Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES OF 10-06-86Iio III. MINUTES OF A REGUlJLI~ MEETIN6 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CIT~r OF ll~$1lN, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 6, 1986 CALL TO OROER/PLEO6E OF 8L~qlAI~£/I~O~TION The meeting was called to order by Mayor Saltarelli at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilwoman Kennedy, and the Invocation was given by Mayor Saltarel 1 t. ROLL CALL Counctlpersons Present: Councllpersons Absent: Others Present: lo Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor Ronald B. Hoesterey, Mayor Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar John Kelly Ursula E. Kennedy None William A. Huston, City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Robert S. Ledendecker, Olr. of Public Worts Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police Ro~ald A. Nault, Finance Director Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent Rob Balen, Planning Consultant Jeff Davis, Acting Senior Planner Janet Hester. Administrative Secretary Approximately 105 in the Audience MAR&~RET BYEI)'S ~111BIR~AY Mayor Saltarelll announced that on October 6, 1898, Margaret Byrd was born in Coronado. California, So is a friend and mst faithful attendee of City Council meetings. The Council and audience joined the Mayor in extending birthday wishes to Mrs. Byrd with applause. 2. ll~'TIN 'TTtt~t OAYS Mrs. Cherrtll Cady presented Counctlmembers with Tusttn Tiller Days visors and badges, ~tch will be held October 10-12, 1986. She also presented them with a progrmm of events and left copies in the Council Chirrs for the audience. She encouraged everyone to attend the weekend's e~ents. ~ I¥. ~TIO#S Battalion Chief Buck Henderson, Orange County Fire Department, accepted a proclamation from Mayor Saltarelli designating October S-II, lg86, as 'Fire Prevention Week." He thanked the Council on behalf of Fire Chief Larry Holmes. Battalion Chief Henderson then presented former Mayor Frank H. Gretnke, Sr., with a plaque and letter from Fire Chief Larry Holmes in ~prectstion for his public service as Councilman and in recog- nition of his continuous service to the City of Tusttn from Lg82- 86. On behalf of ~htef Holmes, he ~tended personal thanks and best wish in all future endeavors. Mr. Gretnke expressed his thanks. ~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 10-6-86 The staff report and recommendation were presented by the Planning Consultant as contained in the inter-rom dated October 6, 1986, prepared by the Community Development Department. The Mayor opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m, Gerald Feldman, 13191 Wickshire Lane, representing the Bellewick Community Association, spoke in favor of subject annexation. There were no other speakers on the matter, and the public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m. It wes then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kelly, to adopt the follow- ing: RE.$OI.tr~lO# NO. 86-118 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF llJSTIN, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY KNOWN AS RANCHWOOD/BELL£WICK ANNEXATION NO. 138 The motion carried 5-0. 24 REC£SS - CLOSEI) S[SS]ON - R£CONVENED As announced by Mayor Saltarelli, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar. to recess to Closed Session to consider personnel matters pur- suant to Government Code Section 54957, and to confer with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Sec- tion 54956.9(b)(1). Carried 5-0. The meeting was recessed at 7:11 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:26 p.m. with all members present. The City Council considered Public Hearings 2, 3 and 4 in conjunction. 2. ZONE QLMIc; 86-1 - 335, 345, 355. 365, 405. 415. 425, 435, ANO 445 sIXTH STREET - OROI~IC£ NO. 976 3. SPECIFIC PUUI NO. 11 - 335, 345, 355, 365, 405, 415, 425, 435, ANO 445 SIXTH STREET - OEDINRNCE NO. 977 4. APP?