Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 08-01-83MINUTe'S OF A REGULAR ~£TIHG OF ~£ CI~ COUNCIL CI~ OF ~STIH, CAi. IFO~IA JULY 18, 1983 I. C~L TI) ORDER PLEBGE OF ALLEGIANCE I#VOCATION - The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hoesterey at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Alle- giance was .led by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, and the Invocation was given by Councilman Edgar. Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: Ronald B. Hoesterey, Mayor Ursula E. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tern Richard B. Edgar Frank H. Greinke (?:35 p.m.) Donald J. Saltarelli None James G. Rourke, City Attorney Robert S. Ledendecker, Dir. of Public Works Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Captain N. Williams, 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 I II. PUBLIC CONC£RMS 1. REQUEST FOR SPONSORSHIP Jennifer Ka~asky, 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 Jul y 24 deadline. (~9 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. FIS~ YEAR 1983-84 PRI~LIIMINARY 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 s~$eakers on the matter. Councilman Edgar stated that the response received to his request for greater detail on the Water Fund Debt Service Sur- chargeAnalysis 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. 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 that ii: 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 the public hearing on the Preliminary Fiscal Year 1983-84 Budget to August l, 1983. Councilman Saltare~ suggested that the Mayor be included in discussions with t~fe C~nty relative to the fire service contract. Motion carrie~5-O.~ . 29 PROPOSED USE O~ FIS~A~ Y£A.R lg83-8~VBUE S~A~ING .FU~S e 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 Ken.n~e~,y, to continue the public hearing on Proposed Use of Fiscal~Yeafk 1983-84 Revenue Sharing Funds to August 1, 1983. Carried~-O ~ 29 A~:J(D~NT TO ZO4ING ORDINANCE - VIDEO GA~S - ORDINANCE NO. 808 The Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the inter-com dated July 5, 1983, prepared by the CommunityDevelopment 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 NoJ 888 have first reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following reading, of title by the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, sec- onded by Saltarelli., that Ordinance No. 888 be introduced as fol 1 ows: RECREATt ONAL. FA~C~I ES Motion carrie~/) ' 4. APPEAL OF USE PER,lIT 83-5 - 1162 S-f~JqORE AVENUE ORDINANCE NO. 888 - An Ordlnance of the City Council of the City of ?ustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO PROVID£ FOR THE REGULATION OF AMUSEMENT RESORTS, ARCADES, AND PRIVATE 81 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 MINUltb Page 3, 7-18-83 r 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 y~rd 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). On that basis, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconder by Edgar, to approve Use Permit 83-5 and uphold the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in Resolution No. 2096, 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 Tem 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. It v~s 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~_b~.back On the appropriateness of the zoning and whether or not/~ d~sity reduction is allowable in the R-3 dis- trict. Carrie 5~ 81 APPEAL OF VARIANC£ 83-5 - 1123 WARNER AVENUE~ The Co,,w))unity 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. spoke in favor of Variance 83-5. Klaus Eric, Steelcase employee. The following person 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 Hoes%erey stated they could not support variance approval. Councilman Saltarelli stated that since the last 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 to the building and that there is no residential nearby. The motion carried 3-1, Kennedy opposed, Greinke abstained. 81 ~age Councilman Greinke stated that, in genera(, 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 HEAJtlNG - REI)EVELOPI~CNT AGENCY CIl"f COUNCIL 6. SOIJ1}I/CENllLAI. P. EDEVELOPI~NT PLAN Dr. R. Kenneth Fleagl e, Planning Consultant, presented the staff report and recommendation and responded to Agency/Council ques- tions. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that the Report of the Redevelopment Agency to the City Council be accepted, transmitted and approved by the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council. Roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli None None At 8:00 p.m. the Mayor 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 Jocel yn Edwards, ~had the fol 1 owl ng questi OhS: 1) In reference to Section 1201.1L what houses in the area are considered blighted and ~ll 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 elect 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 plan presented to remove any houses, and as men- tioned in the introductory remarks, the Redevelopment 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 anything 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, Boleyn Circle property owner, was informed that there are no direct improvements proposed on Bolejm Circle. James Wilmeth, 18872 Fowler Avenue, Santa Ana, 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, 105~ Bonita Street, had questions on the City's park- ing 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 Bolejm. Circle, inquired as to what assistance is available to private property owners in repaying private alleys. Phil Schindler, 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, ~005 Andrews Street, stated there is no blight on subject street and wondered why it was included in the project area. At Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy's request, Dr. Fleagle provided State definitions of "blighted area" in order to ease residents' anxieties over the term "blight." Page 6, 7-18-83 Agency/Council/staff discussion followed Nth 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, ~ll be reinvested in the form of public improvements in that same area. Mrs, Acosta was assured that property owners will receive legal notification of further activ.ity, and Dr. Fleagle indicated he would meet with Mrs. Acost~ 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 R~evelopment Project and applauded Dr. Fleagle. Gene Oppetick, spoke in favor of the plan, based on information provid~ during the public hearing. After further discussion, it was moved by Edgar, second~ b~ Kennedy, that the objections are overrul~andthat the South/ Central Redevelopment Project be approve. Roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Gretnke, Hoestereyj Kenn~y, Saltarelli None None 8! 