HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1991 06 03MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 31 1991
I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Puckett at 7:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilmember Potts.
INVOCATION
The Invocation was given by Rev. McCready Johnston, Church of the
New Covenant.
III. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
Leslie Anne Pontious, Mayor Pro Tem
Richard B. Edgar
Jim Potts
Earl J. Prescott
Council Absent: None
Others Present: William A. Huston, City Manager
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager
W. Douglas Franks, Chief of Police
Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works
Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director
Dan Fox, Senior Planner
Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent
Valerie Whiteman, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Ann Bonner, Associate Planner
Approximately 20 in the audience
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ZONE CHANGE 90-01l TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 90-292j, TENTATIVE PARCEL
NAP 90-293 (JAMBOREE PLAZA)
Dan Fox, Senior Planner, summarized the proposed Jamboree Plaza
zone change specific district regulations including the four
planning areas, provisions for the Transportation Demand
Management Program, a description of the tentative parcel maps,
the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, and highlighted proposed
project improvements.
Council/staff discussion followed regarding the proposed
California Highway Patrol facility and location of traffic
signal.
Mayor Puckett opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
The following member of the audience spoke in favor of zone
Change 90-01:
Kevin Hanson, Vice President, Bedford Properties
There were no other speakers on the subject and the public
hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m.
Councilmember Edgar stated this project would be an asset to the
community by generating sales tax revenue and aesthically
improving the area.
Mayor Pro Tem Pontious, Mayor Puckett, and Councilmember
Prescott complimented staff and the developer for creating a
quality development in Tustin.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Pontious, to certify the
Negative Declaration as adequate for the projects by adoption of
the following Resolution No. 91-75:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-75 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2, 6-3-91
AS ADEQUATE FOR ZONE CHANGE 90-01, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 90-292,
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 90-293 AND DESIGN REVIEW 90-40 INCLUDING
REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Pontious, that Ordinance No.
1072 have first reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0.
Following first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1072 by
the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Pontious,
that the following Ordinance No. 1072 be introduced:
ORDINANCE NO. 1072 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 90-01 TO
MODIFY EXISTING IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND ADOPT NEW JAMBOREE
PLAZA DISTRICT REGULATIONS IN THE PC -IND DISTRICT LOCATED ON
19.1 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDINGER STREET AND
JAMBOREE ROAD
Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Pontious seconded by Edgar, to approve
Tentative Parcel Map 90-292 by adoption of the following
Resolution No. 91-76:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-76 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
90-292
Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Pontious, to approve
Tentative Parcel Map 90-293 by adoption of the following
Resolution No. 91-77:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-77 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
90-293
Motion carried 5-0.
99/109
2. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-01 AND VARIANCE 91-08
(PAQUETTE, 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE)
(Comments by the City Council during this portion of the Minutes
are verbatim.)
Dan Fox, Senior Planner, reported the Conditional Use Permit was
an application for a tire sales and service business located at
135 S. Prospect Avenue and the variance was a request to deviate
from various lot standards in conjunction with the operation of
that business. He stated the applicant had submitted a new plan
including design review aspects of the project which
substantially deviated from the plans previously reviewed by the
Planning Commission and explained it would be inappropriate for
the Council to consider design review aspects of the site before
review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fox gave a slide
presentation of the various office, retail and restaurant uses
on First Street; summarized the Planning Commission's decision
of denial of the Conditional Use Permit and variance; and
highlighted the First Street Specific Plan goals and objectives.
He also distributed and read a letter received from Roy E. Daly
Company supporting denial of the Conditional Use Permit and
variance.
Mayor Puckett opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
The following members of the audience spoke in support of the
proposed project:
Ronald M. Casaga, 17671 Shadel Drive, Tustin
Ava Matthews, 10542 Greenbrier Road, Santa Ana
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3, 6-3-91
Patricia Champion, 17965 Fiesta Way, Tustin
Norman Fritz, property owner, 135 S. Prospect Avenue, Tustin
Steven Paquette, co -applicant (read letter from Mr. Altman)
Greg Bennett, Donley -Bennett Architects
The following member of the audience spoke in opposition to the
proposed project:
Kathy Weil, 1702 Summerville Avenue, Tustin
There were no other speakers on the subject and the public
hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Pontious: I believe very firmly in the goals of
the First Street Specific Plan and I am very concerned about the
nature of the development throughout our Old Town areas and the
First Street area. As a member of the Planning Commission I
voted against approval of the carwash. While I feel that the
applicant has obviously gone to a great deal of time and
trouble, I cannot support the auto service use. Each granting
of such a use continues to erode the First Street Plan. I'm
unable to make the necessary findings to overturn the Planning
Commission's decision.