~. OF RAMMING COI~ISSION APPROVAl. OF USE ~R~IT 86-26 - 405, 415, 425 SIXTH STREET - RESOLUTZON NO. 86-121 The Planning Consultant introduced Jeff Davis, Acting Senior Plan- ne?, who p~esented the staff report and recommendation for each item as contained in the Inter-rem dated October 6, 1986, prepared by the Community Development Department. A question-and-answer period followed. Mayor Saltarelll opened Public Hearings 2, 3 and ~ simultaneouqly at 7:44 p.mo Arthur Ntsson, 1749! Irvino Boulevard, requested that Councilman Kelly consider not voting on the issues because he publicly announced a prejudiced and preconceived opinton on the matter. Mayor Saltarelli referred the matter to the City Attorney who indi- cated he had reviewed a transcript of the September 15, 1986, Coun- cil meeting. He stated that Councilman Kelly did express opinions at subject meeting, but he did not see anything that would dis- qualify him fr~m hearing the matter. Councilman Kelly responded to Mayo? Salta?ellt that his intent was to fully participate in the public hearings. Ma~ Ainslte, applicant, provided chronological historical back- ..,, ground on the project f~ June, 1985, to the present. He spoke in · favor of the project. John Kntlans, 175 South "A" Street,* spoke in opposition to the zone change. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 10-6-86 Bob Edgell, 345 West Main Street, spoke on behalf of TRUST (Tustin Residents United to Save Tustin), and recon~ended denial of the zone change application. Richard Vining, ¢00 West Main Street, spoke in opposition to the zone change. He expressed concerns over the manner in which staff processed the project, and stated the area should remain R-1. John )<nilans, read into the record Section 5, General Development Standards, of the Specific Plan pertaining to development of multi- ple lots. John Sauers, 515 South Pacific, presented photos to Council of Mr. Ainslte's property, and spoke in opposition to rezoning to PC Resi- denti al. Lyn Van Dyken, 235 South "A" Street, emphasized the uniqueness oi' the Old To~n Tustin area. She spoke in favor of retaining the zon- ing as is. George Broomell, ¢40 Pacific Street, was opposed to the project. Welter Raymond, Acadomic Specialties, Sixth Street, spoke in favor of the project. He felt it would enhance the Sixth Street commer- cial area. Charles Anderson, 255 West Sixth Street, spoke in opposition to the project. He reported an unpleasant visit by Dr. Ernest Atnslte, during which he felt he was being intimidated to approve the proj- ect. Ernest Ainslte, 1052-A Walnut Street, rebutted Mr. Anderson's com- ments. He spoke in favor of the project. John Cargile, ~wner of property at 355 West Sixth Street, spoke in favor of the project on behalf of his parents who reside at 355 West Sixth Street, and his great-aunt Ruth, who resides at 365'West Sixth Street. Ed Gage, 4435 West Main Street, spoke in opposition to the project. Brsd Thomas, real estate' appraiser, spoke st the request of Trudy SauerS. Nr. Thomas stated his oolnton that the change in density would adversely effect adjacent properties. Mark Ainslie, applicant, responded to co,~,ents by speakers opposed to the project and explained why the project was designed as pre- s~edo Elleen Vining, 400 West Main Street, spoke in opposition to the zone change. She stated that the neighbors would welcome six homes instead of the eight proposed. She introduced Marthe Linker, 435 West Sixth Street, and Jim Hawthorne, 445 West Sixth Street, as area residents opposed to the project. Ar'chur Ntsson, 174gl Irvtne Boulevard, delineated the pros and cons of project approval. He stated that he knows of only two property owners within the area who wauld be directly affected by this zone change who are not in favor of same. There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed at 9:2! p.m. Mayor Saltarellt recessed the ~lng at g:21 p.m. at g:33 p.m. with all ~ers preseht. The meeting was reconvened Nayor P~o Tem Hoeaterey stated thet the p~Oposal is better than what iS there. However, it nibbles away at the uniqueness of the downCmm arem, which he would llke to sea preserYed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page ¢, 10-6-86 It ms maved by Hoesterey, seconded b~,l,iKelly, ti3 deny Zone Change 86-1. Councilman Edgar stated his opposition to the PC zone element of the project. He then engaged in discussion with area residents Bob Edgell and John Knilans on the matter. Mr. Edgell responded that it was his best guess that residents had greater fear of the unknown in the PC zone designation than in six vs. eight residen- tial units. Mr. Knilan