Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSENT CALENDAR 10-21-85Greinke CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 10-21-85 I would move that we join the JPA and work towards resolving those problems ~ the 3-5% of our citizens that are gonna be stuck with some of these fees that perhaps they shouldn't be. That's a motion. Hoesterey Huston Greinke Huston Edgar Hoesterey Greinke Saltarelli Greinke Edgar Greinke Edgar Greinke Saltarelli I'll second it. Mr. Mayor, if I might, there are actually four actions you would take, they're on page 2 of the memorandum. You might want to follow that. I'm sorry, Bill, I didn't catch that. If you look on page 2 of Bob's memo, there are four separate actions you would take. You might want to follow the order of that. I'll move Resolution 85-102. Second. Okay. The motion was to adopt Resolution 85-1027 85-102, which is basica~iy'~the JPA program. Adopts the Negative Declaration of the proposed area of benefit. Okay. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor say aye (all respond aye). Anyone opposed? (No response). Okay. I'll move Ordinance 948. I'll move second reading by title only. Discussion? Yes, Don. Apparently I'm going down in flames on this one, but - in smoke and flames. The .~Would the Council consider - I'd like to make an amendment that the uh, amend the motion such that our participation in the program be contingent upon the City of Santa Ana and City of Costa Mesa joining the program and that our ordinance does not take effect until theirs does. Greinke Ledendecker Greinke Saltarelli Grei nke Saltarelli Greinke Saltarelli Mr. Ledendecker, that's a motion, but we'll hold it until we hear from you Bob. If I just make one clarification. The City of Costa Mesa in not within the Foothill Eastern Area of Benefit in that JPA. They're in a different JPA of which we are not a member. So whether we want to go over the line and relate that to an area that we would not be a member, I assume that you could, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Thanks, I'd forgotten about that. of the . . They're part of the San Joacquin and not part Yeah, I know. But if we put toll gates over o~ the Foothill Eastern Corridor and we turned away every car that was going to Costa Mesa, they'd be very disappointed. I like your idea of the drawbridge and alligators. I think that would probably work better. Don, do you want to make your motion again, then? Will did I get a second to that or not? I guess not. Well, would you do it again, and I'll second it for discussion purposes. I really think that, you know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And that if they don't participate and Santa Ana doesn't participate, then we're putting our small businesses at a competitive disadvantage. To the small businesses in their communities, I don't see it as being right. Greinke Saltarelli Hoesterey Saltarelli Hoesterey Edgar Hoesterey Huston Greinke Huston Greinke Edgar Kennedy Gre~nke Saltarelli Hoesterey Saltarelli Greinke Edgar Greinke Well, the problem I have with Costa Mesa is once again we're talking about a different animal here. We're talking about San Joacquin Corridor and not the two that we're in. The position of Santa Ana has always been one that I wonder where they're coming from half the time and whether they're in sync with the rest of the world. Hey, they're building five hotels and motel complexes within 300 yards of our City limits. For God's sake they're gonna be generating a whole lot of traffic and they're telling us that they don't want to put pony up the bucks like we are. You know, I don't see any sympathy for that with that point of view. I have no problem including Santa Ana, but Costa Mesa. All right, I'll amend my motion. I'll move that our participation be contingent upon the City of Santa Ana joining the JPA. I'll second that. Well the question that I, I'm kind of apprehensive about Santa Ana because over the time period that I have heard them discuss different issues, I seriously ques- tion ~ether or not that is a reasonable possibility. I suspect that Santa Ana has their own agenda and that it may not be related to the practicality of them joining in the immediate future. I don't know what leverage we have on Santa Ana by making the resolution in this form. My only concern is, Dick, as I look around the County, is that everybody's build- ing. We could build out East Tustin complete and the amount of impact we're gonna have on the traffic is miniscule compared to the 50 million square feet they're gonna end up with Irvine and the IBC and all of the high rise down there, Santa Ana's doing the same thing. We end up really grabbing the tab for that whole thing. And I think that, and I agree. In the beginning when Don brought up that we're getting screwed on this assessment, he's right. I still think we have to participate in the JPA. That isn't the question. But the question is that we ought to drag in as many people as we can with it so that as much goes into the program as possible. Mr. Mayor, one point you might want to consider just from a procedural stand- point. If you put a condition like that in the ordinance, and Santa Ana did not join or drug their feet for quite a period of time we're going to amend it, we may have to readvertise to amend the ordinance which means we send out the 10,000 notices again. So it's something you might want to keep in mind. Which will basically put a stop because of the time element and they will have formed by January. Well that's time and expense. You might want to, well, I don't know what to sug- gest. I was going to say adopt a separate motion without amending the ordinance. The problem is though, the ordinance would go into effect in 30 days. So if you do amend the ordinance, that's a possibility. Okay, we have a motion to join the JPA. Well, I think the motion is to amend and then we vote on the motion, and then we vote on the ordinance. It's to amend the motion that we don't, . . . Join unless, if Santa Ana joins. Okay, all those in favor of that motion say aye (Saltarelli, Hoesterey). Opposed? (Edgar, Greinke, Kennedy). It's 