Councilmember Edgar: The concern I have is that traffic and
parking are clearly identified issues and although there is a
rationale that the applicant has given as to why perhaps in his
judgement the standards don't apply, nevertheless, one of the
things I have felt very critical in every project we have in our
City is to make sure we do the very best technical job we can to
understand traffic, to understand parking and not to have a
project that's going to have built-in deficiencies along that
line.
Dan Fox, in response to previous public comments, explained the
trip generation formula; scheduling timelines; and use of the
photoboard.
Mayor Puckett reopened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
The following member of the audience spoke in support of the
proposed project:
Steve Paquette, co -applicant
There were no other speakers on the subject and the public
hearing was re -closed at 8:12 p.m.
Councilmember Prescott: After almost 45 minutes of comment, I
think that what we're looking at here is a problem of usage. I
think once we can establish a usage which we're comfortable
with, the staff and the applicant could design whatever were
necessary. I have no problem with automotive usage on that
corner and I would like to see the Planning Commission revisit
the whole subject with..I don't know how the rest of the Council
thinks on this issue, but if there were a majority up here that
were open to an automotive usage, we could send it back to the
Planning Commission and they can go at it again. But I don't
think we have the right to do tonite what the applicant
suggested and overrule the Planning Commission and do enactment
of his proposed resolutions, okay the project.
Councilmember Potts: My comments are, I'm not willing to just
dump a business like that without sending it back to the
Planning Commission as Councilmember Prescott suggested. As
Paul Harvey said, there's the rest of the story. Right now,
I've been to First Street. McDonald's and Jalepenos is on First
Street so my kids and I and my wife get out there. Those are
the two thriving businesses besides the Post Office. The Post
Office might be moving, in fact they said they are going to move
out to the east end of the City, I don't know where, I don't
think they know where. Right now, the rest of the story is, you
have an old building there. You have a building that's being
used for storage, there's absolutely no revenue being generated
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4, 6-3-91
from this building. You have an opportunity where they are
going to come in and make an old building look newer, they are
going to do a lot to improve the area, they are going to put in
25 trees from looking at this and what I've been told. They are
going to generate tax revenue in an economic time that, yes,
it's down, and it's starting to pick up, but, if there was
another business that was going to go in there I'd entertain
that idea, I think another business would be great but we don't
have another business, this is the only business that I can see
that's ever been offered for that area and since he's the owner
of the property and has already started this, I think it would
be appropriate to send it back to the Planning Commission and
review it and see what we can work out. If it can't be worked
out, fine, but I'm not willing to just tell them good -night,
that's all there is, and all your hard work is for naught. I'd
like to work something out to where it's a win-win situation,
the City needs the revenue. I can agree with Kathy Weil as far
as this being the First Street project and what they tried to
plan, but I know that even she would say that the improvements
to that building now are better than what they plan. It's
better than what it is now and so maybe she can give some input,
other people can give some input to the Planning Commission, and
we can work something out.
Mayor Puckett: Christine, question. If the Planning
Commission's ruling is upheld, what are the alternatives for the
applicant, can he go back to the Planning Commission with the
new proposal?
Christine Shingleton: I£ he has a new proposal as I think has
been represented in your packet, he could take that back as a
new proposal and open up the issue again with the Commission.
One caution to that is, I think that Councilman Prescott is
correct in that the real issue ought to be the use issue here
and you can refer it back to the Commission relative to the
design, but if the Council really hasn't really resolved use
issue and you're comfortable with seeing automotive services on
this site, you're not going to give enough direction back to the
Commission to allow them to, I think, be comfortable with taking
an action that might have been different than what they
originally recommended. I think I'd like to see you provide
direction on that area and then as the applicant has represented
and, as Councilman Prescott suggests, the design issues we would
work in any event with the applicant on, depending upon the
direction that the Council provided.
Councilmember Potts: I think I have a problem with the parking
and if that could be addressed. It's already in the Conditional
Use Permit to allow that type of business there even though it's
in the First Street corridor, the Specific Plan, it is addressed
under the Conditional Use Permit. So now we have problems with
parking, I don't think with the aesthetics, if they do what they
say they're going to do.