stated that the primary interest of the group is to retain the uniqueness of the area, and the quality and character of the projec~ is inconsistent with same. Mayor Saltarelli felt the project was signiflcantly damaged by including all nine properties in the zone change proposal. He therefore suggested Council withdraw the overlay PC zone ?rom the 115 ft. lot frontage on all nine lots, and then deal with the pro- posal itself. Council discussion followed on the technicalities of such action and Councilman Edgar's attenq)t to move same. The City Attorney stated that such a motion would simply not adopt the Planning Commission/staff recommendation before Council at this time. If Councilman Hoesterey*s motion is adopted, Council is still not precluded from taking further actions of rezoning or whatever Council wishes to do at this point.- The Acting Senior Planner responded to Councilwoman Kennedy that if Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey's motion is acted upon, the Zone Change would be disapproved, the Specific Plan would have to be denied, which in turn would require action of denial of Planning Commission approval of Use Permit 86-26. After further Council discussion, the City Attorney noted that since Mayor Pro Tmo Hoesterey's motion was to deny the proposed zone change, that does not preclude a motion for a different or more rest"rtotive zone change ~han ~at was recommended. Mr. Atnslte provided Councilwoman Kennedy with his calculations and plot maps indicating that an area south of First, west of Myrtle, north of Sixth, and west of "B' Street contain a total of 45 lots which are deficient from the standard of the R-1 district, i.e.. 7200 square feet. The Director of Public Works responded to Councilwoman-Kennedy that CalTrans' latest plans for I-S freeway widening indicate they will not widen on the northerly side of the freeway in the vicinity betwee~ "B' Street and the west cul-de-sac end of Sixth Street. Widening is predominantly on the freeway's south side, shifting to the north side Just beyond and to the east of "B" Street. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, Mr. Ainslie described the two different floor plans. He indicated a willingness to modify the home fronts to make each unit unique. Mr. Atnslte responded that trash trucks could enter the private street for curb-si de pickup and exit onto Sixth Street without doing any backing at all. Fur- t~er, the project is in complete compliance with the setback and stdewal.k requirements from Sixth Street. The m~.to~ car~ed 5-0. Consequently, the following was NOT ADOPTED: ORDINANCE NO. 976 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON SIXTH STREET BETWEEN "B" STREET AND PACIFIC STREET AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1 TO PLANNED COMHUNITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (P.C. RES.) F VZ. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 10-6-86 ORDINANCE NO. 977 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 REGULATING DEVELOPMENT UPON CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON SIXTH STREET BETWEEN "$" STREET AND PACIFIC STREET AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO It ms moved by 5attarelltt seconded b), Kmonedy, to deny Use Permit 86-26. Carried 5-0. Consequently, the following was NOT ADOPTED: RESOLUTION NO. 86-121 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF llJSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT 86-26 AUTHORIZING OEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT {8) SINGLE FAMILY OWELLINGS IN CONFORMANCE WITH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 (405, 4[5, 425 SIXTH STREET) Mayor Saltarellt congratulated Mr. Ainslie on being so responsive to people's concerns and meeting with adjoining property owners. He hoped that Mr. Atnslle would come back with a proposal to include six houses of good quality, higher price, that will still be economical to develop under existing zoning. The Planning Con- sultant stated that Mr, Ainslie would only need to submit a tract map to develop six units. Councilwoman Kennedy requested clarification on the interpretation of whether the private street should be counted in the square foot- age for R-1 lot configurations. Following Council and staff dis- cussion, the