Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1989 10 16i MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 16, 1989 ACTION FROM CIVIC CENTER ExVANSION/RENOVATION WORKSHOP, 5:30 P.M. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kelly, to approve the concept plan for modification of the City Council Chambers which provided for press seating and a modular dias for Councilmembers and staff. .-+ The motion carried 5-0. I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kennedy at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Hoesterey. II. INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Warren Vining, Pastor of the Advent Christian Church. III. ROLL CALL Council Present: Ursula E. Kennedy, Mayor Richard B. Edgar, Mayor Pro Tem Ronald B. Hoesterey John Kelly 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, Dir./Community Development Fred Wakefield, Police Captain Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director Royleen White, Dir./Community & Admin. Services Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner Approximately 165 in the audience IV. PROCLAMATION - RED RIBBON WEEK, OCTOBER 22-28, 1989 Mayor Kennedy read and presented a proclamation to Lucy Strait, co- founder of Parents Who Care. The proclamation encouraged residents to join in the effort and affirm "Our Choice, Drug Free" during Red Ribbon Week, October 22-28, 1989. Lucy Strait expressed her pride in the community that Tustin had dared to address the drug issue long before it became popular to do so and thanked the City Council for their support. 84 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-15 (TUSTIN MARKET PLACE) Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, gave a staff report regarding the proposed sign color palette for the Tustin Market Place as contained in the Community Development memorandum dated October 16, 1989. Mayor Kennedy opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. There were no speakers on the subject and the Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar stated he had appealed this item and now recognized that the present sign program stated only signs would contain the color purple; purple would not be utilized on walls or other large areas. With that understanding, he supported the Planning Commission's position. It was moved by Edaar, seconded by Hoesterev, to adopt the following Resolution No. 89-156, upholding the Planning CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 10-16-89 Commission's action amending Conditional Use Permit No. 88-15 (color of purple to be utilized in signage only): RESOLUTION NO. 89-156 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-15, AMENDING THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE Mayor Kennedy stated she was pleased with Phase 2 of the Tustin Market Place but found Phase 1 to be garish. _ The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. 81 2. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, VARIANCE 89-09 (DYNACHEM) Mayor Kennedy verified there were no speakers on the subject. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to continue the Public Hearing on the appeal of Variance 89-09 until the November 6, 1989 City Council meeting. The motion carried 5-0. 106 3. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, VARIANCE 89-10 (13911 CARROLL WAY - MIMI'S PLAZA) Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner, gave a staff report regarding the proposed sign program for Mimi's Plaza as contained in the Community Development memorandum dated October 16, 1989. A slide presentation was given of the subject area. Mayor Kennedy opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 p.m. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition to adoption of Resolution No. 89-157: Gerald Misurek, representing Manchester Development Mark Nitikman, representing Latham & Watkins There were no other speakers on the subject and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:39 p.m. Council/staff discussion followed regarding the original master sign program for the project and differences between this sign program and those for Enderle Center and the French Quarter. Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, noted that staff opposition was not to signage on a street frontage or monument location, but the proposed monument sign would be a potential traffic hazard. She noted that staff originally had concerns with the actual design of the project. The applicant rejected those concerns and a self-imposed hardship was created. She stated that staff interpretation of requirements had been described as narrow by the applicant, however, those interpretations were based upon legal advice from the City Attorney who felt that staff and the Planning Commission had applied the correct legal standards/policy. Councilman Hoesterey noted differences in the entrance configuration of Mimi's Plaza and entrances of Enderle Center and the French Quarter and supported the Planning Commission's — action. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to uphold the Planning Commission action to deny the location and size of the proposed monument sign and tenant identification wall signs by adoption of the following Resolution No. 89-157: RESOLUTION NO. 89-157 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A PORTION OF VARIANCE 89-10, A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE (A) TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGN TWO FEET FROM FRONT PROPERTY LINE; (B) OFF -PREMISE WALL SIGNS; AND (C) REAR WALL SIGNS TO BE 75 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, LOCATED AT 13911 CARROLL WAY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 10-16-89 Mayor Kennedy said she also had studied this complex problem and the City wanted the project to succeed but the Council also wanted to provide an area on Seventeenth Street that was conducive and attractive to an affluent buyer. Councilman Kelly said the Council should be cooperative and felt the developer's request was fair. As a substitute motion iL was mcivcu uv Prescott, to overrule the Planning Commission's action on Variance 89-10. Councilman Prescott stated as a matter of equity he supported the applicant's appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar thought it was critical for the location of the sign to provide visibility without hazards. The alternative was properly presented by staff and the Planning Commission's recommendation. The substitute motion failed 2-3, Kennedy, Edgar and Hoesterey opposed. The original motion carried 3-2, Kelly and Prescott opposed. 1Q6 VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION (AGENDA ORDER) 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1033 - REGULATION OF NEWSRACKS ON SIDEWALKS Council concurred to take this item out of agenda order to accommodate members of the press. James Rourke, City Attorney, reported there had been an ordinance prohibiting all newsracks in the public right-of-way that had not .., been enforced. The City became aware there were newsracks on the sidewalks, the racks were in violation of the existing City Code and the existing ordinance was probably unenforceable. Major area newspapers advised the City that prohibition of newsracks in the public right-of-way would result in legal action and accordingly staff prepared an ordinance for Council consideration that would permit newsracks in the public right-of-way subject to the most legally restrictive regulations possible. The following members of the audience spoke against sexually explicit material in the public right-of-way: Douglas Johnson, 16282 Main Street, Tustin Susan Dodds, 15541 Williams Street, Tustin Cindy and Michael Hale, 1602 Nisson Road, Tustin Michael David, 445-1/2 Sixth Street, Tustin Lynn Ramsey, 17502 Amaganset Way, Tustin Raymond and Dianne Saylor, 2046 Maple Avenue, Costa Mesa Kitty Billings, 14262 Alleman Place, Santa Ana Max Sanchez Scott Couch, 8654 Orange Avenue, Orange Rick Van Beel, 13271 Ranchero Place, Garden Grove Jim Pack, 1131 Packer Circle, Tustin Priscilla Wisner, 15505 Williams, Tustin Dawn Prock, 1701 E. 6th Street, Santa Ana r—� Carol and Richard Mayden, 13302 Charloma, Tustin Rachel Davis, Mission Viejo Novan Pack, 14681 Buckingham, Tustin Joel Pilcher, 1045 San Juan, Tustin Ann Johnson, 16282 Main Street, Tustin Berklee Maughan, Tustin Jane Luppi, 23961 Calle de la Magdalena, Laguna Hills Kevin Kragenbrink, 12731 Dean Street, Santa Ana The following members of the audience spoke in favor of amending the City Code (Ordinance No. 1033): Carl Kasalek, 2352 Caper Tree, Tustin Sandy Carr, representing Los Angeles Times Marilyn Davis, 14811 Del Amo Avenue, Tustin CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 10-16-89 Duff Helsing, representing Orange County Register Jennifer Bernstein, 10193 Overhill Drive, Santa Ana Jack Miller, 17352 Parker Drive, Tustin Eric Stuehrmann, 1192 Mitchell #61, Tustin Mayor Kennedy requested Council concurrence that Ordinance No. 1033 be revised to ban sexually explicit material and allow the legitimate press to occupy space in the public right-of-way. Councilman Hoesterey said the Council had a dilemma as to what — was the best, defensible manner to insure that sexually explicit material would not be displayed on City streets and should that be accomplished by (1) defending the current ordinance that eliminated all newsracks, which may be unenforceable and costly to defend or (2) work with legitimate newspapers in the development of an ordinance that would eliminate pornographic material on the streets. Councilman Kelly commented that the current law, in effect since 1973, prohibited the sale of any product in the public right-of- way. A newspaper's product was information and their product should not be sold on public streets. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar stated no member of the Council had sympathy for those selling sexually explicit material, but the challenge was to achieve the banning of that material in a world that included the Supreme Court and the Constitution. He wanted to achieve the goal by using methods proven by other communities and not expend funds toward extensive legal fees on an issue that had no reasonable chance for success. Councilman Prescott noted that the City of New York banned all newspapers on city streets and he wanted the same law in Tustin. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, that the City Attorney revise Ordinance No. 1033 to exclude newsracks selling sexual explicit material while permitting legitimate newsracks to remain in the public right-of-way; and submit for Council review similar ordinances from other cities currently in effect. As a substitute motion, it was moved by Kelly, seconded by Prescott, to enforce the current ordinance prohibiting newsracks in the public right-of-way. James Rourke, City Attorney, advised that if an attempt was made to enforce the existing ordinance, the City would have to immediately defend itself in court against major newspapers and, in his opinion, would lose. If a new ordinance was adopted that only prohibited sexually explicit material, the City would then be subject to lawsuits by those vending the unwanted material and, in his opinion, they would also have a strong position that would be difficult to defeat. The meeting was recessed at 9:13 p.m. for the City Attorney to confer with legal representatives of the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Following the meeting of the legal representatives, Duff Helsing, speaking for the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register, _ stated the principle involved was free press through the First Amendment and newspapers, as guardians of that principle, would not compromise their position. The newspapers were very willing to cooperate with the City, but insisted their newsracks remain on the streets. Mayor Kennedy requested Councilmen Kelly and Prescott withdraw their substitute motion until the following meeting allowing further study toward a solution of banning sexually explicit material from the public right-of-way without jeopardizing the City in a legal lawsuit that could not be fought successfully. Councilmen Kelly and Prescott declined to withdraw the substitute motion because senior members of the City Council had been CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 10-16-89 derelict in enforcing the ordinance and it would allow the return of pornographic material to the streets. The substitute motion failed 2-3, Kennedy, Edgar and Hoesterey opposed. The original motion carried 3-2, Kelly and Prescott opposed. VI. PUBLIC INPUT 1. TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY HOMEOWNERSF I-5/55 INTERCHANGE Donna Wilson, 15500-117 Tustin Village Way, Tustin, requested the on-going concerns regarding acquisition of Tustin Village Way property by Caltrans and sound mitigation be agendized for November 6, 1989. Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works, also suggested Caltrans be asked to conduct a meeting and update the residents on the project. 2. PEDESTRIAN MALL - DOWN TOWN AREA Barry Ackerman, 14752 Foxcroft Road, Tustin, reported on a downtown pedestrian mall in Boulder, Colorado, and suggested the City Council establish a group to study the feasibility of developing a pedestrian mall on E1 Camino Real. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that staff research the subject of a pedestrian mall in the downtown area and agendize for Council consideration. The motion carried 5-0. 3. TUSTIN PROMENADE AND PLAZA LAFAYETTE PROJECTS Jack Miller, 17352 Parker Drive, Tustin, stated Citizens for a Responsible Tustin Council were greatly concerned about the seriousness of the Tustin Promenade project termination resulting in a $2,000,000 tax revenue loss for the City and it appeared the project was lost due to associated misleading, self-serving statements made by Councilmen Kelly and Prescott. He urged residents to join Citizens for a Responsible Tustin Council, assist the committee in replacing Councilmen Kelly and Prescott, and restore City pride in the Council. Berklee Maughan reported on his research of the Tustin Promenade and Plaza Lafayette projects and felt that neither project did or would result in a financial gain to the City. Council concurred that all reports pertaining to the subject projects would be made available to members of the press and the public. 4. USE PERMIT FOR HOPE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Kevin Kragenbrink, representing Hope Christian Church, said Colonial Bible Church would be required to vacant their present school site and were seeking a temporary emergency location at ^^� the Hope Christian Church. He requested the Council assist the church by waiving the Use Permit filing fee and support an expeditious application process. Mayor Kennedy directed the speaker to contact staff to resolve the details of the application process and Council concurred to agendize the waiver of fees at the November 6, 1989 Council meeting. 5. CONDUCT OF COUNCILMEN KELLY AND PRESCOTT Robert Wehn, 18082 Lillian Way, Tustin, expressed his displeasure with the conduct of Councilmen Kelly and Prescott during City Council meetings. E� CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 10-16-89 Ralph Westrum, 13651 Rosalind Drive, Tustin, spoke in favor of Councilmen Kelly and Prescott. 6. CONCERNS REGARDING ABORTION Rachel Davis, Mission Viejo, spoke in opposition to abortion. 7. ANNEXATION NO. 149 Nancy Hamilton, 18681 Eunice Place, Tustin, read an inter -office — Community Development memorandum and cited her various concerns regarding the annexation which included lack of 100% resident/property owner consent, contiguous property size and zoning. She requested that the City council withdraw the application for Annexation No. 149. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar responded that each item in the preliminary staff memorandum had been addressed, the LAFCO application complied with the law and responded to the will of the property owners in the area. The Council had publicly stated the subject area would not be rezoned prior to annexation and following annexation the City was committed to transferring the existing North Tustin Specific Plan zoning to the subject property. Mayor Kennedy said she was ambivalent regarding annexations, was satisfied with the City's current boundaries and the City no longer sought annexations. However, if a legal petition for annexation was submitted, it was Council policy to forward the request to LAFCO. William Huston, City Manager, reported the memorandum was only an internal staff report pointing out aspects of the annexation application that had to be addressed. The memorandum also contained notations responding to those aspects and both the City Attorney and County Counsel had agreed on the appropriateness of the application prior to LAFCO submittal. Council/speaker discussion followed regarding proposed zoning for the subject annexation. Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, clarified that staff had not represented their support of pre - zoning or rezoning the subject property. Bill Weber, representing the FCA, addressed the City Council and questioned staff regarding future zoning of the area. X. OLD BUSINESS (AGENDA ORDER) 4. PUBLIC ALLEY ABANDONMENT/VACATION Ralph Westrum, 13651 Rosalind Drive, Tustin, requested this item be continued. It was moved by Kelly, seconded by Edgar, to continue this agenda item. The motion carried 5-0. 105 VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION (AGENDA ORDER) 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1032 - PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO CHANGE ELECTION DATE FROM NOVEMBER TO APRIL Council concurred to take this item out of agenda order to accommodate members of the audience. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar cited statistics from the November, 1988, election indicating approximately 4,000 registered Tustin voters went to the polls, cast their votes on national issues, but did not cast votes for the City Council. He reported he had campaign expenditures of $25,000 during the November election compared to $5,000 spent during the previous April election and he felt that campaigning should be affordable for everyone to insure true CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 10-16-89 local representation. With this information and figures, he concluded that the community would be better served by returning to an April election date. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition to changing the election date from November to April: Berklee Maughan, Tustin Douglas Johnson, 16282 Main Street, Tustin Susan Dodds, 15541 Williams Street, Tustin Grace Kelly, 14691 Charloma Drive, Tustin Raymond Saylor, 2046 Maple Avenue, Costa Mesa Mark Bachan, 215 S. Prospect, Tustin Jim Pack Rachel Davis, Mission Viejo Joel Pilcher, 1045 San Juan, Tustin Karen Kelly, Main Street, Tustin Carol Mayden, 13302 Charloma, Tustin Nova Pack, 14681 Buckingham, Tustin The following members of the audience spoke in favor of changing the election date from November to April: Alan Deidloff, 13849 Apache, Tustin Todd Ferguson, 14872 Alder Lane, Tustin Jack Miller, 17352 Parker Drive, Tustin Carl Kasalek, 2352 Caper Tree, Tustin Linda Kasalek, 2352 Caper Tree, Tustin Shirley Ruff, 14761 Foxcroft, Tustin Councilman Kelly adamantly expressed his opposition to the introduction of Ordinance No. 1032. His concerns: placement on the agenda without warning, previous Council statements/data supporting November elections when the City converted, political motivation (possible resignation of current Councilmember) as sole reason for current request to change dates, attempt by Council majority to retain power, cost factor and effort by Council majority to influence outcome of elections by discouraging large voter participation. Councilman Hoesterey stated the cost of a candidacy for local public office was prohibitive for the average citizen and thus limited participation for all citizens. Additionally, he noted the trend for major political parties to support local candidates in preparation for State or national office, which was not in the best interest of local government. He felt a return to an April election would continue efforts to emphasize issues associated and oriented toward the City. Mayor Kennedy noted the previous action to change to a November election was approved without her vote. Because she wanted the City to "star" and focus on problems of density, residential/ business space, and traffic. She commented that municipal elections were structured in the government code in order for cities to be the central issue and 95 percent of incumbents were re-elected in November elections, discouraging potential candidates from seeking office. Councilman Prescott stated Councilman Hoesterey had sold his home and was leaving the community. He felt this vacancy could not be filled by appointment, would be an elected position, and this was a conspiracy to control that election. He said the intention of Government Code Section 36503.5 was (1) to save taxpayer dollars and (2) to increase voter participation. He did not believe the Council's conduct was legal, conflicted with the intention of the Government Code, and was being used to conduct Council action behind closed doors. Councilman Hoesterey requested the attachment with the Ordinance be changed to reflect an election date of April 10, 1990. It was moved by Edaar, seconded by Hoesterev, that Ordinance No. 1032 have first reading by title only. The motion carried 5-0. Following the first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1032 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 10-16-89 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterev, that Ordinance No. 1032 be introduced as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1032 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 980 WHICH REQUIRED THE CITY'S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN NOVEMBER OF EVEN NUMBERED YEARS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 36503.5 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. The motion carried 3-2, Kelly and Prescott opposed. 