Christine Shingleton: I might clarify because there is..as Dan
Fox mentioned, there's kind of a confusion about the Conditional
Use Permit process and law, and what that means is it's a use
that's authorized, that's not correct. It's not a use that's
merely authorized under condition, it's a use that you do have
complete discretion over, you have the ability to deny, you have
the ability to approve and it's within the purview of the
Council to make those determinations. It is not an out -right
permitted use.
Mayor Puckett: I was on the Planning Commission when the First
Street Specific Plan was adopted and had I been on the Planning
Commission when the carwash was approved, I would have voted
against the carwash because I don't see that as an appropriate
use for that area. I was contacted by Mr. Paquette, went out
and looked at the project and my thought going in was that it
was not an appropriate use. When I looked at the project I came
away with not as strong of feelings that I might have had, but
I still have to go back to the First Street Specific Plan and
that was instituted for a reason. This is not, in my feeling,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5, 6-3-91
an appropriate use for First Street as the Plan states and so I
would have to vote to uphold the Planning Commission as much as
I hate to see the efforts of the applicant thwarted at this
time.
Councilmember Edgar: One of the things that I understood a
little bit and I didn't see any amplification on it at all and
I was looking for it, and that is that the proposition that the
�. applicant presently has is that they can have a joint
utilization with the carwash, and in particular to take one of
the driveways of of First Street and to have a much larger
driveway that would be jointly used by the carwash and their
facility. On the surface, my feelings are that that very
possibly might have an affect of mitigating some of the problems
that we felt uncomfortable with when we approved the carwash and
if that's true that would be an element that would significantly
enhance the value of the project. The data that I've seen up to
now doesn't really in a very sophisticated way address that, but
I just have the feeling that it might, but again it might not,
and so I would certainly want to see that issue explored because
if we could make traffic on First Street better by having that
type of a jointly used facility that would be a plus in favor of
the applicant. If it isn't true and again I don't know the
details that well, then of course that would be a negative
factor.
Councilmember Potts: You can look at the Times or the Register,
I forget which paper today on the front page about businesses
moving out of California, I hate to sound like a broken record
but that's what's happening and that's what I've said in the
past and that's what's ... I'm not just willing to dump this
immediately. If it can't meet the standards, then dump it. But
at least work and try to work with them one more time before
it's dumped.
Councilmember Prescott: I'd like to poll the Council whether or
not there's a consensus of at least three members up here to
tentatively approve of the concept of automobile usage on that
corner, and if so, how could we send it back to the Planning
Commission and in which manner.
Mayor Puckett: I would be opposed to automotive usage on that
corner.
Councilmember Potts: Under the circumstances, I would be in
favor of it.
Mayor Pro Tem Pontious: I would be opposed.
Councilmember Edgar: I think that I'm going to support that;
however, with the admonition that there are many technical
things that need to be addressed and I would then be willing to
support a use if these technical things, particularly in terms
of traffic and parking, couldn't be mitigated. Because if we
build a project that is doomed to degrade the community then I
think we have to depend on our staff to be clever enough to make
sure that we are informed of that, so I guess I'd be willing to
support it, but with those conditions.
Councilmember Prescott: I'd like to make a motion then that we
deny Resolution No. 91-78 and send this project back to the
Planning Commission with the caveats attached as we have just
discussed and ask Chris Shingleton if there's anything else she
would like me to add to that motion in terms of direction.
Christine Shingleton: I think that's clear.
Councilmember Potts: I'll second it.
Mayor Puckett: Alright, it's been moved and seconded. Do you
have any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying
aye.
Motion carried 3-2, Puckett, Pontious opposed. 78
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6, 6-3-91
3. DECLARATION OF PIIBLIC NUISANCE - 1001 AND 1011 EL CAMINO REAL
Councilmember Prescott announced he would abstain on this issue.
Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, gave a background
report of the code violations on the property located at 1001
and 1011 E1 Camino Real. She stated the property owner had been
sent notification by certified mail of the intent to hold a
public hearing to determine if the conditions at the property
constituted a public nuisance. She described the current
condition of the property; presented slides of the site; and
explained extension of the demolition permit.
Mayor Puckett opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. There were
no speakers on the subject and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Pontious seconded by Potts, to adopt the
following Resolution No. 91-79 declaring the property located at
1001 and 1011 E1 Camino Real a public nuisance pursuant to
Section 5501 et seq of the Tustin City Code:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-79 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS
ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1001 AND 1011 EL CAMINO REAL
CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND HEREBY ORDERING THE ABATEMENT
OF SAID NUISANCE
Motion carried 4-0, Prescott abstained. 81
V. PIIBLIC INPUT
1. FIRE HYDRANTS
Dick Yaberg, 13162 Silver Birch, Tustin, questioned why fire
hydrants could not be painted to look more attractive.