Mayor stated that it is very clear that the policy has never been to allow anyone to come into City Hall and pull permits and include in the lot size the street, public or private. He has never seen that happen before. Therefore, on the basis of v/nat Council has done this evening, Mr. Ainslie has the approval to build six units on his property in some form or fashion. If he wishes to do anything else other than that, he will have to go through the process of obtaining approvals other tha~ Mat a stan- dard R-! develo~mont would be. l. CI~ OF llISTZN - ALCOHOL & ~ ABUSE PQI. ICY Rudy Mrna. Prest'dent of Tusttn Police Officers Association. assured Counctl that they are also concerned with the netional problem of drug abuse and want to do their part to eradicate same. He stated that over the last month re~resestatives from both City enployee groups met with management on an alcohol and drug abuse policy. After all was said and done, he felt the policy was written in a way in which both sides walked away with a feeling of fairness to all. He publicly c~ended the Police Chief and the Oirector of Camunity and Administrative Services for their active role to insure fairness. He requested the: the City and c~untty be very cautious and cog- nizant of the issue of rights, as we enter this form of drug deter- reoce, and the posstble infringement of those rights, whether they be civil, state or constitutional. Until the judicial system reaches decisions on issues which establish guidelines necessary to proceed, he asked that we move cautiously. Officer Mrna stressed that mployees are on the same side as Council and want to do their part to rid the nation of this e~er-apparent problem. 7g CITIZEN INQUIRY REGNtOING R~.SIOENTI.q. TRA.~ 8III Fred Helltng, [4582 Emer,ywood Road, questioned his recent tax bill wfltch tn¢ludes $64.20 for refuse disposal for the entire fiscal year. He stated he already paid for September and October of this fiscal year and requested a refund in the amount of $10.70. Following tnl~rt lmm the Finance Director. the Mayor indicated the matter would be on the October 22 agenda. 102 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 10-6-86 VII. CONSENT KJU.ENOAR ', Item No. 4 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Edgar. It was moved by Hoesterey) seconded by Edgar, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried §-0~ 1. APM~OVAL OF MI~S - SEPTEMBER 1S, 1986, REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER L~3, i986, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING Z. APPROYN. OF DEMANO$ IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,460,505.03 RATIFICATION OF PAYROU. IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,197.65 50 3. COOPERATIVE ~g~E~NT - SAN DIEGO CREEK SEOIMENT MONITORING PRO- Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject amended agreement; and authorized a supplemental budget appropriation of $4,~00 for fiscal year 1986-87 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engtneeri. ng Division. 45 86-58 5. RE~LfTIOM NO. 86.1~- A RESOLUTION OF THE cITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 'TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (!.985-86 SIDEWALK AND CURB REPAIR PROGRAM) [Dudley Masonry, Inc.] Adopted Resolution No. 86-122; and assuming no claims or stop payment notices are filed, authorized payment of final 10% retention amount 30 days after recordation of Notice of Comple- tion as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Dirt sion. 94 6. RE,1ECTI'OII OF CLAI# NO. 86.11; CLAINANT: LAURA KREIFELS, slF. VE 8ARISH & MELAIIIE GRAVES; DATE OF LOSS: 12/29/85; DATE FILED WITH ClT~: 4/2/86 Rejected subject claim as reco~wended by the City Attorney. 44) 7. RESOLUTION NO. 86.120- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE cITY OF TUSTIN, ACCEPTING WDRKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR COLUMBUS TUSTIN ATHLETIC FIELD LIGi4TING (David-Richards Construction Company) Adopted Resolution No. 86-120 as recon~ended by the Community Services Department. 77 8. RESOI.IrFIOll NO. 86.117- A RESOLUTION C)F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF' NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR COLUMBUS TUSTIN BACKSTOP RENOVATION (Wakefield Associates, Inc.) Adopted Resolution No. 85-117 as reco~ended by the Community Services Oepartment. 