development Department. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. There being no speakers on the matter, the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 888 have first reading by title only. carried 4-0, Greinke absent. Following reading of title by the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 888 be introduced as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 888 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF AMUSEMENT RESORTS, ARCADES, AND PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Motion carried 4-0, Greinke absent. 81 4. APPEAL OF USE PERMIT 83-5 - 1162 SYCAMORE AVENUE The Community Development Director presented the staff report, including Use Permit 83-5 history, and responded to Council questions. Mayor Hoesterey opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Richard Nowling, applicant/project developer, stated he was present to respond to Council questions. There being no other speakers on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:27 p.m. The motion by Edgar to approve Use Permit 83-5 died for lack of a second. Councilman Saltarelli expressed concern over project delays within legal limits of the original permit, area density, and changes in project plans when it has come before Planning Com- mission or Council for approval, which occurred in a few other developments. He continued that if it is staff's opinion that the Council has a choice to either approve the condominium CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 7-18-83 project as presented, which gives more control over development standards, or get an apartment project with less restrictions, then he favors approving the condominium project. He noted the Council should instruct the Planning Commission to look closely at zoning that presently exists on similar parcels in primarily residential areas. In response to Councilman Saltarelli, the Community Development Director stated that if the applicant were to build apartments, he would be allowed up to 75% lot coverage (presently allowed 50%), the rear yard setback could be reduced to 10 feet, the side setback to 5 feet, front setback to 15, and ?" building height increased to 40 feet (versus the proposed 26 feet). approve Use Permit 83-5 and uphold the findings of Ai Commission as set forth in Resolution NO. 2095, authorizing the construction of eight condominium units in an R-3 zone located at 1162 Sycamore Avenue. Mayor Hoesterey expressed discontent with construction of higher density projects by putting in semi-underground parking, and stated this is definitely not a project he is content with hav- ing next to an R-1 District. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy recollected that previous Council discussion asked for a buffer between R-3 and R-1. Although sympathetic with the applicant, Mayor Pro Ten Kennedy stated she could not accept any density higher than 20 units per acre. Councilman Edgar reiterated that his vote is based upon the reality that the alternative is R-3. Councilman Greinke arrived at 7:35 p.m. The motion carried 3-1, Kennedy opposed, Greinke abstained. 81 It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that the City Council request that the Planning Commission review all multiple-zoned undeveloped and underdeveloped parcels in the City and report back on the appropriateness of the zoning and whether or not a density reduction is allowable in the R-3 dis- trict. Carried 5-0. 81 5. APPEAL OF VARIANCE 83-5 - 1123 WARNER AVENUE The Community Development Director presented the staff report as contained in the inter-com dated July 18, 1983, prepared by the Community Development Department. Councilman Greinke declared an abstention on the matter. The public hearing was opened at 7:37 p.m. The following person spoke in favor of Variance 83-5. Klaus Eric, Steelcase employee. There being no other speakers on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. After Council discussion, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve Variance 83-5 based on the fact that present identification is not adequate. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy and Mayor Hoesterey stated they could not -- support variance approval. Counci 1 man Sal tarel 1 i stated that since the 1 ast variance approval, the building size relative to what City ordinance allows has increased dramatically, and the request is for a directional sign more than an identity sign, and there is no residential property in the area. Mayor Hoesterey stated that he would approve the variance based on size proportion of the sign tothe building and that there is no residential nearby. The moti on carried 3-1, Kennedy opposed, Grei nke abstai ned. 106 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 7-18-83 Councilman Greinke stated that, in general, he would like to see the City of Tustin encourage major, well-known entities into the City by "bending our twig" relative to sign controls. Although there is no sales tax revenue generated in some instances, many jobs and opportunities are created within the City by such companies, and if proposed signing is not offensive to either the surrounding residential and business communities, the City should be supportive of such requests. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - REDEVELOPIENT AGENCY & ClTY COUNCIL 6. SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPlENT PLAN Dr, R, Kenneth Fleagle, Planning Consultant, presented the staff report and recommendation and responded to Agency/Councfi ques- tions. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that the Report of the Redevelopmerit Agency to the City Council be accepted, transmitted and approved by the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council. Roll call vote: AYES: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: None 81 At 8:00 p.m. the May~r announced that this is the time and place for a duly advertised public hearing for the purpose of adopting the proposed South/Central Redevelopment Project. The following persons spoke on the matter: Jocelyn Smith, 18311 Orange Avenue, speaking on behalf of Jocelyn Edwards, had the following questions: 1) In reference to Section 1201.1, what houses in the area are considered blighted and will be up for renovation/removal. 