Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 08-16-82~ %~STIN CIT~ Cu~NCI~ COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way Angus~ 2, 1982 I. ~ TO u~ER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 3=37 p.m. II o R~-~- Council~ersons Present= Cou~cilper sons Absent= Others Present= Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy,. Saltarelli None James G. Ro~rke, City Attorney William A. Huston, City Manager Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk Mike Brot-~_rkle, Coa~. Dev. Director Roy Gonzalee, Personnel Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Royleen White, C~un~ty Services Director Dale Wick, Assistant City Engineer Norm Hower, Traffic Engineer Monda Buckley, Administrative Assistant Approx/mately 10 in ~he audience III. P~C C~.:~5 James Joel Indes, 1942 Hampshire Road, candidate in the Tustin Uni- fied School District Board of Education election on August 24, requested verification of a statement of Council endorsement for an opponent which appeared in a Tustin neighborhood newsletter.' Mr. Indes was informed that the present City Council did not make such an endorsement, but that same was quoted from a resolution of com- mendation presented to the candidate in 1975. The City Attorney stated that resolutions of the Council are public record and can be quoted by anyone in whole or part, and Council does not have author- ity to prevent anyone fro~ doing so. In response to Mr. Indes' request for Council reaction to the incident, Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy indicated she was uncomfortable with the situation, and other mem- bers had no co~nt. Mr. Indes thanked Council and stated that he felt the quote is misleading. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoestere¥, to approve the entire Consent CalenR_a~. Carried 5-0. 1. APPgUW~I'- (~' !~3~3'~S- July 19, 1982. 2. APPROVAL ~ P~S in the amount of $1,437,019.93. RA~I~CAT~ ~ pAX~.n in the amount of $98,412.59. 5O ~(~TI~ NO. 82-62 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of T~stin, APPROVING REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11582 Adopt Resolution No. 82-62 as recommended by the Community Development Department. 99 4e ~$I~ ~ ~'r~vs ~ACT ~ NO. 11476 Grant subject extension to May 18, 1983, as recommended by the Planning Agency. 99 ~S~OTI~ NO. 82-63 - Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, PERTAINING TO THE DISABILITY RETIRE- M~T OF KRIS MOP.RISON (SECTIC~ 21025, GOVERNMENT C0OE) Adopt Resolution No. 82-63. 79 ~DINANCE NO. 875 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING ~E TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO THE ~EGULATI~ OF SECU~TY BUSINESSES In accordance with staff's request, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to continue Ordinance No. 875 to Auqust 16, 1982. Carried 5-0. ~2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 8-2-82 ~INANCE NO. 872 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMenDING ~{E TUSTIN CITY COOE R~.&TIVE TO CC~VERSI~ OF ~3LTIPLE D~n~.T.ING UNITS TO C~DOMINIUMS It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 872 have second reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following the reading by title of Ordinance No. 872 by the Deputy City Clerk, it was moved b~ Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 872 be passed and adopted and that $750.00 be set as the minimum relocation amount. Roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli None None 43 VII. 1. ES~a~.T~T ~ ~ING ~I~ & ~INANCE NO. 874 Pursuant to Counotlm~n Hoesterey's suggestion, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Greinke, to schedule a workshop for M~nday, Sept~her 13, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. to discuss the elements of reestablishing a Planning Commission and to consider the following ordinance: O~)INANC~ NO. 874 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE ~JSTIN CITY CODE ~.~TIVE TO THE ESTAbLISHMenT, COMPOSITION, JURISDICTION, DUTIES AND TERMS OF OFFICE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF %'JSTIN ~ne City Attorney indicated he would be present at the workshop in accordance with Council's request. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Sp~n ~E - ~a~ S~E~T/B~XAN AF~;~ & ~INANCE NO. 873 ~he Traffic Engineer presented the staff report and recommenda- tion and explained the method of computing speed limits as required by the California Vehicle Code. Following a question- and-answer period, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Greinke, to set t.he speed l{m!t at 35 miles per hour, certify that although the traffic survey indicates 40 miles per hour, due to condition~ of a mixed residential/business community, prox~m4ty of churches and a school facility, 35 miles per hour is accepted as the 85th percentile speed limit and that same be enforced. As recomended by the City Attorney, the motion by Saltarelli, seconded by Greinke,' was WITHDRAWN, and it was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Greinke, to continue the matter to the August 16, 1982, meeting. Carried 5-0. 100 3. uuK~, ~ & SIDEWALK CI~ST~CT~C~ (Downtown Area) Following Council's review of the draft letter prepared by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to direct staff to mail sa,,= to downtown area residents. Motion carried 5-0. 