77 9. RESOLUTIOR NO. 86.119- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CN. IFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF THE I~STER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO THE PROPOSED RANCHWOOO/ BELLEWICK ANNEXATION NO. 138' Adopted Resolution No. 86-119 as recommended by the Community Oevel opmoflt Oepartmont. 24 10. MF. IIR~NT NO. I TO ~ P/U:IFIC nst t AGREDIENT Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject agree- merit as recoa~mended by the Community Oevelopment Department. ¢5; 86-59 11. ~UTIOll NO. 86.11~ ' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE cITY OF ~STIN, CN. IFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR A GILD CARE CEN~e~ LICENSE IN ACCORDANCE wITH HEALTH ANO SAFETY COOE SEC- TIONS 1540 AND 1541 ANO OTHER APPLICABLE L.~WS Adopted Resolution No. 86-112; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to ~ecute the agreement to permit application for a state child care license as recm~ended by the Community Ser- vices Oepartment. 41 F CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 10-6-86 RE.~OI.UI'ION NO. 8~-123 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE JOINT EFFORTS OF THE TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL OISTRICT AND THE TUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE ORUG ANO ~COHOL ABUSE PREVENTION A HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR THE 1986-87 SCHOOL YEAR AND BEYOND Adopted Resolution No. 86-123; and directed staff to forward a copy of same to the Attorney General's Crime Prevention Center as recommended by the Poltce Department. 8~ C~sen'( ~l~r Item No. ¢ - It was moved by Edgar) seconded by Salta- relli, to approve the following: 4. NgRTII-SOUTH ROAD (&AHBOREE NOAI)) ENVIRONI~AL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) Approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute two agr~nts pertaining to preparation of subject EIR between Irvlne Boulevard and Chapman Avenue as follows: 1} Agreement between The Irvine Coat, any and City of Tusttn designating the City as the a~mtntstrator of the Consultant Services Agreement and providing retn~)ursement ?or same; and 2) Consultant Ser- vices Agreement between L.S.A. and City of Tustin for prepara- tion of EIR as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engi- neering Olvision. The Otrector of Public Works responded to Councilman Edgar that the consultant (L.5.A.) has acknowledged that certification of the EIR can be coagulated in Mmrch, 1987, even though there has been a three-month lag in the original date for authorization to proceed. The motion carried 5-0. ¢5 86-60 86-61 rill. OI~INM~F_i FOR INI'ROOOCTION - None. IX. OROIIIA/IC~ ~ ADOI~I'ION - None. OLD ~I~$5 Following considerntton of subject inter-cam dated Septen~er 30, 1986, prepared by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division, it was moved by Saltarelli~ seconded by Kelly, that the landscape median islands along Main Street not be installed. Motion carried I' RN/FOOTHZU. m.,msmm'ATm, c z ,s AGENCY It was moved by Salterellf~ seconded by Edgar,.to receive and file subjec= item dmtecl October 1, ~g86, prepared by the Public Works Oepartment/Engineering Oivision. Councilwoman Kennedy requested a copy of the JPA minutes since Tusttn bec~ a member, and a list of Cammittee assignments. Council discussion followed re¢Jardtng the status of Irvine's request to rejoin the JPA. All fees have been collected and impounded until the courts reach a decision on the matter. The relevant issue is if they are allowed to Join the JPA with some type of pre-conditioned veto power over alignments. The expecta- tim is that no &PA membe~ would accept that. The Mayor and the City Mmneger ~ve e~tebltshed a procedure of informing Council of Irvine's positiom on these item by meeting with Irvine Mayor Agrsn p~tor to emch &PA meeting. At tMs point, Mayor Agran indi- cated that ell 'bets were off," and they would restudy all pnten- tim1 mlig~s end wor~ through the iRA to t~ to came up with $olu~iom acceptable to all members. The motion ca~ed 5-0. 