2) In reference to Section 317.3, who decides what's attrac- tive in appearance and what's detrimental? 3) What constitutes substandard housing (definition)? 4) What is a limited equity housing cooperative? 5) In reference to Sections 401 to 405.2, how will homeowners benefit in comparison to developers? 6) What is the difference between real property and personal property (definition)? 7) Does membership on the Agency change when we el ect new mem- bers of the City Council? Alice Acosta, property owner of 13851 North Orange, requested an explanation of the project and expressed concern over the City's condemnation rights. The Agency/Council concurred to direct staff to respond to ques- tions as asked, instead of waiting until the end of public input. Dr. Fleagle responded as follows: There is no pl an presented to remove any houses, and as men- tioned in the introductory remarks, the Redevelopmerit Agency has never condemned any private property. Councilman Edgar inter- jected that the Redevelopment Agency has been in existence for seven years, during which time it has had the legal authority to condemn houses, but has not done so. Councilman Greinke added that he would never support property condemnation under anJ/ching other than friendly terms, unless under extremely dire need. Many questions raised relative to the plan are taken verbatim from State law, which requires that preference be given to prop- erties where the individuals own a portion of that building within a redevelopment agency project area. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 7-18-83 Acquisition of private property is again a requirement provision of law which has never been implemented. Real property is defined by law as land and its improvements, and personal property is that which is portable. The Agency members change when a new City Council is elected. In response to Mrs. Acosta, Dr. Fleagle indicated he has spoken ,.. with her representative; the legal description is what was con- fusing Mrs. Acosta; and the project will only have a positive effect on her property. Jocelyn Smith expressed further concern in reference to Section 1201,1 which states that substandard dwelling units exist in the Central area and in the northerly portion of the South area. Dr. Fleagle stated that the purpose of the plan is to encourage private redevelopment, and it is necessary to make a finding that there are substandard units, legally defined as units not meeting the current building, health and safety code. Agency/ Councilmembers joined in assuring Ms. Smith that the Agency/City plans to install public improvements and has no intention of condemning any private properties. Peggy Schultz, Influential Square Condominiums resident and Homeowners Association President, requested that storm drain improvements in her area be included in the redevelopment plan as an emergency measure. Jim Loomis, representing Clark Loomis, owner of property on "B" Street, requested that "B" Street improvements also be included as an emergency measure, and commended the Agency/City Council for its efforts. Harry Rosenberg, Bol eJm Circle property owner, was informed that there are no direct improvements proposed on Boleyn Circle. James Wilmeth, 18872 Fowler Avenue, Santa Aria, property owner of five homes in the area, expressed irritation at areas being referred to as "blighted" and "substandard." The resident at 15731 Pacific Street had questions on what improvements are proposed and the time span in which they will be completed, and the effect it will have on private property, to which Dr. Fleagle responded. Bob Mason, 1051Bonita Street, had questions on the City's park- i ng requirements. Wyoma Griset, 15601 "B" Street, was informed that the plan does include improvements on "B" Street. Shawn Field, 14111 South "C" Street, requested that storm drain improvements be considered in that area. Larry Stell, owner of the apartment at 15582 Bol eyn Circle, inquired as to what assistance is available to private property owners in repaving private alleys. Phil Schindter, property owner at 15601 Newport Avenue, was informed that there has been no direct consideration by the -- Agency/Council to acquire subject parcel. Elizabeth Springer, 1005 Andrews Street, stated there is no blight on subject street and wondered why it was included in the project area. At MaWr Pro Tem Kennedy's request, Dr. Fleagle provided State definitions of "blighted area" in order to ease residents' anxieties over the term "blight." CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 7-18-83 Agency/Council/staff discussion followed with two audience mem- bers pertaining to proposed improvements, funding of same, and property valuations/taxes. The City Attorney clarified that there will not be any property tax increases by virtue of crea- tion of the project area, but incremental taxes that come from that area, which otherwise would go to the County and other places, will be reinvested in the form of public improvements in that same area. Mrs. Acosta was assured that property owners will receive 1 egal notification of further activity, and Dr. Fleagle indicated he would meet with Mrs. Acosta to answer additional questions- There being no other speakers on the matter, the public hearing was closed at 8:56 p.m. Council discussion followed. Rose DeEsposito, property owner of 1092 Walnut Avenue, spoke in favor of the South/Central Redevelopment Project and applauded Dr. Fleagle. Gene Oppetick, spoke in favor of the plan, based on information provided during the public hearing. After further discussion, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that the objections are overruled and that the South/ ~Redevelopment Project be approved. Roll call vote: AYES: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: None 81 It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 890 have first reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Follow- ing reading of the title of Ordinance No. 890 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 890 be introduced as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 890 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ADOPTING THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Motion carried 5-0. 