Mayor Puckett requested staff investigate the matter.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A member of the audience removed Item No. 9 from the Consent
Calendar. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Pontious, to approve
the remainder of the Consent Calendar as recommended by staff.
Motion carried 5-0.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 20, 1991 REGULAR MEETING
Recommendation: Approve the City Council Minutes of May 20,
1991.
2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL
Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of
$1,579,141.74 and ratify Payroll in the amount of $289,508.39.
50
3. DONATED SPACE AGREEMENT, TUSTIN AREA SENIOR CENTER
Recommendation: Approve donated space agreement with the
County of Orange, and authorize the Director of Community and
Administrative Services to execute the same as recommended by
the Community Services Department. 45
4. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 91-17 - CLAIMANT, CESARIO MONTOYA; DATE
OF LOSS, 2/26/91; DATE FILED WITH CITY, 4/11/91
Recommendation: Reject subject claim for property loss
damages in the amount of $620.00 as recommended by the City
Attorney. 40
5. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 91-19 - CLAIMANT, GARY M. SNYDER; DATE
OF LOSS, 4/9/91; DATE FILED WITH CITY, 4/16/91
Recommendation: Reject subject claim for property damages in
the amount of $125.00 as recommended by the City Attorney.
40
6. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 91-08 - CLAIMANT, DANIEL ARMSTRONG;
DATE OF LOSS, 1/18/91; DATE FILED WITH CITY, 2/14/91
Recommendation: Reject subject claim for property damages in
the amount of $254.62 as recommended by the City Attorney. 40
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7, 6-3-91
7. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR COLUMBUS TUSTIN PARK,
PHASE 2A IMPROVEMENTS
Recommendation: Approve plans and specifications; and
authorize advertisement for bids for construction of Columbus
Tustin Phase 2A Improvements as recommended by the Community
Services Department. 77
S. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 91-22 - CLAIMANT, AMANDA SPURLOCK; DATE
OF LOSS, 11/30/90; DATE FILED WITH CITY, 5/10/91
Recommendation: Reject subject claim for personal injury
damages in an amount that exceeds $20,000 as recommended by
the City Attorney. 40
10. DECLARATION OF SURPLUS VEHICLES AND WORK EQUIPMENT
Recommendation: Declare specified equipment "surplus" and not
required for public use and authorize the Public Works
Department to dispose of equipment in accordance with
Ordinance No. 871 as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Field Services Division. 86
11. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF HAZARD COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM
Recommendation: Authorize staff to enter into a professional
services agreement with Cardinal Environmental Consultants,
Tustin, to develop and implement a CAL/OSHA mandated Hazard
Communications Program in an amount not to exceed $15,400.00
and authorize execution of the agreement by the Mayor and City
Clerk as recommended by the Public Works Department/Field
Services Division. 45
12. SALE OF SURPLUS VEHICLES
Recommendation: Receive and file notice of sale of surplus
vehicles as recommended by the Public Works Department/Field
�., Services Division. 86
13. EL MODENA-IRVINE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT NO. D90-097
Recommendation: Approve the E1 Modena -Irvine Channel
Cooperative Agreement No. D90-097 and authorize the Mayor to
execute said agreement as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division. 45
14. RESOLUTION NO. 91-82 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEFINITION OF, AND
PROCESS FOR, DETERMINING THE CONSISTENCY OF A LOCAL
JURISDICTION'S CIRCULATION PLAN WITH THE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF
ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS FOR MEASURE "M" PURPOSES
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 91-82 approving the
definition of, and process for, determining the consistency of
a local jurisdiction's circulation plan with the County Master
Plan of Arterial Highway for Measure "M" purposes as
recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering
Division. 54
15. RESOLUTION NO. 91-92 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND ADOPTING AN
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND SECTION 7910 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 91-92 setting the
appropriations limit for fiscal 1990-91 at $18,955,979 as
recommended by the Finance Department. 50
CONSENT CALENDAR NO. 9 - RESOLUTION NO. 91-80 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MODIFICATION TO THE MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT ON THE
PROPOSED ESPLANADE/HOLT ANNEXATION NO. 151
Douglas Chapman, 13252 Fairmont Way, Santa Ana, questioned why the
City's portion of the proposed tax share ratio between the County of
Orange and the City for Annexation No. 151 was approximately $40,000
less than the historical tax share ratio.
