Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 CODE AMEND 99-001 01 03 00NO. 1 01-03-00 DATE: JANUARY 3, 2000 Inter-Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CODE AMENDMENT 99-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1225) SUMMARY: Code Amendment 99-001 wOUld add a boarding house, as'a'cOnditionally Permitted use in the Suburban Residential (R-4)'Zoning.District. l'he Amendment woUld also. establish development standards for boarding hOuses, amend related definitions~ and remove group dwelling as a permitted use in the R-4 Zoning Distric~ ~t Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for this project in confOrmance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Ack On November 22, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Code Amendment 99-001. Applicant: City of Tustin Community Development Department RECOMMENDATION That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 00-3 approving the final Negative Declaration for the project; and, 2. Introduce and have the first reading of Ordinance No. 1225, approving Code Amendment 99-001 and set for second reading at the Council's next scheduled meeting. FISCAL IMPACT Code Amendment 99-001 is a City-initiated project. The proposed amendment would not have any fiscal impact on City resources. City Council Report CA 99-001 January 3, 2000 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The following amendments to the Tustin City Code are proposed: . Add a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use in the Suburban Residential (R-4) District; and, . Establish development standards for boarding houses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) and Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Districts; and, . Amend the definitions of the terms "boarding house, .... dwelling" and "family;" and eliminate the terms "dwelling groups" and "rooming house"; and, o Remove group dwelling as a permitted use in the Suburban Residential (R-4) District. The actual text amendments are included in Ordinance No. 1225 and are described below. Boardinq Houses Code Amendment 99-001 proposes to include boarding houses as conditionally permitted . uses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) District. The Tustin City Code lists a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use in the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District. However, boarding houses are not listed under any other zoning district. The proposed code amendment would provide for consistency between the two residential zoning districts, both of which allow multiple family dwellings. Development Standards for Boarding Houses The Tustin City Code provides some development standards for boarding houses in the R- 3 District. Code Amendment 99-001 would modify most of the development standards for boarding houses in the R-3 District, establish development standards for boarding houses in the R-4 District, and add new open space development standards in the R-3 and R-4 Districts. The proposed development standards include regulations related to setbacks, height, building site, lot coverage, lot width, parking, and common and private open space. The following table lists the existing development standards for boarding houses in the R-3 District and the modified/new development standards proposed for the R-3 and R-4 Districts: City Council Repod CA 99-001 Januaw 3,2000 Page 3 Development Standard Existing'in R-3 District Proposed for R-3 and R-4 Maximum height 40 feet 35 feet Minimum building site 7,500 square feet 7,500 square feet Minimum lot width at 70 feet 70 feet property line Maximum lot coverage 75 percent 75 percent Minimum front yard setback 15 feet 20 feet Minimum side yard setback Corner: 10 feet Corner: 10 feet Interior: 5 feet Interior: 5 feet Minimum rear yard setback 10 feet 25 feet Minimum lot area per family 500 square feet (To be deleted) unit Off-street parking One space/two guests One space/two occupants Common open space (N/A) 300 square feet plus 50 square feet/occupant Private open space (N/A) 25 square feet/occupant With the proposed changes, the boarding house development standards for setbacks and height would be consistent with the existing development standards for other residential uses in the R-4 District. Definitions The Tustin City Code definitions for "boarding house," "dwelling" and "family" are proposed to be amended, and the definitions for "dwelling groups" and "rooming houses" and the reference to "group dwelling" are proposed to be deleted as described below. The only significant change is to the definition of "family." The existing Tustin City Code definition for "family" was adopted in 1961 and does not adequately describe a family unit. · "Boarding House" means a dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." "Dwelling" means a building or portion thereof designed,.,o~"~,.. ........."o"'4 ,..,,.~,,..~,,..~,,.......,,...,...v for residential occupancy; ~"'"~'"~;""' "'""' ~"""'"" ... ~,-,,;',, ~,',~ ,',,,,'*;"'"' family '~'"'""~"'" ..... '-"-'"'~ '-' .... ""''"'7', ~A'O '""'''"7' ""''"" ..... ''P''"" '"''''" ..... ~' City Council Report CA 99-001 January 3, 2000 Page 4 Family "'--'o'-,"o ~'",-,,-,,~,,,, ~ premises ~,-'~ living 2o ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /'1 ~ ~,r r~-~ere I" ........... 1"7" '~ ~ .... means '-'qe,,, ~,/ ............. ,,, , ~,... hn, ,onL,-~-nlnn ,,nlf se 41ofinn~ ,ioh~,4 frnm a nrn~ ,n n~.~..~ ,n~inn a hnfnl ,,..,I, ,h fr~f~:srnlfi~ I II I I I I gl I1~1 I I1~], ,,~,,,..4~,~,,~..,~.,~,,,,~ ~,,,~., ~..4~, -~ ,.,~. ,~,,~., ~.,~..4 ,,-,.,,,, ~ ::~,~.,~, ~.,~.,~,,~,$,,,::~ ~ , ~L~ ~ ~ A "group dwelling" is listed in the R-4 District as a permitted use. Code Amendment 99-001 would remove "group dwelling" from the .Code because the Code does not define the term and, therefore, is too ambiguous. Planning Commission Recommendation At their meeting on November 22, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Code Amendment 99-001 by adopting Resolution Nos. 3706 and 3707 (See Attachments A and B). ENVIRONMENTAL Attachment C is the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for this project. Notice of the Negative Declaration public comment period was provided from November 18, 1999 through December 8, 1999. No significant impacts were identified, and no public comments were received. Scott Reekstin Acting Senior Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director ccreport:\CA 99-001 Boarding Houses:doc Attachments: A_ B- C- D- Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3706 and 3707 Initial Study/Negative Declaration Resolution No. 00-3/©rdinance No. 1225 ATTACHMENT A MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: .. 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE' Commissioner Davert ROLL CALL: Chairperson Kozak, Bell, Davert, Kawashima Pontious Present: Chairperson Kozak Vice Chair Davert Bell Kawashima Pontious Absent: None Staff: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Lois Bobak, Deputy City Attorney Rita West'field, Assistant Director of Community Development Scott Reekstin, Acting Senior Planner Lori Ludi, Associate Planner Minoo Ashabi, Assistant Planner Kathy Martin, Recording Secretary and PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR' 1. Minutes of the November 8. 1999 Planning Commission Meetinq, Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Kawashima secohded., to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Conditional Use Permit 99-O14 a request to amend the development standards for the Tustin Village II Planned Community under Conditional Use Permit 63-149 Planning Commission M~, ~utes November 22, 1999 Page 2 to include a definition, develop.ment standards and design review criteria for accessory structures. The project is located west of Tustin Village Way, north of Alliance Avenue, south of the I-5 Freeway and east of Williams Street within the Planned Community (PC) zoning district. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: TUSTIN VILLAGE !1 HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. Recommendation That the Planning Commission continUe Conditional Use Permit 99-014 to the December 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The public hearing opened at 7:01 p.m. Lori presented the subject report and noted the continuance was being requested due to a complaint received after the public hearing notices were mailed out. The public hearing closed at 7:02 p.m. Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Pontious seconded, to continue Conditional Use Permit 99-014 to the December 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Use Determination 99-003 and Conditional Use Permit 99,024 a request to operate a martial arts studio in the retail center located at 640 W. First Street within the Commercial as Primary Use design'ation of the First Street Specific Plan APPLICANT: DAVID HUGHES OOM YUNG DOE PROPERTY OWNERS: MELLILI FAMILY TRUST PLAZA ON FIRST ASSOCIATES Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Nos. 3703 and 3704 approving Use Determination 99-003 and Conditional Use Permit 99-024 to allow a martial arts studio at 640 W. First Street within the "Commercial as Primary Use" designation of the First Street Specific Plan (FSSP). Minoo Ashabi presented the subject report. Planning CommissiOn .,,~nutes November 22, 1999 Page 3 The public hearing opened at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Davert noted his concern about the hours of operation being restrictive and noted that perhaps changing the hours to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for all days would be more appropriate. Minoo noted that these are the hours proposed by applicant. Chairperson Kozak noted that private lessons provided on Saturday should have hours of operation listed also. Commissioners Davert, Bell and Pontious concurred with Chairperson Kozak. Chairperson Kozak asked Doug Anderson about the need for condition 2.7 which requires a parking demand analysis and-asked if the analysis would include circulation as his concerns are centered on drop off and pick up of vehicles and the creation of problems for tenants. Doug Anderson replied that typically any congestion would be for no more than 15 or 20 minutes and staff would not be as restrictive to invoke a traffic study. The Director noted that if the Planning Commission is concerned about circulation, the condition could be amended to reflect that concern. Chairperson Kozak stated he did not wish to impose anything on the applicant if there were no issue. The Director noted that the site is relatively small but there could be an issue in the future. Doug Anderson noted there could be issues with other businesses. Commissioner Pontious stated she believed the center would be underparked in most cases. Chairperson Kozak stated his comfort with leaving the conditions as they are. The public hearing closed at 7:08 p.m. · Commissioner Pontious suggested that staff speak with the property owners since they were not aware of what kind of businesses are appropriate for their center. Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adopt Resolution Nos. 3703 and 3704 approving Use Determination 99-003 and Planning Commission IV,,, ~utes November 22, 1999 Page 4 Conditional Use Permit 99-024 to allow a martial arts studio at 640 W, First Street within the "Commercial as' Primary Use" designation of the First Street Specific Plan. (FSSP) am'ended as follows: Condition 2.2: to read "Hours of operation shall be limited to 9:00 a,m, to 9:00 p,m. Monday through Saturday, The school shall be closed on Sundays, Modifications 'to the hours of operation may be approved by the Director of Community Development if it is determined that no impacts to surrounding tenants or properties will occur," Motion carried 5-0. 