100 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 10-6-86 XI. NB BUSINESS MITCHELL AVENUE - HEATHERFI~/n O~IVE TRAFFIC CONCERNS It was moved by Hoesterey) seconded by Edgar, to direct staff to send a letter questionnaire to all potentially affected residents along Heatherfield Drive to determine how many residents would be in favor of the permit parking program as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in the inter-tom dated Septe~foer 17, 1986. Carried 5-0. 75 AUTNURIZATXON TO UPGRADE CURRENT HP3OGO THROUGi4 LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT As recommended in the inter-can dated September 29, 1986, prepared by the Finance Director, it was moved by Hoesterey) seconded by , to authorize the Finance Director to enter into a lease pur- agreement with Hewlett-Packard to upgrade the existing Series 33 taking advantage of Hewlett-Packard'$ trade-in upgrade program. The motion carried 5-0. 50 ~,IVER (~ LIGklT FEES FOR YOUTH SI~RTS PRORRA~IS Joe Laqgley, 14782 Hillsboro Place, spoke in opposition to the City's present policy of charging organized youth sports groups a fee for use and lighting of ball diamonds and multipurpose fields. He felt it is unjust that lighted tennis and handball courts are provided at no expense to individuals. Mr. Langley suggested that guidelines be established wherein all fees should be waived to groups of children 18 years and younger, with no registration fees, with no income into that group, and it is strictly voluntary for their benefit. If there are registration fees and expenses for participation, the~ lighting fees would be justifiable. However, he thought user fees should be waived for youth groups. The Recreation Superintendent and Director of Community Services responded to Council questions. Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey agreed that fees shoul.d be waived for com- munity youth sports groups that do not charge participation fees. The Director of Con~unity and Administrative Services clarified that use of Columbus-Tustin fields cannot be limited to Tustin residents because County and State grant funds were allocated for improvements. Mayor Saltarellt favored waiving fees on an age basis if the groups consist of 50% or more Tustin aree residents. Groups with 50% or more moat)ers outside of the Tustin area would have to pay fees. There was major Council consensus (4/5) to direct staff to moet with Mr. Langley and other interested parties on the matter, taking into consideration Council direction, and come back with a recom- mendation at the October 22' meeting to provide fee exemptions for youth sports group activities. 41 SEVERTEF. RT~ STRELrT BETIJEEII COSTA ~ FREEYM TI) PROSPECT AVENUE - RESGLUTXOR NO. 86-124 As reco~nded in the inter-cam dated September 29, 1986, prepared by the Director of Public Works/Engineering Division, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to 1) Adopt the following: RF. SOLUTIOII NO. 86-124- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF llJSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCREASE THE ALLOCATION FROM THE ARTERIAL HIGNWAY FINANCING PROGRAM FOR TI4E DEVELOP)tENT OF SEVENTEENTH STREET BEl~/EEN THE COSTA MESA FREEWAY AgO PROSPECT AVENUE (NORTH) Xll. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 10-6-86 2) Approve AHFP Project Administration Agreement No. 1173 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same subject to City Attorney's final review; and 3) Authorize~ a supplemental budget appropriation for Fiscal Year 1986-87 in the amount of $87,700. Motion carried 5-0. S4 45; 86-62 $. PURCHASE OF WA~Ex ll~CX It was moved by Hoesterey) seconded by Saltarelli, to reappropriate $12,500 from the 1985-86 fiscal budget into the 1986-87 fiscal budget; aed authorize the purchase of a used 1981 water truck from Hertz Rental in the amount of $17,500 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in the inter-eom dated October 1, 1986. The motion carried $-0. 