William Huston, City Manager, explained that the County, currently
experiencing budget constraints due to State level mandates, had the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8, 6-3-91
advantage in negotiating tax share agreements because if the
agreement was not approved the annexation would not proceed. He
said it became a matter of how much the City wanted to annex versus
what the County was willing to relinquish. He clarified that the
agreement would have no impact on the amount residents would pay.
Councilmember Edgar stated the tax share agreement in 1979 was an
accurate tabulation of what the shares between the City and County
were at that time. Staff had reanalyzed the agreement and achieved
a fair solution for 1991. He felt the residents in Annexation No.
151 should be given the opportunity to join the City if they
desired.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Prescott, to approve the Master
Property Tax Transfer Agreement to the Proposed Esplanade/Holt
Annexation No. 151 by the adoption of Resolution No. 91-80.
Councilmember Potts stated he supported the annexation but was
displeased with County budget practices.
Mayor Pro Tem Pontious said the County was shifting costs to the
City and simultaneously removing revenue, and putting an additional
burden on residents of Tustin; therefore, she would not support the
tax share agreement.
Councilmember Prescott requested this subject be continued and staff
present a thorough analysis at the next Council meeting.
Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, said the annexation
proposal would not be heard by LAFCO on June 19, 1991, if the City
did not approve the tax share agreement tonight.
William Huston, City Manager, added that in order for LAFCO to
consider an application for annexation, the application must include --.
an approved tax share agreement. LAFCO could possibly hear the
request for incorporation on June 19 and take action due to the
absence of an annexation application.
Motion carried 4-1, Pontious opposed.
VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
1.
ALARMS
24
NO. 1071 - REGULATIONS FOR FIRE ALARMS AND FALSE
Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, reported that
adoption of this ordinance would enable the Fire Department to
collect fees_
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Potts, that Ordinance No.
1071 have first reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0.
Following first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1071 by
the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Potts, that
the following Ordinance No. 1071 be introduced:
ORDINANCE NO. 1071 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 1, PART
3, OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR FIRE ALARMS
AND FALSE ALARMS
Motion carried 5-0.
51
2. ORDINANCE NO. 1073 - ESTABLISHING THE AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
TRUST FUND
Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, reported that
recent legislation provided a mechanism for funding to assist
local jurisdictions in implementing specific air quality
measures to reduce air pollution. The fee is added to the motor
vehicle registration fee and for the City to receive their
allocated share, adoption of the proposed ordinance was
required.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9, 6-3-91
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Potts, that Ordinance No.
1073 have first reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0.
Following first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1073 by
the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Pontious,
that the following Ordinance No. 1073 be introduced:
ORDINANCE NO. 1073 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
r� CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADDING PART 4 TO CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE
2, OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH THE AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND
Motion carried 5-0. 50
VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
1. ORDINANCE NO. 1069 -
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Pontious, that Ordinance No.
1069 have second reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0.
Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1069 by
the City Clerk, it was moved by Pontious, seconded by Edgar,
that the following Ordinance No. 1069 be passed and adopted:
ORDINANCE NO. 1069 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6104
ENTITLED "PROHIBITION OF LOITERING SO AS TO OBSTRUCT PASSAGE" TO
TITLE 6 "PUBLIC WELFARE" TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING
LOITERING WHICH OBSTRUCTS THE PASSAGE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
Motion carried 5-0 (roll call vote). 82
2. ORDINANCE NO. 1070 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No.
1070 have second reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0.
Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1070 by
the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Puckett, that
the following Ordinance No. 1070 be passed and adopted:
ORDINANCE NO. 1070 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1045
REGARDING CITY-WIDE INTERIM ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE SITING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES TO INCORPORATE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Motion carried 5-0, (roll call vote). 102
I%. OLD BUSINESS
1. STATUS REPORT ON OLD TOWN CEARETTE
Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, highlighted
portions of the Old Town Charette event held on March 16, 1991,
which included: the number of people who attended; survey
results; a photo display; encouraged community involvement;
RUDAT (Regional Urban Design Assistance Team); estimated RUDAT
timeline from preparation through revitalization; and
anticipated promotion materials.
Mayor Puckett encouraged the Assistant City Manger to continue
speaking at service clubs to promote the Old Town
revitalization.
Mayor Pro Tem Pontious complimented staff on the process and was
excited to see it move forward.
Council/staff discussion followed regarding citizen involvement
and future community workshops.
Councilmember Potts requested that final plans include a
Victorian theme.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10, 6-3-91
Councilmember Prescott announced he would abstain from
discussion on this issue.
It was moved by Potts, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file
subject report.