4. Code Amendment 99-001 a request to amend the Tustin City Code related to Boarding Houses in the Suburban Residential (R-4) and Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Districts and associated definitions. APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Recommendation That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3706 recommending approval of the environmental determination for the project; and, 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3707 recommending that the City approve Code Amendment 99-001. Council Scott Reekstin presented the subject report and noted the changes made to the ordinance. The Public Hearing opened at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Davert noted his concern with the definition of boarding houses and asked how compensation would be addressed if a non-profit group were running a facility. The Director stated that issue is covered under the definition. Lois Bobak stated that type of facility would fall under a single family use and would have to meet the code and if there were unique burdens placed on that development it would be dealt with as a code enforcement issue. Commissioner Davert asked if there was any benefit to tightening up the ordinance. Planning Commission ,,,,nutes November 22, 1999 Page 5 Lois Bobak noted that would be di~c'ult because California and Federal law places restrictions on cities regulating uses on the basis of family definitions. The uses must be regulated by their impacts and not the nature of the people making the impacts. The Director noted that if eleven individuals get together to live in a fraternity house on a college campus it would be considered a boarding house and would be subject to a conditional use permit. Commissioner Davert asked about the impacts if an individual were to buy a big house and take in homeless people for free. The Director stated that use would fall under the definition of a family and further stated that staff believes what is being presented is as restrictive as permitted by law. Chair~)erson Kozak asked the Director, if staff received any contacts from interested parties. The Director responded that notices were provided as required and she spoke with Nick Spadafino who indicated that he and his attorney found the ordinance acceptable. The Public Hearing closed at 7:17 p.m. Commissioner Kawashima asked if individuals in the R-4 district could use the ordinance as a tool of enforcement. 'The Director noted the ordinance establishes boarding house as a conditionally permitted use within the R-4 district with certain development standards and provides greater opportunity for someone to legally establish a use and affords the City the ability to regulate the use in a reasonable manner. Chairperson Kozak noted that someone in audience may wish to speak. The individual noted that he was attending for Conditional Use Permit 99-014. The Director informed the individual that the hearing was continued to December 13~h bUt he could supply staff with his comments in writing or over the phone if he is unable to attend the meeting on December 13~'. Commissioner Kozak moved. Commissioner Davert seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3706 recommending that the City Council approve the environmental determination for the project. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission IVt~nutes November 22, 1999 Page 6 Commissioner Kozak moved, Commissioner Dave'rt seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3707 recommending that the City Council approve Code Amendment 99-001, revised as follows' Ordinance No. 1225, Page 4, SectiOn IV, under definition of "Family" - delete the following "related by blood or legal status or a group of not more than six (6) persons who are not so related" Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS 5, AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN (AELUP). The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has the authority to adopt a comprehensive airport land use plan. in 1975 the ALUC adopted Orange County's first Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The AELUP is a twenty-year planning document.for the airports within Orange County. The AELUP may be amended on an annual basis. The City of Tustin has responded to a number of issues proposed in previous amendments and the current 1999 Amendment. Recommendation Receive and file. The Director noted that the Planning Commission requested information on the AELUP so staff has provided a staff report on that topic. Chairperson Kozak asked the status of the cities in litigation. The Director replied that she was not sure how many cities were involved, but does not believe Tustin will join the effort and noted that staff will provide updates to the Commission as the issue progresses. The Director stated that part of the reason the City is not joining the litigation is because Tustin has a different issue than the other cities who are considering litigation. Commissioner Davert thanked Rita West-field for an excellent report. Commissioner Davert moved. Commissioner Bell seconded_, to receive and file the subject report. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commissior, ..,,nutes November 22, 1999 Page 7 6. Status Report. Elizabeth A. Binsack presented the subject report and noted that staff will be doing a status rePort every other month or quarterly starting in January 2000. STAFF CONCERNS' 7. Report on ACtions taken at the November 15.1999 City Council Meetinq Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS' Commissioner Bell - Asked staff for clarification on the Sutcliffe property issue. The Director responded that in addition to the variance that the Planning Commission approved for the property to allow the owner to maintain a fence, the Public Works Department issued an encroachment permit to allow construction in the public right-of-way. The property owner proceeded to construct the wall without permits. She further noted that permits have been issued since that time. Commissioner Davert Stated his agreement with comments from Councilmembers Saltarelli and Thomas who pointed out the importance of building permits. Noted the Mayor's Prayer breakfast was a huge success and reminded everyone of the December 34 tree lighting ceremony in Old Town. Commissioner Pontious Noted that landscaping at the former headache clinic at Newport and Mitchell was overgrown. Noted that gra~ti was coming down and thanked staff. Commissioner Kawashima Noted that he did some work in the City of Orange and they required him to obtain a business license. He asked if the City of Tustin requires a business license for work being done in the City. Planning Commission Iv,,, ,utes November 22, 1999 Page 8 The Director responded that aitl~ough she was not sure of the City of Orange's regulations; however, if an individual is doing business in Tustin, they are required to obtain a license similar to a contractor. Chairperson Kozak - Thanked staff for taking care of the lease sign in front of the Fireman's Fund building. - Stated that the Tustin Lanes bowling alley has received a new coat of purple paint and he believed one of the conditional use permit conditions was for the color purple to be fazed out. The Director responded that staff will follow up on that issue. - Thanked staff for their help and wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Bell moved. Commissioner Pontious seconde.d., to adjourn the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. A regular meeting c;f the Planning Commission will be held on December 13, 1999 beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. 3706 l0 20 22 24 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,-RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT 99-001, RELATED TO BOARDING HOUSES. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: !. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Code Amendment 99-001 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. Co Whereas, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. Public comments received after adoption of this resolution would be addressed by the City Council prior to approval of the project. Do The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed draft Negative Declaration and determined that the project is regulatory and administrative in nature and therefore, would not have a significant effect on the environment. ' II. A Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Draft Negative Declaration prior to recommending approval of the proposed project, and found that it adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project. Public comments received after adoption of this resolution would be addressed by the City Council prior to approval of the project. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public hearing process, the Planning Commission has found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the Planning Commission has found that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and recommends that the City Council make a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. ]3 ]4 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 2'/ 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22"d day of November, 1999. ' · ,/4-3'~~EN V. KOZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that l am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3706 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of November, 1999. Planning Commission Secretary 29 ]4 ]7 20 2! 24 25 26 2? 29 RESOLUTION NO. 3707 o A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT 99-001, AN AMENDMENT TO TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9228a3, 922663, AND 9297, AND ADDING SECTION 922865 RELATED TO,~ BOARDING HOUSES. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines: A. That the amendment to Tustin City Code Sections 9228a3, 922663 and 9297 and the addition of the Tustin City Code Section 922865 have been prepared to establish a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use and delete a group dwelling as a permitted use in the Suburban Residential (R-4) District consistent with the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District, to establish development standards'for boarding houses, and to clarify related definitions. B. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held on this ordinance by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1999. C. That a Negative Declaration has been recommended for approval by the City Council in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. D. The proposed amendment would not have an adverse affect on the public health, safety and welfare of residents or businesses of the City. E. The proposed amendments are regulatory and administrative in nature and would provide for consistency between the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. F. The requirement for a Conditional use permit is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City of Tustin in that the City will be able to examine land use compatibility and potential impacts of boarding houses in the R-4 District though the conditional use permit process, as is required in the R-3 Zoning District. G. The development standards imposed by this Ordinance are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City of Tustin as follows: Maximum Heights: The height limitation will reduce the potential for shade and shadow impacts on adjacent properties, promote orderly and compatible development and improve access to emergency personnel. ]0 ]4 20 ')4 26 27 Resolution No. 3707 Page 2 Minimum Building Site: The requirement for a minimum building site will promote orderly arid safe development by providing for adequate access, open space, and off-street parking accommodations. Minimum Lot Width: The requirement for a minimum lot width will ensure orderly and compatible developi'nent that is appropriately scaled in relation to the dimensions of the lot. Maximum Lot Covera(~e: The limitation on maximum lot coverage will foster compatibility with adjacent residential uses and provide for open areas that may be used for recreational purposes. Minimum Setbacks: The minimum required setbacks will promote orderly development, adequate access to emergency personnel, improved noise mitigation between adjacent properties, and adequate natural light and ventilation. Minimum Off-street Parkinq:. The requirement for off-street parking spaces will promote safety by minimizing on-street parking and parking in non-designated areas thereby improving emergency access and providing for the safe parking of automObiles. Minimum Common and Private Open Space: The requirement for common and private open space will provide usable and functional areas for active and passive recreational activities that will minimize the use of public streets and other vehicular areas for recreational purposes. Ho The proposed amendments are consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that they comply with the following General Plan Policies: Land Use Element Policy 1.12: VVhere feasible, increase the amount and network of public'and private open space and recreational facilities which will be adequate in size and location to be usable for active or passive recreation as well as for visual relief. ' Land Use Element Policy 4.6: Maintain and enhance the quality of healthy residential neighborhoods, and safeguard neighborhoods from intrusion by non-conforming and disruptive uses. Circulation Element Policy 7.2: Provide sufficient off-street parking for all land uses. Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy 14.8: Encourage and, where appropriate, .require the inclusion of recreation facilities and open space within future residential, industrial, and commercial developments. l0 ]4 Resolution No. 3707 Page 3 II. The Planning COmmission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Code Amendment 99-001, as shown and attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 22"d day of November 1999. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF ORANGE ) CiTY OF TUSTIN ) ,,~tl~l~~ V. KOZAK Chairperson SS I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that ResolUtion No. 3707 was duly passed and adopted at regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of November, 1999. 24 25 26 A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A - RESOLUTION NO. 3707 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1225 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT 99-001 AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9228a3, 922663, AND 9297, AND ADDING SECTION 922865 RELATED TO BOARDING HOUSES. The City Council of the citY of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: Section I The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao That the amendment to Tustin City Code Sections 9228a3, 922663 and 9297 and the addition of the Tustin City Code Section 922865 have been prepared to establish a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use and delete a group dwelling as a permitted use in the Suburban Residential (R-4) District consistent with the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District, to establish development standards for boarding houses, and to clarify related definitions. B. That a public hearing was dully noticed, called and held on this Ordinance by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1999 and by the City Council on January 3, 2000. Co The proposed amendment would not have an adverse affect on the public health, safety and welfare of residents or businesses of the city. D. A Negative Declaration has been adopted for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). e. The proposed amendments are regulatory and administrative in nature and would provide for consistency between the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. F. The requirement for a conditional use permit imposed by this Ordinance is necessary to protect the health, s.afety and welfare of the City of Tustin in that the City will be able to examine land use compatibility and potential impacts of boarding houses in the R-4 Zoning District though the conditional use permit process, as is required in the R-3 Zoning District. Ordinance No. 12.,_.. Page 2 O. Ho The development standards imposed by this Ordinance are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City of Tustin as follows: Maximum Heights: The height limitation will reduce the potential for shade and shadow impacts on adjacent properties, promote orderly and compatible development and improve access to emergency personnel. Minimum Building Site: The requirement for a minimum building site will promote orderly and safe development by providing for adequate access, open space, and off-street parking .accommodations. Minimum Lot Width: The requirement for a minimum lot width will ensure orderly and compatible development that is appropriately scaled in relation to the dimensions of the lot. Maximum Lot Coverage: The limitation on maximum lot coverage will foster compatibility with adjacent residential uses and provide for open areas that may be used for recreational purposes. Minimum Setbacks: The minimum required setbacks will promote orderly development, adequate access to emergency personnel, improved noise mitigation between adjacent properties, and adequate natural light and ventilation. Minimum Off-street Parkinq: The requirement for off-street parking spaces will promote safety by minimizing on-street parking and parking in non-designated areas thereby improving emergency access and providing for the safe parking of automobiles. Minimum Common and Private Open Space: The requirement for common and private open space will provide usable and functional areas for active and passive recreational activities that will minimize the use of public streets and other vehicular areas for recreational purposes. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that they comply with the following General Plan Policies: Land Use Element Policy 1.12: VVhere feasible, increase the amount and network of public and private open space and recreational facilities which will be adequate in size and location to be usable for active or passive recreation as well as for visual relief. Ordinance No. '~--5 Page 3 Land Use Element Policy 4.6: Maintain and enhance the quality of healthy residential neighborhoods, and safeguard neighborhoods from intrusion by non-conforming and disruptive uses. Circulation Element Policy 7.2: Provide sufficient off-street parking for all land uses. Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy 14.8: Encourage and, where appropriate, require the inclusion of recreation facilities and open space within future residential, industrial, and commercial developments. Section II. Section 9228a3 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "3. One-family dwellings, two (2) or more detached one-family dwellings, two- ,.~,,,,. ,4.,..,;.,.o multiple-family dwellings and apartment houses, family dwellings, ~,....~. ......... ~.., all of a permanent character, placed in permanent locations." denotes deleted text.) Section II!. Section 922663 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "3. Hotels, motels and room!r,~ or boarding houses,......i,,,,4-,'-~"-'-,~ ~,----~---,~'~"' ,-o subject to use permit (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 (g) (h) (i) Maximum height: 40 ;2.'~.s. to_n_e._~.~_..._5 feet Minimum building site: 7,500 square feet Minimum lot width at property line: 70 feet Maximum lot coverage: 75 percent Minimum front yard setback: 4-8 2'-0 feet r, ,,.,.,.-~ ,-,.~,.-.-...;,-.- ;-,~;,--~*.-.,~ I ~l~i II~I~l;~l; VII I~lll~l IlI~II~ II IUIV~i4~k~iii on Zoning Msps) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet Minimum rear yard setback: ! 0 ~ feet Ii III I I~41 I IIIM/~, ~41 ~M~Ik4 I~/VI I~MllI I III~ II · VVV ~I! I~i~l ~ off-street parking: One (1) parking space for each four (4) rooms in a hotel: One (1) parking space for each two ~ ~. . in a boarding house or ,~,~,~'~....,,,,, ,~ ,~"i........,'~" One (1) parking space for each motel unit: Ordinance No. 1._ Page 4 Parking requirements for senior citizen housing projects to include accommodations 'for tenants, guests, and service employees shall be determined as a condition of the use permit approving the project. (J) (J) M~n~mum~ commo'n-.' open; space; f0.r,;;~ 15oard~ng~ I'iouses:~,300.,: squar occupan~:~:~?: Common: open~~ space:~: shal!~'~..co~t:;::~.:U~!OS~::.:gr areas~ O~.regu,red:.f~bnt'a'nd 's,dejar~' s~t~ Minim'~en:~ sg~.Ce~. ~: 6c~-pant:~:~nvate"0pen' sgace' shall: consist, o~: pa~ally enclose are~s~~ 'set~ as~d~:~.fOr:; pass~ge~t anW'act~ve'~ recreabonai?~' u ses:~ that,' ar PatioS 5~ bal~°:ni~: ~;~,-*~. ..... ~' denotes deleted text. S'h'~'8'i'ng denotes new text.) Section IV. Section 92'97 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: The following definitions shall be amended as follows: "Boarding House" means a dwelling other than a hotel ~)_r.Lmot_.__e~-~, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." "Dwelling" means a building Or portion thereof designed and usod y; i ' ~-,,.,.n,, ,,,,,. ~-,,.-,;,,, '..,.,4 ,-,., """" '";'"'"' for residential occupanc nclud:ng..,""",,., ...... ¢,. .......... ¢ ........... ~,,-, %.,,~%..~i ,~.,i ,,.,; i v '~,.., I,,~ ' fa,.,.,[I,, ,4~A,,,~IH.~,-, F,..+ n,.,+ ;r~,-.h .,4;,.~,,", I~,..,~,'.,1~. ,~,..,4-,,~!,~ ,-,r F~,.~r,41r',,',. F',,,-,, ,~,,"~" ,,ill~ %.~T~,~i,ii i~, i.~dL ,,%.~b ,1 ,%..~i~m4%,,di' I~ I '%--FL%"'~lq~'/~ I,I~L%..~I~ %."~' I~¢.%,.~U, %.,dll i~ ' I~,.~%. "Family" means one /4 ~ ~.. moro pcmons ~'" ...... ~,~ ...... ~.¢,,,u. prom:scs ........ u · ,~ ~-,-' ina~v,d.a or; ~o~ f2~; or< more, Demons, hwng~g~~ as~;. a., slng~ ousekeeg~ng umt ~n'a dwelhng umt (S+'';''''-'+~ ..... h denotes deleted text. ~ denotes new text.) Ordinance No .... ,~5 Page 5 Section V. follows: Section 922865 shall be added to the Tustin City Code to read as M ~m u ~l~.~ir.-,d~,si~tlSa~:~ome~Jot; hn~!~Q~f_~et~!ntenor . ~o~o~u~ a~~ u~ ~~~~~~~p~~ ~~~ ~te~oe~o~ JEan~o~mo~eh ~~~_ b-a ~~ ~ i ~ [o;~e~d [a~e;a;s (~ denotes new te~.) Section VI. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or potion of this ordinance is for any reason held out be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any coud of oompetent, jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validi~ of the remaining potions of this ordinance. The Ci~ Council of the Ci~ of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, Ordinance No. 1:_., Page 6 subsection, sentence, clause, ph. rase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the day of · 2000. TRACY WILLS WORLEY Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN SS CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1225 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1225 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of January, 2000 and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17"' day of January, 2000 by the following vote: COUNC I LM EM BER AYE S: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBERABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERABSENT: ' PAMELA STOKER City Clerk ATTACHMENT C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT $00 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-31oo NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Code Amendment 99-001 Project Location: Citywide Project DescriptiOn: Amendments to Tustin City Code Sections 9228a3, Suburban Residential District (R-4); 922663, Multiple Family Residential District.(R-3); and 9297, Definitions, and adding Section 922865 to add a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use and delete a group dwelling as a permitted use in the Suburban Residential Zoning District, consistent with the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zoning District. The proposed amendments would establish development standards for boarding houses, amend related definitions and would apply to all properties located within the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. Project Proponent: City of Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Telephone: (714) 573-3016 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON December 8, 1999 Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 5 73-3 ] O0 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Code Amendment 99-001 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573-3016 Project Location: Citywide Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, 92780 General Plan Designation: Not Applicable Zoning Designation: Not Applicable Project'Description: Amendments to Tustin City Code Sections 9228a3, Suburban Residential District (R-4); 922663, Multiple Family Residential District (R-3); and 9297, Definitions, and adding Section 922865 to add a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use and delete a group dwelling as a permitted use in the Suburban Residential Zoning District, consistent with the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zoning District. The proposed amendments would establish development standards for boarding houses, amend related definitions and would apply to all properties located within the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. Surrounding Uses: North: N/A. East: N/A South: N/A West: N/A Other public agencies whose approval is required: ~] Orange County Fire Authority E~ E~ Orange County Health Care Agency [-'] [--] South Coast Air Quality Management F--] District Other City of Irvine City of Santa Ana Orange County EMA B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be poten, tially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant-Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. [~]Land Use and Planning [--]Population and Housing ~-]Oeological Problems [-]Water I--]Mr Quality ['--]Transportation & Circulation [--]Biological Resources [~]Energy and Mineral Resources [-]Hazards [--']Noise ['-]Public Services [--]Utilities and Service Systems ~-]Aesthetics ['-]Cultural Resources [-~Recreation [-']Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETER3{INATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~-] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [--] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ~-] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. · Preparer: Scott Reekstin Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Title Actin_-, Senior Planner Date [[ II ~ /~/~] 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 9) D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Directions A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects. like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensi.tive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or les~ than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is apprOpriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by 'mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the'checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the si~ificance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and, b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially Significant Impact [3 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. within a state scenic highway? v1 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [2 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, .Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [3 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [2] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QU.&LITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Vl [3 [3 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? E] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [3 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or minatory fish or wildlife species or with . established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY .&ND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential Substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death invoMng: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation b~corporation Less Than Significant Impact [5] No Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to ~)ivision of Mines and GeolOgy Special .Publication 42. ii) 'Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?' b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII.HAZ.MtDS .&ND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact O O O [] [5] O FI O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete ~oundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or fiver, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or fiver,-or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted nmoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. L.~ND USE .&ND PL.&NNING - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact [3 [3 [3 No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? [~ [-'] [~] [~ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agencY with jurisdiction over the pi:oject (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan: local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community, conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availal~ility of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII.POPU-LATION .&ND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,' either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through 'extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact [2] [2] Less Than. Significant ruth Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the- construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES . a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Par'ks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional par'ks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATIONfFRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency, for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Signi. ficant Impact No Impact E] [3 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, .or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. M.ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten t° eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact [5] [5] No Impact PART E - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES FOR CODE AMENDMENT 99-001 BACKGROUND Code Amendment 99-001 includes amendments to Tustin City Code Sections 9228a3, Suburban Residential District (R-4); 922663, Multiple Family Residential District (R-3); and 9297, Definitions, and the addition of Section 922865. The amendments would add a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use and delete a group dwelling as a permitted use in the Suburban Residential Zoning District, consistent with the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zoning District. The proposed amendments would establigh development standards for boarding houses, amend related definitions and would apply to all properties located within the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. The following terms would be defined as follows: "Boarding House" means a dwelling other than a hotel or motel, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." "Dwelling" means a building or portion thereof designed for residential occupancy. "Family" means an individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood or legal status or a group of not more than six (6) persons who are not so related, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. In addition, the terms "group dwellings" and "rooming house" would be deleted. The Tustin City Code does not list a boarding house as a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Suburban Residential (R-4) District. However, a boarding house is conditionally permitted in the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District. Code Amendment 99-001 would provide for consistency between the R-4 and R-3 zoning districts, both of which allow multiple family residential uses. A "group dwelling" is listed in the R-4 District as a permitted use. Code Amendment 99-001 would remove "group dwelling" from the Code because the Code does not define the term; and, therefore, is too ambiguous. Code Amendment 99-001 would also establish development standards for boarding houses in the R-4 District, amend development standards for boarding houses in the R-3 District, and add open space development standards to the R-3 and R-4 Districts. Development standards for boarding houses would regulate setbacks, height, building site, lot coverage, lot width, parking, and common and private open space. There is no physical development' proposed as part of Code Amendment 99-001. All impact categories in the Initial Study have been identified as "No Impact." The Code Amendment will not create significant environmental impacts nor does it have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature. When future applications are submitted to the City in compliance with the provisions of the Code Amendment, independent environmental review will be undertaken. I. AESTHETICS Items A through D - "No Impact": The Code Amendment would have no affect on scenic vistas, scenic resources, light, or the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Source: Tustin city Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None Required. II. III. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Items A through C - "No Impact": The project will not result in farmland conversion or conflict with agricultural zoning or agriculture resources in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None Required. AIR QUALITY Items A through E - "No Impact": The Code Amendment would not violate air quality standards, conflict with any air quality plan, increase pollutants or create objectionable odors in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None required. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items A through F - "No Impact": The project will not conflict with conservation plans, and no impacts will occur to endangered, threatened or rare species or habitats, locally designated species or natural communities, or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin Cie' Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None Required. Vo CULTURAL RESOURCES Items A through D - "No Impact": The Code Amendment would not have any impacts on historical, archaeological or paleontological resources or to human remains in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items A though E - "No Impact": The project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving earthquake faults, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides or expansive soils in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical developmerit is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items A through H - "No Impact": The proposed project would not involve hazardous materials nor expose the public to the potential for aircraft-related hazards in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None Required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Items A through J - "No Impact": The project would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements or substantially deplete groundwater or alter drainage; degrade water quality or cause flood hazards; nor change the course or direction of water courses, water bodies, discharge into water bodies, alter groundwater or water supplies or flooding from the site in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be. individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sou rces: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Items A through C - "No Impact": The project would not significantly divide an established community or conflict with any land use plans or habitat conservation or natural community conservation, plans in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for' compliance with the appliCable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None required. Xe MINERAL RESOURCES Items A and B - "No Impact": The Code Amendment would not result in the loss of any mineral resources in that it is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None Required. XI. NOISE Items A through F - "No Impact": The Code Amendment would have no impact on noise levels in that it is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. XII. POPULATION AND HOL~SING Item A through C - "No Impact"i No residential development would be displaced or is proposed directly or indirectly in conjunction with the project which would increase the City's population in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None Required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Item A - "No Impact": The project would not require any significant additional public services in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None Required. XIV. RECREATION Items A and B - "No Impact": No recreation facilities would be provided, and the project would not create a demand for additional recreational facilities in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no physical development i's proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None. Required. XV. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Items A through G - "No Impact":. The project will not result in negative transportation or circulation impacts, nor have an impact on parking capacity in that the Code Amendment is regulatory and administrative in nature and no. physical development is proposed. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None Required. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Items A through G - "No Impact": Since no actual development is proposed with the project, no additional need for utilities to service the area would be required. Any future development applications would be individually reviewed for compliance with the applicable codes and independent environmental review would be conducted at that time. ; Sources: Tustin Cits; Code Tustin Community Development Department Code Amendment 99-001 Mitigation / Monitoring: None Required. XVII.. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items A, B, C - "No Impact": The project would not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat, nor have impacts which are potentially individually limited but are cumulatively, considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. Sources: As previously noted. Mitigation / Monitoring: None Required. Scott~Environ:,lnitial Study Discussion CA 99-boarding houses.doc ATTACHMENT D ! RESOLUTION NO. 00-3 l0 l? 20 2! 22 24 26 2? A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of tUStlN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT 99-001 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao Code Amendment 99-001 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and Bo A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. Co The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration, and on November 22, 1999 recommended that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration. Do The City Council of the City of Tustin has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration and has determined that the Negative Declaration is adequate and complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The City Council received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to approving the proposed project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. Further, the City Council finds the project involves no potential for any adverse effects, whether individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources; and, therefore, makes a De Minimis Impact finding related to the California State Department Fish and Game Code Section 711.4. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3~ day of January, 2000. PAMELA STOKER City Clerk TRACY WILLS WORLEY Mayor ]0 20 .12 23 24 25 26 2'7 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT 99-001 AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9228a3, 922663, AND 9297, AND ADDING SECTION 922865 RELATED TO BOARDING HOUSES. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: Section I The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao That the amendment to Tustin City Code Sections 9228a3, 922663 and 9297 and the addition of the TuStin City Code Section 922865 have been prepared to establish a boarding house as a conditionally permitted use and delete a group dwelling as a permitted use in the Suburban Residential (R--4) District consistent with the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District, to establish development standards for boarding houses, and to clarify related definitions. Bo That a public hearing was dully noticed, called and held on this Ordinance by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1999 and by the City Council on January 3, 2000. Ce The proposed amendment would not have an adverse affect on the. public health, safety and welfare of residents or businesses of the City. Do A Negative Declaration has been adopted for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Eo The proposed amendments are regulatory and administrative in nature and would provide for consistency between the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts. F. The requirement for a conditional use permit imposed by this Ordinance is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City of Tustin in that the City Will be able to examine land use compatibility and potential impacts of boarding houses in the R-4 Zoning District though the conditional use permit process, as is required in the R-3 Zoning District. Go The development standards imposed by this Ordinance are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City of Tustin as follows: ]0 20 24 25 2~ Ordinance No. 1225 Page 2 Ho · Maximum Heights: The height limitation will reduce the potential for shade and shadow impacts on adjacent properties, promote orderly and compatible development and improve access to emergency personnel. Minimum Building Site: The requirement for a minimum building site will promote orderly and safe development by providing for adequate access, open space, and off-street parking accommodations. Minimum Lot Width: The requirement for a minimum lot width will ensure orderly and compatible development that is appropriately scaled in relation to the dimensions of the lot. Maximum Lot Coverage: The limitation on maximum lot coverage will foster compatibility with adjacent residential uses and provide for open areas that may be used for recreational purposes. Minimum Setbacks: The minimum required setbacks will promote orderly development, adequate access to emergency perso, nnel, improved noise mitigation between adjacent properties, and adequate natural light and ventilation. Minimum Off-street Parking: The requirement for off-street parking spaces will promote safety by minimizing on-street parking and parking in non-designated areas thereby improving emergency access and providing for the safe parking of automobiles. Minimum Common and Private Open Space: The requirement for common and private open space will provide usable and functional areas for active and passive recreational activities that will minimize the use of public streets and other vehicular areas for recreational purposes. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that they comply with the following General Plan Policies: Land Use Element Policy 1.12: Where feasible, increase the amount and network of public and private open space and recreational facilities which will be adequate in size and location to be usable for active or passive recreation as well as for visual relief. Land Use Element Policy 4.6: Maintain and enhance the quality of healthy residential neighborhoods, and safeguard neighborhoods from intrusion by non-conforming and disruptive uses. ]0 ]2 14 16 20 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 29 Ordinance No. 1225 Page 3 Circulation Elemen{ Policy 7.2: prOvide sufficient off-street parking for all land Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy 14.8: Encourage and, where appropriate, require the inclusion of recreation facilities and open space within future residential, industrial, and commercial developments. Section II. Section 9228a3 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "3. One-family dwellings, two (2) or more detached one-family dwellings, two- 'family dwellings, group -~,,,--";""o.......,,,, ,~.., multiple-family dwellings and apartment houses, all of a permanent character, placed in permanent locations." (e,.;~....,~,..,, ,,.~, denotes deleted text.) Section III. Section 922663 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "3. Hotels, motels and room!rig"--.., boarding houses, ......,,,,a'""m';"",~ ~,-.-.~---,"'" ,.,o subject to use permit (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (0 Maximum height: 40 ~~ feet Minimum building site: 7,500 square feet Minimum lot width at property line: 70 feet Maximum lot coverage: 75 percent Minimum front yard setback: ~ ~0 feet ~' '"~""~ "'+~'"'"";°" ;"'~;"'~+"'~ ,,,, 7,,.;-,. Maps) vi m ~Vl mil m~ Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet Minimum rear yard setback: 10 2~ feet m~mlmmmlmm~mmm m~k ~mv~ ~m m~lmmmm~ ~mmmk, vvv ~m~ m~ . ~ off-street parking: One (1) parking space for each four (4) rooms in a hotel; One (1) parking space for each ~o ~ ~ in a boarding house ~._, ,.coming ,~-"--',_..., One (1) parking space for each motel unit; ,Ea ~n' sca '~n eve~en t~~ Parking requirements for senior citizen housing projects to include accommodations for tenants, guests, and service employees shall be determined as a condition of the use permit approving the project. 