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: OI~I#A#C£ IlO. 890 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ADOPTING THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Motion carried 5-0. 8! It w~s 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 O~di- ~ance No. 891 be introduce~. 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: O~J)I~£ 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: NOES: ABSENT: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli None None 81 Councilman Greinke commended Dr. Fleagle highly for doing an excel 1 ent job. V. ~#S£NT 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, ?-18-83 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 20, 1983, Regular Meeting July 5, 1983, Regular Meeting RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $98,963.25 (7-5-83) RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $106,993.93 (7-18-83) - APPROVAL OF DEI4ANDS in the amount of $195,440.33 (7-5-83) APPROVAL OF DEI4ANDS in the amount of $1,294,582.00 (7-18-83) 50 e RES~EFFION 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. ~S~F[ION 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. ~ .5. RESOLtFTION 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 Sll~EET - 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. 8~.1 9. REQUEST FOR TREE REJNOVAL - 17341 AMA~ 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. 12. A~REEIMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND IRVINE COMPANY - PE~RS CANYON SPECIFIC PtAN Authorize the Mayor to sign the subject agreement between the City and the Irvine Company as recommended by the City Manager. 45 83-25 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 Notice of Completion, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount of $!,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 Systems (PADS) participated in the loan in equal amounts. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that the following resolution be adopted: e 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 Carri ed 5-0. 50 Consent Calendar Item No. 7 - Request for Enforcement of Uniform Traffic Ordinance & Resolution No. 83-46 - Per staff's request, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Greinke, that the following reso- lution be continued to August 1, 1983: Page 8, 7-18-83 ~UTZON NO. 83-44t - 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. lO0 Consent Calen~r Item No.. 11 - SCA Services Solid Waste Collection 'Agreement - The Director of Public'Works responded to May~r 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 solid waste collec- tion for 1983-84 and authorize the May~r to execute same on behalf of the City. After further discussion, the motion carried ¢-1, Greinke oppose. 83-26 VI. ORDI- NANCES FOR INll~ODUCTION 1. OEFINITION OF VEHICLE IN CIl¥ CODE - ORDIiMJ~ICE NO. 889 AS recommended in the inter-com dated'June 17, 1983, prepared by the Chief of Police, it was moved by Edgar, seconded bn~Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 889 have first reading by title o y. Car- ried 5-0. Follg.wing reading of the title by the City Clerk~t 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 Carri ed 5-0. lDO VII. O~INAI~:ES FOR ABORTION - None VIII· OLO BUSINESS 1. REI4OV~ ~ il(O-HOUR PARJ~ING RESll~ICTION (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 Wor~s, and then reagendize the matter to allow th~ individual an opportunity to address subject issue. 75 O.C.T.D. LAYOVER ZONE - FIRSt' STREET BETWEEN CENTENNIAL WAY AND NL~PORT AVENUE Councilman Greinke stated that based on a l eiter 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, lDO Councilman Saltarelli requested that staff investigate the possibility of OCTD sharing the cost of repairing streets which are damaged by heavy bus traffic. Council concurred, lDO Mayor Ho·st·fey 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 ~resentation. ~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 7-18-83 IX. X. 5 ON-STREET PARKING - YORBA SI'I~£T The Director of Public Works presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in his inter-corn dated July 12, 1983, adding that correspondence was received from representa- tives of the homeowners group dated Jul-y 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 Amormino, 17381 Norwood Park Place, requested that the request for on-street parking be denied, and a question-and- answer peri od fol 1 owed. 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 NEW BUSINESS - None R~PORTS 1. PLANMING ~ISSION A~TIONS 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. 81 2. CABLE I'[LEVISION PEDESTALS The Director of Public Works presented the staff report. Don Guthrie, General Manager of Co,,,~unicom, 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 Oarvis 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. T~FIC ENFORCENENT - )w~m~IN STR[ET/BRYAJ~ AI~I~NUE, JUNE 1983 Council concurred to receive and file the report dated July 6, 1983, prepared by the Chief of Police. 100 4. BULLET ll~IN Councilman Greinke presented the Mayor with a French bullet train souvenir which he acquired while attending a Lions Club Convention in Hawaii. As requested by Councilman Edgar, Council concurred to follow- through with presentation to the State League of Resolution No. 83-2 adopted by the Orange County Division urging environmental review of the bullet train. 101 Page 10, 7-18-83 XI. Oll4ER BUSINESS 1. XII. A~OURNNENT REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION The Director of P.ublic Works reported that the City Manager requested a Closed Session for discussion of personnel masters 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 It 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 FOURTH OF' ~ULY FIEWOPJ(S 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 PAR~IN~ STRUCllJE 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 parUng structure, a stop work order was placed' on the project, and-tenants were forced to stay out of +.he 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 DEPART1ENT C0tlMENDATION Councilman Greinke commended Chief' Thayer on the excellent method of working with local liquor distributors tO halt the reported sale of alcoholic beverages to minors by some liquor store employees. 8. REQUEST FOR CLOSi;D' SESSIOM May~r Hoesterey requested a brief Closed Session for discussion of personnel and legal matters. 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 CITY CLERK