Motion carried 4-0, Prescott abstained.
2. SOIL REMEDIATION UPDATEp 1011 EL CAMINO REAL
[I(
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file
subject report.
Motion carried 4-0, Prescott abstained.
3. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Potts, to receive and file
subject report.
Motion carried 5-0.
101
Councilmember Potts requested Kathy Weil provide additional
information at the next meeting.
4. WORKSHOP - 1991/92 DRAFT BUDGET
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Pontious, to hold a budget
workshop on June 17, 1991, at 5:30 p.m.
Motion carried 5-0. 50
B. NEW BUSINESS
1. PARKING AT LAUREL GLEN PARK (TRACT 12763)
Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent, reported the Laurel Glen
Park plans were in final plan check and scheduled to go out for
bid in approximately 2 to 3 weeks and summarized proposed
parking at the park.
Councilmember Potts said on -street parking in front of the park
was appropriate, but did not want parking extended on Heritage
Way.
It was moved by Potts, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file
subject report.
Motion carried 5-0. 77
2. COLUMBUS TUSTIN PHASE 2B IMPROVEMENTS - GYMNASIUM
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Prescott, to authorize staff
to prepare a Request for Proposal for an architect to complete
working drawings for the Columbus Tustin gymnasium.
Motion carried 5-0.
3. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS AND VACANCIES
77
Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, reported on the
provisions regarding Planning Commission and Parks and
Recreation Commission vacancies.
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Potts, to advertise for
all Commission vacancies.
Councilmember Prescott suggested a display ad instead of a legal
advertisement.
Motion carried 5-0. 80/76
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11, 6-3-91
XI. REPORTS
1. EL CAMINO REAL/RED HILL AVENUE LEFT TURN
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Potts, to receive and file
subject report.
Motion carried 5-0. 94
2. ON -STREET AMBULANCE PARKING - "B" STREET STATUS REPORT
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file
subject report.
Motion carried 5-0.
3. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF APRIL 30, 1991
74
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file
subject report.
Motion carried 5-0.
4. WATER CONSERVATION UPDATE
50
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Prescott, to receive and file
subject report.
Council/staff discussion followed regarding staff review of
water allocation variances and upgrading the City's water
billing software.
Motion carried 5-0.
XII. PUBLIC INPUT - None
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS
1. CHILI COOK -OFF
107
Councilmember Edgar commended staff on the Chili Cook -Off held
on June 2, 1991 and looked forward to next year's event.
2. RECYCLING PROGRAM
Councilmember Edgar said he was pleased with the possible
implementation of the recycling program by July 1, 1991.
Mayor Puckett also expressed pleasure with commencement of the
recycling program.
3. UPDATE REPORT - UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
Councilmember Edgar requested an update report on unreinforced
masonry buildings.
4. FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN
Mayor Pro Tem Pontious requested that Council review the First
Street Specific Plan.
S. CHILD CARE - VEEH SCHOOL
Councilmember Potts requested a staff report at the June 17
Council meeting regarding child care in September at Veeh
School, including an option to lease portable space.
6. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN
Councilmember Potts requested an update report on the City's
disaster preparedness program.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 12, 6-3-91
7. LITTLE LEAGUE - EAST TUSTIN COMMUNITY PARR
Councilmember Potts reported that the Tustin Eastern Little
League may be moved from Memorial School to Utt School and
requested Council consider future possibility of Little League
utilizing the East Tustin Community Park.
S. BUS STOP SHELTERS
Councilmember Prescott requested a staff report on bus stop
shelters being installed by OCTD in the City of Irvine.
9. RE -DISTRICTING PROCESS - ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Councilmember Prescott requested a staff report on the re-
districting process for Orange County Board of Supervisors.
10. JOINT MEETING - COUNCIL AND SCHOOL BOARD
Mayor Puckett reported the joint meeting between the Council and
School Board had a favorable atmosphere and was positive for the
City.
11. TUSTIN/FOOTHILL HIGH SCHOOL TEAM SPORT SUCCESSES
Mayor Puckett congratulated Tustin High School Boys' Baseball
team on making the CIF Southern Section Semi -Finals, and the
Foothill High School Girls' Softball team for advancing to the
finals.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Puckett adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. A budget workshop
was scheduled for Monday, June 17, 1991, at 5:30 p.m. The next
regular meeting of the City Council was scheduled for Monday,
June 17, 1991, at 7:00 P.M.
CHARLES E. PUCKETT, MAYOR
£ . L.
MARY E. W p CITM CLERK