92 The Community Development Director presented the staff report as contained in the memo dated August 2, 1982, prepared by the Ccan- munity Development Department which addressed concerns expressed by Council at the July 19 meeting. He then introduced Bob Hennessey, Assistant Chief, Orange County Fire Department. Page 3, 8-2-~ Chief Hennessey addressed t. he wood roof issue, reporting that Ass~-hly Bill 3797-Robinson, to be heard by the Senate Local Government Committee, is running into considerable opposition focused on the fact that the issue of banning untreated wood roofs should be a local matter and not statewide. He continued that there are areas in Northern California that don't have a Santa Ana wind condition, and it is so h,,m~d with so much preci- pitation that untreated wood roofs is not a probl~- as in the Tustin area. The draft or&!nance proposes Class C or better roofing for new construction, and for reroofing in excess of 10% it, proposes replacement with a fire retardant roof covering material of Class C or better. Class C roof covering basically provides protection against slight exterior sources of ignition, and is an adequate level of protection for the Tustin area, as well as other Orange County areas. It is felt there is not a significant financial impact associated with the proposed amend- ment. Chief Hennessey pointed out that a Uniform Code can only be amended for three reasons= topography, geography, and cli- mate conditions, and t. he draft or ~d~nance is substantiated legally by cl{mate conditions as experienced in the City of Tustin. A question-and-answer/discussion period followed. It wes ~hen moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to direct staff to set for public hearing the proposed ordinance pertain- ing to roof covering materials. Carried 5-0. 81 On the smoke detector issue, Chief Hennessey reported that the retroactive smoke detector ordinance is a draft a~endment to the Uniform Fire Code which would essentially require smoke detec- tors for multiple-f~m~ly residences (three or more) within six months from the date of ordinance adoption; single-fam41y resi- dential homes would be required to install smoke detectors upon change in ownership. The Orange County Apartment Owners' Asso- ciation has proposed several sections that deal with issues of maintenance and inspection of smoke detectors. The Firs Depart- ment has rec~ended adoption of those sections to several of its contract cities, which basically state that the apartment owners will install smoke detectors, any apartment tenant that stays for more than two weeks is responsible for testing the detectors, and owners are responsible for posting testing instructions. ~urther, the inspecting authority ( Fire Depart- ment) has permission to random sample smoke detectors by check- ing from 3-5% of apartment units, which would be conducted simultaneously during annual inspection of fire ex~inguishers in multiple-unit projects. Chief Hennessey staked that the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Building Code required installation of smoke detectors in new construction; therefore, enforcement eforts will be focused on units constructed prior to 1974 · The Chief outlined the enforcement program and assured Council that escrow ~roceedings would not be delayed when single- family detached property changes ownership and that enforcement efforts in single-f~m41y detached property will be very low profile. Primary enforcement focua will be on multiple-f~m~ly apartment units. Following discussion, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to direct staff to set for public hearing the proposed ordinance pertaining to smoke detectors. Councilman Hoesterey expressed concern over entering private homes to enforce the ordinance; Councilman Saltarelli indicated he could support enforcement in multi-f~m~ly units, but not in single-family dwellings, and expressed preference for hard-wired smoke detectors as opposed to battery-operated detectors. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy expressed support of the program in pro- tecting life and property. Motion carried 5-0. The Community Development Director stated he would request the City Attorney to incorporate recor~mended amendments in the draft ordinance proposed by the O.C. Apartment Owners' Association. CIT~ COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 8-2-82 As recommended in the report dated July 26, 1982, prepared by the City Clerk, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to reconfirm appointments of Phyllis Turtle, Representative, and Bonnie Gillman, Alternate, to the Orange County Health Planning Council Ass-mhly of Delegates. Mo=ion carried 5-0. 78 SE~ECTI~ As requested by Councilman Greinke, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to continue the matter to the evening session. Carried 5-0. 45 107 3. $~w.~ ~ ~a~T GA~ ~ - ~T~ NO. 82--66 ~e City Manager reported ~ha= subject resolution was prepared at the Mayor*s request following a League of Cities meeting held the week before. Mayor Edgar highlighted the circ:~tances surrounding preparation of the resolution as reported by btm at the July 19 meeting. He continued that adoption of the resolu- tion will provide btm with the authority to Join other cities in taking appropriate action. It was then moved by Greinke, sec- onded by Kennedy, to adopt the following resolution: ~~ NO. 82-66- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of T~stin, California, ~EGISTERING ITS OBJECTI~ TO ACTI~S OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE C~JNTY OF ORANGE IMPROPERLY ADOPTING S(~ID WASTE MANAGEM~T GATE FEES AND AUTHOR/ZING AND DIRECTING APPROPRIATE ACTION After a brief discussion period, the motion carried 5-0. Counci!m~n Saltarelli requested that in conjunction with more inspec~ions resulting from the proposed smoke detector ordi- nance, staff explore the advisability of preparing an ordutnance prohibiting civil service smployees from moonlighting while con- ducting on-the-job inspections. 