12 13 14 15 16 20 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 29 Ordinance No. 1225 Page 4 0) (J) ,....,f ~*~;~'"*~'""",,....., ,, ..,..~,'"'~', denotes deleted text. ~~ denotes new text.) Section IV. Section 9297 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: The following definitions shall be amended as follows: "Boarding House" means a dwelling other than a hotel ~, where lodging and/or meals for three (3) or more persons is provided for compensation." "Dwelling" means a building or portion thereof designed and 'used ~ for residential occupancy; ;'-"" "~;"'" '-'-" family *'""- ~';"' ,, ,.~,.~.,, ,~ .~, ,... , ....~ ,.~,, ,,,$ .~, ,.~ 1 "Family" means..,"'ne (1) '--.,, ,more, persons '"""' '"";'-'-...,.,..~,, II I= a ~1~,~ '/'~l'~l~'ll :[~!' II~1~1~~.!, l i i~/~1~I ll.ll/J~Jl~l living as a o;nnle~ hn, lee~lee~ninn I lnif ,~e, ,-liofinnl,iohe~t4 Crnm ~ nrn:,n ~l~t"~/l~l I~'~%';ntll ~ hnf~,l I '~V~l~[ I iii I~ I I%l~lJ~lSJJ~V '~l.~'ll.,~'~J~ &JJl,~:~J~JbAI NiJ411 I~ I I'~ll~l.,d~lJ~%~. denotes deleted text. ~;-Th'~'&~ denotes new text.) 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 2g 29 Ordinance No. 1225 Page 5 Section V. follows: Section 922865 shall be added to the Tustin City Code to read as (~~ denotes new text.) Section VI. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held out be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, ]4 20 22 24 25 2? 29 Ordinance No. 1225 Page 6 subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 17th day of January, 2000. · TRACY WILLS WORLEY Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATEOF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1225 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1225 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of January, 2000 and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17"~ day of January, 2000 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 6, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called'to order by Mayor .Worley at 7:08 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, Califomia. The Pledge of.Allegiance was led by Boy Scout Troop 323, and the Invocation was giyen by Pastor Dane Counts, Kings Way Church. ~.~ ROLL CALL Council Present: Council Absent: City Clerk: Others Present: Tracy Wills Wodey, Mayor Jeffery M. Thomas, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Doyle Jim Potts Thomas R. Saltarelli None Pamela Stoker William A. Huston, City Manager Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney George Jeffries, City Treasurer Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development Steve Foster, Chief of Police Tim Sedet, Director of Public Works Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director Pat Sanchez, Director of Parks and Recreation Services Dana Kasdan, Engineering Services Manager Rita Westfield, Asst. Director, Community Development ' Gary Veeh, Water Services Manager SCOtt Reekstin, Acting Senior Planner Joe Meyers, Senior Management Analyst Patty Estrella, Executive Coordinator Bettie Correa, Senior Personnel Analyst Valerie Crabill, Chief Deputy City Clerk Approximately 30 in the audience PUBLIC INPUT Dinosaur Dash - Bob Machado, representing Tustin Public Schools Foundation, presented the City Council with a Dinosaur Dash sponsor trophy and thanked them for their continued support of the event. PUBLIC HEARING (ITEM 1 ) CITIZEN'S OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Page Mayor Worley opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. There were no speakers and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Ports, seconded by Doyle, to approve the Police recommendation to use AB 3229 funds for continued operation of the gang unit. Motion carried 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEMS 2 THROUGH 17) e 1 Department's 1 Item Nos. 131 16, and 17 were removed from the Consent Calendar I~y Mayor Worley, Councilmembers Potts and Doyle. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Thomas, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar as recommended by staff. Motion carried 5-0. Sm APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 15, 1999 REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve the City Council Minutes of November 15, 1999. 1 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $1,540,948.08 and ratify Payroll in the amount of $404,418.70. RESOLUTION NO. 99-102 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONERS, AND MEMBERS OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-102 approving increases in compensation for members of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Audit Committee. 2000 LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST Recommendation: Approve the 2000 Local Appointments List for the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Cultural Resources Advisory Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA- NOVEMBER 22, 1999 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of NOvember 22, 1999. CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN OF IRVINE BOULEVARD REHABILITATION BETWEEN THE SR-55 FREEWAY AND PROSPECT AVENUE (ClP NO. 7160) AND PROSPECT AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND IRVlNE BOULEVARD (CIP NO. 7161) Recommendation: Approve the Consultant Services Agreement with Hards & Associates to provide design related services for Irvine Boulevard Rehabilitation (CIP No. 7160) and Prospect Avenue Reconstruction (CIP No. 7161) for a not-to-exceed fee of $77,540.00 and authorize execution of the Consultant Services Agreement by the Mayor and City Clerk, subject to approval by the City Attorney. Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Pase 2 ,, Sm 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. AWARD OF CONTRACT t-OR RED HILL AVENUE UNDERE~,OUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 14 ON-SITE ELECTRICAL SERVICE CONVERSIONS Recommendation: Award the construction contract for the Red Hill Avenue Underground Utility District No. 14 On-site Electrical Service Conversions (ClP No. 7156) to National' Electrical Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $13,826.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract documents on behalf of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 99-104-A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE AT FIRST STREET AND PROSPECT AVENUE (CIP NO. 4058) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-104 approving the'plans and specifications for the traffic signal upgrade at the intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue, and authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. RESOLUTION NO. 99-103 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY coUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PASADENA AVENUE FROM MAIN STREET CUL-DE-SAC TO THE FIRST STREET CUL- DE-SAC (CIP NO. 7157) AND SECOND STREET FROM PASADENA AVENUE TO MYRTLE AVENUE (CIP NO. 7158) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99-103 approving the plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Pasadena Avenue from Main Street cul-de-sac to the First Street cul-de- sac (CIP No. 7157) and Second Street from Pasadena Avenue to Myrtle Avenue (CIP No. 7158) and authorizing and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF PASADENA AVENUE WELL (PROJECT NO. 6130) Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk, subject to final City Attomey approval, to execute subject Professional Services Agreement with AKM Consulting Engineers for engineering services for the design of the Pasadena Avenue Well. 1998-99 ANNUAL REPORT Recommendation: (1) Receive and file the Annual Report for 1998-99, and (2) Direct a copy of this report be filed with the State Controller. AWARD OF BID FOR PEPPERTREE AND MAGNOLIA TREE PARKS RENOVATION PROJECT NO. 2039 Recommendation: Approve the following action subject to an appropriation of $210,000.00 from the Parks and Recreation Services Parks Development Fund to Capital Improvement Project No. 2039: Award a contract for the construction of Peppertree Park and Magnolia Tree Park Renovation (Project No. 2039) to Big Ben Construction Company of Newport Beach in the amount not-to-exceed $599,700.00. CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION OF CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk, subject to final City Attorney and Department of Health Services approval, to execute subject Consultant Services Agreement with lrvine Ranch Water District for administration of the Water Division's Cross-Connection Control Program along with providing electrical and mechanical maintenance services on an "on-call" basis. Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Pase 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM'I~I0.13 - CENSUS 2000 UPDATE Mayor Worley questioned status of census recount resulting from exclusion of Tustin Ranch. Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development, responded that the City was on schedule and that every unit in the City had been counted-. It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Saltarelli, to receive and file subject report. Motion carried 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 16 -JOINDER IN NO COST AMICUS BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IN ZELIG V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SUPREME COURT NO. S081791 Councilmember Potts expressed support for the amicus brief, and explained that the lawsuit involved required placement of metal detectors at public facilities, which he opposed. It was moved by Ports, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve Joinder on behalf of the County of Los Angeles at no cost to the City of Tustin in the above-referenced amicus brief. Motion carried 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 17 - FINAL YEAR 2000 REPORT Councilmember Doyle expressed his belief that the City was prepared for Y2K, no problems were anticipated, and emergency crews would be on stand-by at the utility companies. Mayor Wodey reiterated, that no Y2K problems were expected and a crisis team would be on duty at City Hall. Councilmember Potts stated he Was confident the City would not experience Y2K problems and urged the' public to use common sense during a possible power outage, particularly at traffic intersections. Councilmember Saltarelli reported that the Sanitation District would have extensive crews available for emergencies. It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Saltarelli, to receive and file subject report. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS 18. (ITEMS 18 THROUGH 22) ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (OCFA)- AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) William Huston, City Manager, gave a presentation detailing the OCFA Equity Study and its purpose; outlined key provisions of the Amended Joint Powers Agreement; provided elements of the City of Santa Ana proposal; compared 10-year costs between the OCFA Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Page 4 proposal and City of Santa Ana proposal; described other Opuons and recommendations for City fire services; noted that the Amended Joint Powers Agreement did not commit the City to a ten-year contract at this time; and the City had until July 1, 2000 to commit to a ten-year contract or withdraw from OCFA effective July 1, 2001. Councilmember Doyle strongly objected.to entering into a ten-year agreement with OCFA; this should be a life-and-death concern and more paramedics were needed; Orange County was the only County in the State without paid call firemen; the City had lost an engine, an air support unit, 22 firemen, and now had only eleven people protecting a population of 66,000; and he urged Council to consider his cost-effective proposal that would provide a higher level of service. William Huston reiterated that the required approval of the amended JPA would not lock the City into a ten-year contract; approval of the amended JPA would .require a firm decision by July 1, 2000; in the interim, the service agreement would be submitted separately for City Council consideration and approval; and any proposal Council wished to evaluate would be brought forward. It was moved by Potts, seconded by Saltarelli, to (1) approve the amended Orange County Fire Authority Joint Powers Agreement, (2) direct staff to enter into negotiations with the OCFA on a ten-year fire services agreement based on the terms of the amended Joint Powers Agreement, including fire services performance standards, and (3) review Councilmember Doyle's proposed plan in January. Council/staff discussion followed regarding decision timeline; and the latest date for entering into the ten-year contract would be July 1, 2000. Mayor Wodey mentioned she had held the only dissenting vote on the OCFA Board's decision to eliminate the paid call firefighters; she supported the paid call firefighters; and believed the salary issues could have been resolved. Council/staff discussion followed regarding the service contract and its delineation of minimum service levels; its required adherence to the parameters of the JPA, including performance standards and response time; and consistent performance standards in each community. Councilmember Saltarelli stressed the significance of having clear, specific, detailed and definitive guidelines regarding service; manpower/equipment available and the number of fire companies and paramedics at the various stations; and the Fire Authority must be held accountable for staffing in accordance with guidelines to assure the level of service. William Huston responded that the intent of the service agreement was to detail those types of concerns; to maintain a balance in service level with adequate equipment and technology available for the entire term of the ten-year contract; Fire Authority costs would already be capitalized so the only expense would be depreciation; and replacement of Station 37 would be a non-capital item and not factored into the cost. Council/staff discussion followed regarding the Joint Powers Agreement and its proposed methodology for determining application of costs and the City's applicable base cap to cover annual maintenance at each station, new equipment and facilities; the same methodology should apply to all cities; and a detailed description was required to justify increase in any Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Pase 5 19. 20. factor, with safeguards i~'place to protect levels of service. Hugh Wood, Assistant Chief of Support Services at OCFA, responded to a question regarding contract amounts for private ambulance service; the contracts, have a maximum amount fixed by the County; and cost to the individual would depend on their insurance coverage. . Councilmember Potts stated that the Fire Authority was aware of the City's concems; questioned if the City was receiving less service without paid call firemen and methods of quantifying/qualifying the service; and 'expressed willingness to listen to Councilmember Doyle's proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Thomas stated valid questions remained unanswered and charges unrefuted; suggested that OCFA give a presentation to Council to answer questions and give details on these issues so Council could reach a conclusion; and felt being required to present questions in writing] to OCFA was not conducive to reaching a decision. Council/staff discussion followed regarding costs of capital improvement, facilities maintenance and equipment replacement; questions were raised as to how the costs were figured and funded and specifically what the base cap numbers included; specific information would be necessary from the Fire Authority in these areas to compare altemative proposals; and the six month extension period was granted by the Fire Authority as a result of a number of cities considering other alternatives. Councilmember Doyle commented on an erroneous report from the Fire Authority regarding calls to The Bam restaurant from 1991 through 1999. Motion carded 5-0. ORDINANCE NO. 1203, GRADUATED COMPLIANCE PLAN MCAS TUSTIN It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Saltarelli, to have second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1203. Motion carried 5-0. The City Clerk read Ordinance No. 1203 by title only. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Saltarelli, to introduce the following Ordinance No. 1203: ORDINANCE NO. 1203 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, PERTAINING TO CERTAIN EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AT MCAS TUSTIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 18941.9 Motion carded 5-0 (roll call vote). ORDINANCE NO. 1213, ABOVE GROUND CABINETS It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Saltarelli, to have second reading by title only of Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Pas:e 6 Ordinance No. 1213. Motion carried 5-0. . The City Clerk read Ordinance No. 1213 by title only. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Saltarelli, to introduce the following Ordinance No. 1213: ORDINANCE NO. 1213 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR ABOVE GROUND CABINETS WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY Motion carried 5-0 (roll call vote). ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR AN ADJUSTMENT IN CITY COUNCIL SALARIES TO BE EFFECTIVE IN NOVEMBER 2000 Mayor Wodey pointed out that the City Council had not had an increase in ten years and that any increase would not become effective until after the next election. Mayor Pro Tem Thomas stated he felt that a five percent increase was somewhat excessive; suggested a reasonable adjustment to account for inflation; and that based on inflation rates during the past ten years and the absence of any increase, Council was making about 25% less than they were ten years ago. Mayor Wodey expounded on the numerous responsibilities of Council and felt that based on the absence of any increase during the past ten years, a five percent increase would not bring complaint. Councilmember Potts stated his objection to Council voting on their own salaries; felt that if it were placed on the ballot it would gain a confidence vote; and suggested efforts to facilitate changes in Govemment Code regarding compensation. Councilmember Saltarelli reiterated that any increase would not affect the present Council; expressed his approval for a $175.00 increase and noted the obligations involved in meetings/events; expenses absorbed and Council contributions to various organizations; and stated his opposition to placing the issue on the ballot. Mayor Wodey reported salaries to Councilmembers in other cities were wide-ranging; some ranged from $25,000 to $70,000 a year; and half the cities in the U.S. paid $20,000 to $30,000 to Councilmembers. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Thomas, to approve an increase from $500.00 to $675.00 per month, effective after the next election. Motion carried 4-1, Potts opposed. Recess - At 8:30 p.m., Mayor Wodey recessed the City Council meeting and reconvened at 8:43 p.m. Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Page 7 22. APPROVAL OF SPECII-ICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATlUN TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES Joe Meyers, Senior Management-Analyst, gave a presentation on solid waste management and the requirement to seek competitive bids every seven years in accordance with Measure J; the present waste management contract would expire June 30, 2000; bid specifications were developed by consultants Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson with AB 939 mandate being the pdmary concem; AB 939 required the City to divert from landfills 50% of the waste generated within the boundaries of the City or face a possible $10,000 per day fine; the current provider was complying with the 1995 25% diversion requirement; the proposed program was to include an exclusive franchise agreement for residential and commercial solid waste services; voluntary commercial recycling services; increased public education; automated recycling services at no additional charge with three collection carts included in the basic charge: one green waste, one mixed recyclables, and one general refuse; additional .recycle and green waste carts provided at no cost; a $4.00 charge for additional general refuse cart to encourage recycling; and the bid specifications could be amended to address public concems or incorporate changes in accordance with the City's preference. Mayor Pro Tem Thomas questioned whether limitations could be placed in the specifications to retain the present st .ructure of two days per week pickup versus four or five days. Laith Ezzet, representing the consulting firm of Hilton, Famkopf & Hobson, responded that individual customers would have only one collection day with all of their refuse collected on that same day; different areas of the City would have a different collection day; it was inefficient to collect in the same area more than one day per week; it had been his experience that cities limiting bid specifications to one or two days per week received only one or two proposals; specifying only one or two day pickups limited proposers in utilizing their equipment; and more limited pickup days required additional equipment to make the pickups. Mayor Pro Tem Thomas reiterated that the City already had residential pickups on two days and expressed concem about trash trucks driving through areas repeatedly. Councilmember Potts/Mr. Ezzet discussion followed regarding how specifications could be written to allow trucks through individual neighborhoods only once per week and how this could be achieved while allowing the proposer to utilize equipment efficiently. Councilmember Saltarelli stated that significant changes affecting the residents were already being made without changing pickup days; the pickup days should remain Thursday and Friday; and the City needed to be concemed about further disrupting the residents. ! Mr. Ezzet responded it was a minor change to specify Thursday and Friday only in the specifications; it would limit the number of proposers by increasing the cost of using their equipment only two days per week; and suggested that the City obtain bids for two days and multiple days, and compare the difference. Councilmember Potts expressed his concem, about limiting the number of bidders and raising the cost by placing limitations in the specifications. Mr. Ezzet stated an instance where such limitations resulted in only two proposals, one the incumbent and the other too expensive; and other bidders dropped out when it was limited