3-2. It's not been a good night. There you went again voting wrong. You can't smoke in here after 30 days. Okay, we're up to adoption of Resolution No... Now the motion, we moved to have first reading by title. Second reading. Edgar Greinke Wynn Edgar Greinke Wynn Saltarelli Greinke Wynn Grei n ke Saltarelli Grei nke Saltarelli Wynn Grei nke Edgar Saltarelli Greinke Rourke Saltarelli Greinke Saltarelli Greinke Lamm Hoesterey Saltarelli Hoesterey Second reading by title. Okay, all those opposed say aye. Anyway, no one's opposed to that. Mary why don't you read that please. ORDINANCE NO. 948 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADDING SECTION 2800 TO THE CITY CODE, ADOPTING A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE & BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM I will move that we pass and adopt 948. I'll second that. All those in favor say aye. Oh, it is a roll call. All votes are in. It looks like all votes are yes. No, I've got a red button there. What's the vote Mary? All the green ones that are for yes are lit. The red isn't lit. Don, are you voting no? I'm voting no. My button is lit. Can you show that we're voting 4-1. Is that correct? That's correct. 4-17 Okay. With the only one being Mr. Saltarelli. I'll move that we adopt Resolutin 85-103. Point of order. Can I ask a legal question here? Okay, now we've approved the second reading of the ordinance and we've adopted a negative declaration. If we don't approve the Joint Powers Agreement that creates that, what position does that put us in for awhile? Could you turn your mike on, Jim, please? I don't think anything's really effective unless all four steps are taken. Well, I just want to make one last argument, okay, it's "fait d'complet," we're joining. The question is, is when. I still see some reasons why we may not want to have this be effective within the 30 day time period. What are those reasons? Well, one of those reasons is it costs the Redevelopment Agency $110,000 to start. Unless various projects under way right now have building permits pulled prior to the time that the effective date of the ordinance comes in. That's $110,000 that could be 'used towards the Senior Citizens Center. Mr. Lamm, can you address that? Mr. Mayor, what Councilman Saltarelli is addressing is the fact that, in parti- cular, Carver Development across the street from City Hall, if they don't obtain their building permits within 30 days of your second reading, they would then be obligated to pay the fee, which in turn we have agreed previously to reimburse them for. Is there any possibility of putting those fees in escrow? Sure, it's our money, you can put it anywhere you want. No, I guess what I'm saying is, is there any way to avoid it by being creative through escrows? Saltarelli Greinke Saltarelli Greinke Rourke Saltarelli Rourke Saltarelli Greinke Hoesterey Saltarelli Hoesterey Edgar Rourke Edgar Saltarelli G rein ke Kennedy Saltarelli Kennedy Edgar Hoesterey Saltarelli Greinke Greinke Hoesterey Well the point is, is that the first meeting of the JPA doesn't occur until January sometime, the middle of January. And, therefore, it would seem to me that if our ordinance was in effect on December 31st or January 1st, that's fine. We're legal, valid upstanding members of the JPA. And that should be within plenty of time as far as I can see it. It might potentially save, make a contri- bution to our Senior Citizens of $110,000. If that's a motion, Don, restate it, and I'll second it because I agree with you 100%. Well, I guess my question is then - can we delay the effective date of this by going ahead and adopting it now, or does it automatically become effective in 30 days? Jim, can we delay that? Instead of making this ordinance 30 days from when we adopt it, can we go to 60 without readvertising? Well, you can provide it by changing the, or adding to the ordinance that it doesn't become effective for "x" days. Like on Section 2 the typical language is that it becomes in full force and effect 30 days after, from its adoption. Why don't we just make it 60 days. 60 days or any other time you want. Why not just That's fine. Why don't we 5 days. make it 60 days? Is the rest of the Council receptive to that? It shows our intent. just make it effective as of December 31st? That gives us 63, 4, or That's fine. Just make it effective December 31st. I'll make the motion... Now what is the legal thing, having passed the ordi- nance. Can we make an emergency amendment to it right now? Just amend it now. All right. I'll make the motion for an emergency amendment, if you want to call it that, changing the ordinance to become effective in 60 rather than 30 days. Second. Okay, is there anyone opposed to that? Under discussion. I'll take the check for $110,000 for the Senior Center. Better you than the Corridor Fee Program. Under discussion. I don't know, you know, it's something our legal staff hasn't looked at. What if we make ourselves . . . No, basically I don't have, I don't have any misgivings in putting it 60 days, because they're not gonna form the JPA until after the first, and there are some legal hurdles that the other cities have in terms of some readvertising. So we've set our intent very clearly. We could make the ordinance effective the day they create the JPA, and that way if they stretch it out to March, April, or May, because of legal hassles, then . . Well, I think the JPA is effective already. It's started. Bill, did you have something pertinent to this? Inaudible. Thanks for that input. I'll call for the question. Greinke Edgar Hoesterey Greinke Edgar Hoesterey Edgar Kennedy Hoesterey Greinke Okay. All those in favor say aye. response.) Okay. I'll move Resolution 85-103. Second. Okay. All those in favor say aye. response.) It's 5-0. Okay, then, I'll move No. 5 creating the JPA. That's No. 4. No. 4. Oh, good. Second. (All respond aye.) (All respond aye.) Anyone opposed? (No Anyone opposed? (No Any additional discussion on that? Okay all those in favor say aye. Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy). vote, Mary. (Edgar, Is anyone opposed? (Saltarelli) That's a 4-1