2 · I~SID~TIAL uv~U;::RONDING Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy requested that staff explore methods of controlling residential overcrowding. 3. I-S/SS r~aX ~ & DEBItZS Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy requested that staff contact CalTrans and request that the area along the I-$/55 Freeway interchange be maintained free of trash and debris. X. ~S - It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to recess at 4:46 p.m. to an Executive Session for discussion of a legal matter, and thence to the 7:30 p.m. session. Carried 5-0. CIT~' ~m_,. CIL 7:30 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 7:30 p.m. CITY C0~¢IL MINUTES Page 5, 8-2-82 II. Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: None Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli None James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. H~ston, City Manager Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk Mike Brot-m~rkle, Comm. Dev. Director Roy Gonzates, Personnel Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Royleen White, C~unity Services Director Charles Thayer, Chief of Police Dale Wick, Assistant City Engineer Monda Buckley, Administrative Assistant Approx~u~ately 75 in the audience IV. P~BLIC 1. USE ~ F~)E~nx?. ~ ~ P~NDS The City Manager presented the staff report and recommendation on the proposed use of General Revenue Sharing Funds for Fiscal Year ~982-83 as contained in his me~ dated July 28, 1982. Mayor Edgar opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. The following persons spoke and requested revenue sharing funds as follows: Nick Ogden and Ida Sternberg - Senior Citizen Center $7,700 Janet Schwartz - Senior Housing $3,000 Fran McGowan - The Villa $5,000 Cliff Polston and Valerie Driscoll - Boys Club of Tustin $4,000 Carol Lind - Assessment & Treatment Services Center $10,000 Elmer Holthus - Christian Temporary Housing Facility $5,000 Sarah Col~-n - The LP Repertory C0~pany $2,500 There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hear- ing at 8:00 p.m. Senior Citizen Center - It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to allocate $7,700 in revenue sharing funds for the Senior Citizen Center. Council discussion followed. In response to Council concerns, the City ~-ager emphasized that prior to disbursement of reve- nue sharing funds, a form of an agreement would be prepared between the City and any funded organization outlining in detail how funds will be used. The mo~ion carried 5-0. The Villa - In reference to the request fro~ "The Villa," Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy stated that without staff monitoring of statis- tics on use of the facility by Tustin residents, the request for f~nds could not be considered at this time. Assessment & Treatment Services Center (ATSC) - It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to allocate $5,000 in revenue sharing funds for ATSC. Councilman Saltarelli stated that statistics of Tustin cases referred to the ATSC juvenile diversion program warrant a higher funding level. The motion was modified by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to allocate $8,000 in revenue sharing funds to ATSC. Motion carried 5-0. 29 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 8-2-82 Senior Housing - In response to Mayor Pro Tern F~nnedy, Mrs. Schwartz stated that she believed the $3,000 request for legal fees would be for ~he City's attorney. The City Attorney clari- fied that preparation' of articles of incorporation and bylaws by his office would be a matter of a couple hundred dollars. The City Manager suggested that Council ask the group to prepare a defiruttive program stating their goals. Action was deferred on the request until there are more specifics. Boys Club of Tustin- Following Councilman Greinke's supportive c~ents of Boys Club functions, it was moved by Greinke, sec- onded by Kennedy, to allocate $4,000 in revenue sharing funds to =he Boys Club of Tustin. Motion carried 5-0. 29 The L.P. Repertory Company - Sarah Coleman, Managing Director, clarified her request for theatrical lighting. The Community Services Director responded to Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy ~hat aside fro~ t. he L.P. ~epertory Company, she could not think of any regular-type user for theatrical lights; staff normally con- tracts for such equip~ent to cut fixed costs when the need arises. She added that if the City had a facility that lent itself more to some pezm~u%ent platform or stage, it would be very beneficial to have this sort of equipment in the future. Christian Temporary Housing Facility - Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy reiterated that without staff monitoring of statistics on use of the facility by Tustin residents, the request for funds uould not be considered at this time. It was then moved b~ Kennedy, seconded by Greinke, to approve the allocation of $444,240 for items su~itted by staff as con- rained in the staff report dated July 28, 1982, with the condi- tion that each item come back to Council for subsequent approval. Motion carried 5-0. 29 2. FISCAL FEaR 19e2-83 The City Manager s,~marized the final preliminary budget as con- tained in his staff report dated July 28, 1982. Mayor Edgar opened the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. The following person spoke on the matter: Kathy Well, 1702 S~-.