to one day pickup and they could not utilize their equipment effectively. Minutes - City Council December 6, ].999- Pase 8 Councilmember Saltarelli stated residential trash should not be picked up,more than two days per week and questioned whether the pickup days should be Thursday and Friday; the City wanted to find the best price for the best service and minimize the discomfort level of residents; and it would be a major effort to change all of these variables and educate the residents. - Mr. Ezzet cladfied that the City would have the same number, of trucks/miles whether it specified two days or five days; limiting, the number of days would increase congestion on those days; the same number of trips to the landfill would still be required; the change in service days would occur one time with rates remaining the same for seven years; and the reason the majority of City Councils were giving flexibilities to proposers to choose pickup days was due to rate concems. Mayor Pro Tem Thomas stated residents were C°ncemed with good service and fair rates; they would be adapting to numerous new changes; and pickup days should not be changed. Councilmember Saltarelli stated the residents were more concemed with good service; they would be adjusting to numerous changes in the service; and the number of pickup days should not change. Councilmember Potts cladfied there would be only so many trucks and so many' trips, no matter how many days it took, and to limit the pickups to two days would eliminate competition to the incumbent. Mr. Ezzet clarified there would be the same number of trucks in individual neighborhoods, the only difference being the contractor would require several idle trucks in their yard to facilitate collecting all waste in the one or two days specified; if the City went to multi-day pickup, some collection days would change; the specifications could be changed so residents would not have trucks in their neighborhoods on different days; limiting the collection days gave the incumbent the advantage since their routes were already in place; and suggested the bids be obtained both ways to obtain a cost comparison. Councilmember Saltarelli/Mr. Ezzet discussion followed that the bid differential would be estimated between fifty cents and two dollars per home, on a monthly basis, .for two days versus five days. Councilman Potts suggested that rather than eliminating the competition and to review the monetary difference, the bids should be requested both ways. Council/Mr. Ezzet discussion followed regarding interest in bidding by other franchisees in the County; comments were received back from approximately six companies who were interested; they would not be able to bid as cost-effectively for two days versus five days; and it was unknown whether they would, in fact, submit bids. Mayor Pro Tem Thomas suggested that when drawing comparisons in any business, there would be those who could not bid; although the best price was important, the level of service should not be denigrated; and stated that residents would participate in the 3-cart pickup plan to lower the pdce and fulfill AB 939 requirements, as long as the level of service was high. Councilmember Doyle commented on the possible $10,000 per day fine for violation of AB Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Page 9 939; resident feedback to him expressed no preference of pl'~,~up day; the 3-cart system was a concern; and they were misunderstanding the $4 charge for the additional general refuse bin. Mr. Meyers stated there was no additional charge to participate in the recycling program and the only additional fee was for an extra general refuse bin. Councilmember Doyle concurred with charges for not participating in the recycling effort; he felt the citizens were not concemed about their pickup day; and residents were negative about recycling until they learned the City was not responsible for AB 939 and the $10,000 fine. Mayor Wodey stressed the importance of obtaining a' good rate for the taxpayers while remaining competitive; and stated preference for two days per week but was concemed this limitation might discourage competitive bidding, resulting in a higher rate. Mr. Meyers reiterated that the reason to assess both pickup schedules was to make a cost determination once the bids were received, and stated that several years ago Great Westem Reclamation proposed revised collection days to five days to facilitate recycling operations. Council/consultant/staff discussion followed regarding commercial services and green waste dumpsters; the selected hauler offering recycling services to commercial businesses at no additional charge; the need to educate business owners in recycling of green waste to reduce waste going into landfill; special needs such as paint and/or flammable liquids were under the purview of the County and would remain so due to associated 10ng-term liability; customers could receive any number of recycling carts at no additional charge; conditions in the current contract did not limit the number of pickup days; including that limitation in these specifications would be adding a condition that does not now exist; specific periodic pickup schedules would apply to bulky items; the number of items and/or the number of pickups could be increased; and there was currently unlimited service on bulky items if the customer' called the hauler. Council/consultant/staff discussion continued regarding larger quantities of trash at the holidays; most extra waste was recyclable; an unlimited quantity of bundled yard waste could be set out for pickup; it was unusual to exceed the 3-cart capacity except in extreme instances; to allow any type'of trash in unlimited amounts would discourage recycling efforts; all materials must be placed in container except bundled yard waste; if a resident chose not to participate in recycling, their trash must still be placed in the bins; if an additional general refuse bin was required or if trash exceeded the capacity of the general refuse bin, there was a $4.00 charge for the additional general refuse bin; an unlimited number of recycling bins. would be available at no charge; 90% of residents would never need more than one general refuse bin; three bins were equivalent to 9 regular trash cans; extra trash generated through moving a household might require a special pickup; and someone generating a small quantity of trash would not have to pay for someone generating a larger amount. The following member of the audience requested definitions of carts and the recycling process: and received clarification regarding Onnolee Elliott, 13631 Yorba St., Santa Ana, Califomia The following member of the audience spoke in favor of responding to the bid' proposal and Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Page 10 expressed opposition to a wvo-day pickup limit: Marty Czerniak, Norcal Waste Systems, Inc., . The following member of the ~audience spoke in opposition to the proposed bid specifications due to perceived elimination of competition: Jason Bryce Rush, Legislative Analyst, Ware Disposal Co. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, responded that Mr. Rush's written and verbal concems had been addressed with changes made to Section 5 of the Request for Proposal; the City did not perform prequalification but selected the lowest bidder and then determined whether the Iow bidder was responsible; and standards used in this determination were codified by State law. The following member of the audience expressed support for a two-day pickup schedule; explained details of a 3-cart program pickup schedule; and stated adequate responses would be' received from qualified bidders: Gay Sirocca, Waste Management Co. It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Potts, to adopt the following Resolution No. 99-101 approving the specifications for Solid Waste Management Services and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids: RESOLUTION NO. 99-101 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES Council/consultant/staff discussion followed to clarify the process of selection of lowest bidder and whether the specifications would request bidding both ways in order to gain comparison and encourage competitive bids; it was agreed that the 3-bin system would inevitably cause transition issues which would best be confronted now; staff should proceed with multi-day pickup to encourage competitive bidding and increase the possibility of lower rates; consideration of size of pickup trucks and subjection to CHP weight limits; and the motion was to remain approving staff's recommendation. Motion carded 3-2, Thomas and Saltarelli opposed. PUBLIC INPUT- None OTHER BUSINESS/COMMITTEE REPORTS Holiday Greetings - Councilmember Doyle sent holiday wishes to friends. Mayor Pro Tern Thomas sent holiday greetings to those celebrating Hanukkah, Ramadan, and Christmas. El Toro Reuse Planning Authority (ETRPA) - Councilmember Potts requested staff proceed with obtaining membership in ETRPA. Freeway Noise - Councilmember Potts suggested landscaping and/or mitigating wall be installed at Browning and I-5 freeway to minimize freeway noise. Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Page 11 Council Compensation - Councilmember Saltarelli clarified that his motion to increase Council compensation was for $675.00 per month. Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative - Councilmember Thomas referenced a letter to the editor regarding his position/knowledge on the Safe and Healthy Communities Initiative, clarified that his concern was the initiative's potential impact on base development; stated his support for joining ETRPA; and requested the Council discuss the' issue and take a position. New Year's Eve Celebration - Mayor Wodey announced a New Year's Eve celebration at the Tustin Ranch Golf Club would be hosted by the Lions, Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs of Tustin. MCAS Tustin 'Base Development- Mayor Wodey reported Request for Proposals for base development was in the final stages and would be provided to master developers. Tustin Market Parking - Mayor Worley expressed frustration with the Irvine Company's construction of two additional pads at the Tustin Market Place creating significant parking problems,' received clarification from staff that the pads were in compliance, and requested a Mayoral letter be forwarded to The Irvine Company expressing concems. El Toro Flight Report- Mayor Worley reported the El Toro flight report had been received by the Council and was available to the public. MCAS Tustin - Councilmember Saltarelli noted that with the closure of MCAS Tustin, the number of John Wayne Airport flights directly over Tustin had increased. Learning Center- Councilmember Potts requested a proclamation for Mada Halverson, founder of the Learning Center at Lyon Street Clubhouse. CLOSED SESSION - Mayor Wodey announced the City Council would convene in closed session to confer with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation to which the City was a party: Sara Pashalides v. City of Tustin, et.al, OCSC No'. 801875. ADJOURNMENT - Mayor Worley adjoumed the meeting at 10:22' p.m. The December 20, 1999, City Council meeting was cancelled. The next regular meeting of the City Council was scheduled for Monday, January 3, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. TRACY WILLS WORLEY, MAYOR PAMELA STOKER, CITY CLERK Minutes - City Council December 6, 1999- Page