87 REPORTS PLANNING CI)MMI$$IOM ACI'IOM~ There was Council/staff discussion regarding several items. Councilwoman Kennedy registered concern regarding the architecture of the Tustin Pavilion Cafe in the French Quarter center on 17th Street. It was moved by Edgar~ seconded by Saltarelli, to ratify the entire Planning ¢oenission Action Agenda of September 22, 1986. Carried 5-0. ~ 2. llLfTIN RNC( ~ (,)AIeORE£) I~lGiff OF It was moved by Edgar~ seconded by Saltarellt, to receive and file subject report dated Septen~)er 17, 1986, prepared by the Public Works Oepartment/Engineering Division. Motion carried 5-0. gs 3. ClTIZ~II CONCERII - TREE TRII~4ING 011 PARKER ORIYE It was moved by Kennedy~ seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report dated September 17, 1986. prepared by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. The motion carried 5°0. 86.1 4. NEYPQRT AVENUE I~/)XNI ISLNI0 LANOS~APIXG It was moved by Edgar, seconded b~ Kennedy, to receive and file subject report dated September 'ZZ~ 1986, prepared by the Public Works 0apartment/Engineering Division. Carried 5-0. 9~ It was moved by Edgar~ seconded by Saltaretli, to direct staff to respond to the citizen making the inquiry; and to receive and file subject report dated September 28, 1986, prepared by the Community and Administrative Services Department. Motion carried-5-0. 77 CITIZEN IN~LqY - ~LOCATIOM OF A~qV MTIOMAL GUNU) ff~l. ICO~Em:.~ TO l'U~l# M~qlN~CO~RS AIR STATIOM As recommended in the inter-cam dated October 6, 1986, prepared by the City Manager, it was moved by Kannedyt seconded by Edgar, to direct staff to respond to the citizen making the inqutry: and receive and file subject report. The motion carried S-0. 101 The City Manager requested a Closed Session to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Sec~ton 5~g57, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10, 10-6-86 2. SEN[UR CITIZEN tiNTER Councilman Edgar was informed that plans for the Senior Center were . returned to the architect from plan check for corrections. 41 3. gOISE LEV~ IN TUSTIN 4e Councilman Edgar indicated that the FAA has reported that monitored noise in Tustin is 50 dB CNEL, which is 15 dB less than the State standard. Therefore, he felt any discussion regarding aircraft noise is irrelevant since there is no numerical standard against which to c~plain. 101 OFFICIN. AOJOIIUOIEIfrs - FORNER O)UNCI~ WILLI~J~ H. ~RAY & FORFIER CITY ELECTRICAL BUIInI~ INSPIi~OR ~US ll(OMPSON Council concurred to adjourn the evening's meeting in memory of William H. Gray (who served on the Tustin City Council from February 9, 1949, to November 10, 1952) and Gus Thompson, who served as the City's electrical inspector for many years. 84 5. LEFT-TURN PIiASE SIGNAL AT NEWPORT & SYCANORE AVENUES Councilwoman Kennedy thanked the Director of,Public Works for the new left-turn phase signal at subject intersection. 94 6. PACIFIC ~_L ENPLOYEE WORI( SCHEDULE Councilwoman Kennedy requested that staff investigate whether Pacific Bell has completed a plan for staggered employee work hours so that traffic off Red Hill is not adversely impacted. 81 7. IU~'IMO~O/B~IC~ A/iNE~TION gO. 138 The City Manager responded to Mayor Saltarelli that Council this evening adopted Resolution No. 86-118 which initiates proceedings for subject annexation. 2¢ Mayor Saltarelli announced that LAFCO approved without opposition the other two island annexations off of Red Hill Avenue. 8. ~USTIN TEENS The Oirector of Conm~Jnity and Administrative Services responded to Mayor Saltarelli that one of staff's goals this year is the assess- ment of teen programming n~eds and establishment of a teenage pro- gram. Council concurred. 41 9. CITY (IF TUSTIN ~LCQHOI. & ORU6 ABUSE POt. ICY It was moved' by Saltaretlt~ seconded by Hoesterey. to approve the City of Tustin Alcohol and Drug Abuse Policy. The motion carried 5-._..~0. 7g 10. IMJ(~ATi]tY ~RUG I'ESTIN~ PRO6R~ 11. Mayor Saltarellt reported that Senator Seymour is conducting hear- ings Off Senate Bill 2175. If enacted into law, SB 2175 would allow an a~loyer to conduct testing of ~loyees, including random, on- the-spot, for company-wide testing in the following circumstances: Once in every 12-month period regardless of om~loyee's Job classi- fication; and up to three times in any 12-month period in the case Of em~loyem whose Jobs involve the operation of vehicles in public transit, the ~eratton of heavy construction, handling of hazardous substances, or any Job in which l~airment due to alcohol or con- trolled substance would present a safety hazard to employees or · embe~s of the public. 79 ~S IN ~ AVIATION RE6ULATIONS - JOHN ~YNE AIRP(~tT Mayor Pro Tm Hoester~ referenced subject inter-rom dated Segtomber 2~, 1986, Nbtch he authored. F 12. 13. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11. 10-6-86 As recommended in subject report, it was moved by Edgar~ seconded ~, that a letter be sent to the FAA expressing views of t~-T-~-l~-City CounCil that: 1) The ~lot licensing requirement of ten hours of solo flight be increased to at least 20 hours. With the unusually high traf- fic in the Orange County area, individuals learning how to fly have the extra burden of constant surveillance. 2) Due to the extensive mixture of con~nercial, general aviation and military aircraft within the airspace of Orange County. particularly over the ~ustin area. traffic patterns of all air- craft mos% be better regulated and monitored. Operational and equipment changes required to enhance air safety should be identified and implemented. For example, transponders and com- munications radios should be mandatory equipment on all general aviation aircraft; and 3) As co~m~ercial aviation increases at John Wayne Airport, there should be consideration given to reducing the number of general aviation tie-downs to minimize an overall increase in trans- actions, thereby minimizing the possibility of mid-air colli- $ionso The motion carried S-O. 101 In response to Mayor Pro Tam Hoesterey's concerns regarding a Coun- cil policy direction s~ould Proposition 61 gain voter approval, staff was requested to obtain a copy of the Sanitation District's extensive report on the matter for Council review. 79 ~RCXAL AIRCRAI~' NOISE - ~ WAlffiE AIRI~)RT Councilman ~e{ly expressed support of Council action regarding Other Business Item No. 11. However, he is still very concerned with cmr¢ia) aircraft noise. He believes the sound monitors were not moved because it w~uld prove the planes are in violation. He reported that there will be individual citizen-sponsored actions against intrusive noise pollution from commercial aircraft. Mayor Saltarelli reminded Councilman Kelly that he coulq act as a private individual, but to specify that his actions do not repre- Sent the position of the City Council. 101 RFr~SS - REDEV~OIW~WT; CLOSED SESSIOW - RECOWVE/IED X¥. At 8:28 p.m., it wes ~oveq by Edgar~ seconded by Saltarelli, to recess to the Redevelopment Agency; and thence to a Closed Session pursuant to Government, Code Section 54957. Carried 5-0. The meeting was reconvened at )1:12 p.m. with all members present. ~I'IO~S' F~ON CI.OS~D ~ I~IVE ~TI~ It was ~v~ by Edgar~ s~ond~ by Hoesterey, to appropriate $19,250 for ~nag~t incentive ~pensatlon and authorize the City Manager to distribute the funds pursuant to the Perfo~ance R~gnttion Plan. Carrt~ 5-0, 79 It wes ~v~ by Ed~ar~ s~ond~ by Hoestere~, to authorize the City ~nager ~ ~ ~pensat~ for ~41,5 boots"of acc~lat~ General Leave, Carri~ 5-0. 79 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12, 10-6-86 XVI. ~OdOUR~NENT At 11:13 p.m. the' meeting was adjourned to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Wednesday, October 22, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. by unanimous informal con- sent. 3m MINUTES OF A REGULAR ~'TING OF ll4E REDEVELOPI~EIf~ AGENCY OF ll4E CITY OF llJSTIg, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 6, 1986 CJ~LL TO ~RDER The meeting was called to order at 11:11 p.m. by Chairman Saltarelli in the City Council Chan~oers, 300 Centennial Way, Tusttn, California. Agency Men~oers Present: Agency Members Absent: Ot~ers Present: Donald J. Saltarelli, Chairman Ronald B. Hoesterey, Chairman Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar Jo~n Kelly Ursula E. Kennedy None William A. Huston, Exec. Director/City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary Robert S. Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent Rob Balen, Planning Consultant Jeff Davis, Acting Senior Planner Janet Hester, Administrative Secretary Approximately 25 in the audience APPROVAL OF MXNUTES - sEPTEmBER 15, 1986, REGULAR )~ETING It was moved by Kennedy~ seconded by Edgar, to approve Minutes of the Se~te~oer 15, 1986, Regular Meeting. Motion carried 5-0. OTI4ER None. It was moved by Edgar) seconded by Hoesterey, to adjourn at 11:12 p.m. to the next Adjourned Regular Meeting on Wednesday October 22, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 5-0, ' '2' - · J~A~IRMAN