81 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, that Ordinance No. 891 have first reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following first reading of the title of Ordinance No. 891 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, that Ordi- nance No. 891 be introduced. Carried 5-0. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 891 have second reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following second reading of the title of Ordinance No. 891 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 891 be adopted as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 891 - An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ADOPTING THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Roll call vote: AYES: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES: None ABSENT: None 81 Councilman Greinke commended Dr. Fleagle highly for doing an excellent job. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 6 was removed from Consent Calendar by Saltarelli, Item 7 by staff, and Item 11 by Kennedy. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Greinke, to approve the remainder of Consent Calendar. Carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 7-18-83 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 20, 1983, Regular Meeting July 5, 1983, Regular Meeting 2. RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL i n the amount of $98,963.25 (7-5-83) RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $106,993.93 (7-18-83) APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $195,440.33 (7-5-83) APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $1,294,582.00 (7-18-83) 50 ¢ 3. RESOLUTION NO. 83-44 - A Resolution of the City Council of the ~" City of Tustin, California, ENDORSING THE CARRIER ALERT PROGRAM Adopt Resolution No. 83-44 as recommended by the Community _ Services Department. 41 ~ 4. RESOLUTION NO. 83-46 - A Resolution of the City Council of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDA- TION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (FY 82-83 SIDEWALK & CURB REPAIR) Adopt Resolution No. 83-46 and if no claims or stop payment notices are filed within 30 days, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount as recommended by the Engineering Department. 92 5. RESOLUTION NO. 83-47 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, INFORMING THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE STATUS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS Adopt Resolution No. 83-47 as recommended by the Engineering Department. 54 8. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL - 410 PACIFIC STREET - 620 W. MAIN ST. Deny request for removal of four Ficus trees at subject location and direct staff to remove tree roots and trim foliage as required as recommended by the City Engineer. 86.1 9. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL - 17341 AMAGANSET WAY ~ Authorize the removal of one Ficus tree within the parkway ~ , adjacent to 17341 Amaganset Way and its replacement with a 15-gallon size tree subject to a suitable location being available as recommended by the City Engineer. 86.1 10. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND IRVINE COMPANY - PETERS CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN Authorize the Mayor to sign the subject agreement between the City and the Irvine Company as recommended by the City Manager. 45 83-25 12, RESOLUTION NO, 83--49 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (PAINTING OF CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX) Adopt Resolution No. 83-49 and if no claims or stop payment · notices are filed within 30 days of recordation of the I Notice of Completion, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount of $1,500.00 as recommended by the City Engineer. 39 Consent Calendar Item No. 6 - PADS Loan Extension & Resolution No. 83-45 In response to Councilman Saltarelli, Mayor Hoesterey responded that all member cities of Public Agencies Data S~tems (PADS) participated in the loan in equal amounts. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that the following resolution be adopted: 6. RESOLUTION NO. 83-45 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF LOAN MADE TO PUBLIC AGENCY DATA SYSTEMS Carried 5-0. 50 Consent Calendar Item No. 7 - Request for Enforcement of Uniform Traffic Ordinance & Resolution No. 83-48 - Per staff's request, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded byGreinke, that the following reso- lution be continued to August 1, 1983: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 7-18-83 7. RESOLUTION NO. 83-48 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, RELATIVE TO REGULATING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND PARKING ON CERTAIN PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY (Hampton Square, 16331 McFadden Street) Motion carried 5-0. 100 Consent Calendar Item No. 11 - SCA Services Solid Waste Collection Agreement - The Director of vublic Works responded to Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy that based on the contractors' excellent service record since 1977, subject item was not advertised for bid. The City Attorney noted that State statutes clearly indicate that a contract for trash collection does not have to be advertised for bid, prob- ably in recognition of considerations such as level of service. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to approve the agreement with SCA Services of Orange County for somid iste collec- tion for 1983-84 and authorize the Mayor to execute same on behalf of the City. After further discussion, the motion carried 4-1, Greinke opposed. 45 83-26 VI. ORDI- NANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. DEFINITION OF VEHICLE IN CITY CODE - ORDINANCE NO. 889 As recommended in the inter-com dated June 17, 1983, prepared by the Chief of Police, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 889 have first reading by title only. Car- ried 5-0. Following reading of the title by the City ClerkT'Tt was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 889 be introduced as follows: ORDINANCE NO.889 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE ADDING A DEFINITION OF "VEHICLE" TO THE TRAFFIC REGULATIONS CHAPTER Carried 5-0. 100 VII.ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - None VIII. OLD BUSINESS 1. REMOVAL OF TWO-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTION (South side of First Street between "A" and "B" Streets) Council concurred to direct staff to notify the requesting busi- ness owner of study results as contained in the inter-com dated July 8, 1983, prepared by the Director of Public Works, and then reagendize the matter to allow the individual an opportunity to address subject issue. 75 2. O.C.T.D LAYOVER ZONE - FIRST STREET BETWEEN CENTENNIAL WAY AND NEWPORT AVENUE Councilman Greinke stated that based on a letter from and con- versations with board members of the Orange County Transit Dis- trict, that the matter be tabled until October, 1983, pending changes in bus routes, with which Council concurred. 101 Councilman Saltarelli requested that staff investigate the possibility of OCTD sharing the costof repairing streets which are damaged by heavy bus traffic. Council concurred. 101 Mayor Hoesterey stated this is one of the many services provided by the Tustin Explorer Scouts, and requested that a proclamation be prepared commending their efforts. Council concurred and requested that as many Explorer Scouts as possible be present for the presentation. 84 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 7-18-83 3. ON-STREET PARKING - YORBA STREET The Director of Public Works presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in his inter-com dated July 12, 1983, adding that correspondence was received from representa- tives of the homeowners group dated July 15, 1983, which was handed out to Councilmembers prior to the meeting. Walter Schmidt, Enderle Gardens resident, spoke against on- ,.. street parking no matter what the modification. ' Ed Amonnino, 17381 Norwood Park Place, requested that the - request for on-street parking be denied, and a question-and- answer period followed. It was then moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to deny the request for on-street parking adjacent to 14181 and 14211 Yorba .- Street. After Council discussion, the motion carried 5-0. 74 IX. NEW BUSINESS- None X. REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to appeal Use Permit 83-12, Home Federal Savings & Loan, and set the matter for public hearing. Carried 5-0. 81 The remainder of the Planning Commission Action Agendas of June 27 and July 11, 1983, meetings were ratified by unanimous informal consent. 80 2. CABLE TELEVISION PEDESTALS The Director of Public Works presented the staff report. Don Guthrie, General Manager of Communicom, requested Council approval of installation of a pedestal of a larger size, and introduced Don Phillips, Senior Vice President; Phil Jarvis, Vice President of Engineering; Mike Groom, in charge of con- struction of all suburban systems; and Randy Dean, manager of engineering of suburban systems. Phil Jarvis explained why the system cannot be installed totally underground and responded to Council questions. It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, to approve Communi- com's request to install a larger pedestal as identified in the inter-com dated June 29, 1983, prepared by the Engineering Divi- sion. Marian Farnsworth, 17331 Norwood Park Place, was informed that her questions would be addressed by Communicom. After further discussion, the motion carried 5-0. 53 : '. 3. TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT - MAIN STREET/BRYAN AVENUE, JUNE l983 ~,, Council concurred to receive and file the report dated July 6, ~ 1983, prepared by the Chief of Police. 100 4. BULLET TRAIN Councilman Greinke presented the Mayor with a French bullet · train souvenip-. which he acquired while attending a Lions Club Convention in Hawaii. ~ As requested by Councilman Edgar, Council cOncur~' t6 follow- through with presentation to the State League of Resolution No. 83-2 adopted by the Orange County Division urging envirbnmental review of the bullet train. 101 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10, 7-18-83 XI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION The Director of Public Works reported that the City Manager requested a Closed Session for discussion of personnel matters be held the week of July 25, 1983. Council concurred to sched- ule same on July 25, 1983, at 4:00 p.m. 38 2. STATE LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE Xt was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to appoint Coun- cilman Edgar as Tustin's voting delegate at the State League of Cities Conference. Carried 5-0. 38 3. FOURTH OF JULY FIREWORKS SHOW Councilman Edgar commended staff for the spectacular fireworks show. 4. STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Councilman Edgar commended the Director of Public Works on his status report dated July 15, 1983, on subject item, noting that a five-year plan was completed in three years. 5. WINDSOR GARDENS PARKING STRUCTURE Councilman Edgar inquired about construction delays relative to Windsor Gardens. The Community Development Director responded that there was a dispute between the property owner and con- tractor, the contractor left the job site just prior to comple- tion of the parking structure, a stop work order was placed on the project, and tenants were forced to stay out of the parking structure for safety reasons. The property owner has indicated he is in the process of hiring a new contractor. 6. POLLING OF COUNCIL ON LEGISLATIVE MATTERS Councilman Greinke requested that staff poll the Council prior to taking a position on legislative matters in Sacramento. 7. POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMENDATION Councilman Greinke commended Chief Thayer on the excellent method of working with local liquor distributors to hal t the reported sale of alcoholic beverages to minors by some liquor store employees. 8. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION Mayor Hoesterey requested a brief Closed Session for discussion of personnel and legal matters. XII. ADJOURNMENT At 10:18 p.m. it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to recess to the Redevelopment Agency, thence to a Closed Session for discussion of personnel and legal matters, thence to a Closed Ses- sion on July 25, 1983, at 4:00 p.m. for discussion of personnel matters, and thence to the next regular meeting on August 1, 1983, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 5-0. MAYOR