~erville, Tustin Meadows Homeowners' Asso- ciation, requested that funds be included to allow for installa- tion of traffic signalling eq~p~ent at Red Hill and Walnut. Mayor Edgar noted that staff's recommendation does include sut~ ject project in the budget. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hear- lng at 8:55 p.m. In accordance with Councilman Saltarelli's suggestion, Council deferred budget discussion to consider the following ite~. The Assistant City Engineer presented the staff report and recom~endation as contained in the me~o dated July 27, 1982. Warren Ettleman, 14262 Heatherfield Drive, representing approxi- mately ten fa~lies, suggested red curbing alongside driveway entrances, and expressed dissatisfaction with Police enforcement of parking regulations. Mr. Ettl~n responded to Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy that the excess cars are from the apartment complex at 1777 Mitchell Avenue and reported that some of the end units are utilizing their carports as patios. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 8-2-82 IV. PUBLIC H~NGS (Con' t. ) The Assistant City Engineer responded to the Mayor that staff should prepare a plan for additional red curbing before proceed- ing on any suggestion. Police chief Tnayer stated that methodical ticketing tends to upset homeowners because they are generally the first to receive them. He offered suggestions which might help alleviate the parking problem. In accordance with the staff report dated July 27, 1982., pre- pared by the Director of Public Works, and the Police Chief's recommendations, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the following: 1) Post Hea~herfield Drive between Mitchell Avenue and Sandwood Place for "No Parking During Street Sweeping Operations" between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and Noon on Mondays; 2) Red curb arcs of curbs at sou~east and southwest corners of Heatherfield and Mitchell and northeast corner of Heather-- field and Sandwood; 3) Public Works Department to check red curbing on Mitchell for unauthorized painting of City curbs by private property owners; 4) Contact residents of 1777 Mitchell via mail and request that they not park their vehicles on Mitchell; 5) Staff to look into blatant violations of misuse of parking spaces (carports used for patios); and 6) Reconsider the matter at the August 16, 1982, meeting addressing red curbing alongside driveway entrances. Councilman Saltarelli stated his interest in preferential park- ing. The Police chief responded that he has explored preferen- tial parking and does not favor it prin~rily because a~m4nistra- tion of it is a night--re - it is impossible to determine which cars belong to guests, and t_he State-adopted hearing law on con- tested towings requires about two hours per hearing by a three- member board, which the City must usually pay for along with the towing bill. Royce P~rcell, 1912 Mitchell Avenue, spoke in favor of "No Park- lng on Street Sweeping Days" signing on the portion of Mitchell between Heatherfield and Browning. The motion carried 5-0. 74 The Council focused its attention beck to d~scussion of the Fiscal Year 1982-83 Budget. 2. F~SC~Z, ~'~R 1982-83 Counci~n Saltarelli stated he would like to reinstitute a hir- ing freeze, and suggested promoting an employee incentive pro- gram for major cost-saving ideas. Councilman Hoesterey voiced his support of an employee incentive plan and suggested that future budgets contain a contingency plan when revenues decrease as well as increase. Councilman Greinke offered constructive criticism on budgetary procedures. Mayor Edgar stated he is comfortable with the dollar figures; however, he feels it is essential that the budget contain a project timetable and historical data, and clarification ~f the ~development bal- ance. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy stated she feels staff has met the challenge in these trying economical times, and offered compli- ments to City staff. Councilman Saltarelli also complimented City staff and suggested the City consider user fees (trash col- lection) to offset decreased revenues. It was then moved by Hoeeterey, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the Fiscal Year 1982-83 Budget. Motion carried 5-0. 29 CIT~ COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 8-2-82 ~SINE~S 2. WA~ SERVICE ~%NA~T ~mN & SXST~ ~a?.v~xs As recoma~ended in the staff report dated July 28, 1982, prepared by the City Manager, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to confirm selection of Boyle Engineering Corporation to provide engineering services for the Water Service Management Plan & System Analysis for a fee of $45,700; and authorize the Mayor to execute a consultant' s agreement for said services. In response to Councilman Hoesterey, the City Manager clarified that this is for both phases of the study. Mayor Edgar added that the e4me element of 6 weeks for Phase I and 14 weeks for Phase II puts target dates at Sept~her 20 for Phase I and January 3 for Phase II in terms of Council meetings, and he requested that these dates be met. The motion carried 4-0,' Greinke abstaining. 107 VI. 1. Councilman Saltarelli requested that Council meeting days be discussed at the workshop scheduled for September 13, 1982. Pursuant to Mayor Edgar' s recommendation, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to reschedule the second meeting in October to Wednesday, October 20, due to Councilm~-hers' attendance at the League of California Cities Conference. Carried 5-0. 38 VII. ADJ~T It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Greinke, to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. to the next regular meeting on August 16, 1982. Carried 5-0. MAYOR