48 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried 5-0. 1. APPROVED MINUTES - OCTOBER 2, 1989, REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVED DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,561,066.16 RATIFIED PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $213,113.33 50 3. RESOLUTION NO. 89-161 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2 STORM DRAIN FACILITY F06B01 AND LINES F, G AND J, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Adopted Resolution No. 89-161 approving the plans and specifications for the subject project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. 8613 4. RESOLUTION NO. 89-154 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CAMINO REAL PARK Accepted the public improvements constructed by Hondo Company, Inc. at Camino Real Park by adoption of Resolution No. 89-154', and authorizing the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion. 77 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13902, HILLSIDE REVIEW NO. 89-02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-08 RESOLUTION NO. 89-150 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2), AS MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDA, IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13902, HILLSIDE REVIEW NO. 89-02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-08 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Approved Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 89-150. RESOLUTION NO. 89-151 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HILLSIDE REVIEW 89-02 IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT 13902 Approved Hillside Review No. 89-02 by adoption of Resolution y No. 89-151. RESOLUTION NO. 89-153 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 89-08 FOR A PROJECT WITH 115 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS ON 27.06 ACRES ON LOTS 24, 25, 110011, "UU", AND "VV" OF TRACT 12870 Approved Design Review 89-08 by adoption of Resolution No. 89- 153. NN RESOLUTION NO. 89-152 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13902 Approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13902 by adoption of Resolution No. 89-152. 99 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 10-16-89 6. RESOLUTION NO. 89-158 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 89-2 Adopted Resolution No. 89-158 approving Lot Line Adjustment No. 89-2. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 89-160 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING PLACEMENT OF A STOP SIGN AT TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY AND ALLIANCE AVENUE Approved Resolution No. 89-160 calling for the installation of a 3 -way stop sign at Tustin Village Way and Alliance Avenue. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1032 - PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO CHANGE ELECTION DATE FROM NOVEMBER TO APRIL See Page 6. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1033 - REGULATION OF NEWSRACKS ON SIDEWALKS See Page 3. IX. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE 1029 - REGULATING SECURITY BUSINESSES It was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 1029 have second reading by title only. The motion carried 55=0. Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1029 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Edaar, seconded by Hoesterev, that Ordinance No. 1029 be passed and adopted as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1029 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO THE REGULATION OF SECURITY BUSINESSES. The motion carried 5-0. 2. ORDINANCE 1031 - ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 11, RED HILL AVENUE It was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 1031 have second reading by title only. The motion carried 55=0. Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1031 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar, that, Ordinance No. 1031 be passed and adopted as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1031 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 11, RED HILL AVENUE, AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE CONVERSION. The motion carried 5-0. X. OLD BUSINESS "^ 1. STATUS REPORT - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE MONITORING PROGRAM (JWA), COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS)I AIRPORT SITE COALITION (ASC) AND HELICOPTER OVERFLIGHT PROGRAM TASK FORCE (HOPTF) Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, reported that the hearing on Phase II Access Plan had been rescheduled for November 1, 1989. The matter had been postponed due to FAA's request for additional time. Mayor Kennedy confirmed that Councilman Kelly would attend the November 1, 1989 meeting, with Mayor Pro Tem Edgar as alternate. It was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. 49 94 7N 104 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10, 10-16-89 The motion carried 5-0. 101 2. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-25 AND DESIGN REVIEW 88-66 (CARWASH AT 240 EAST FIRST STREET) It was moved by Hoesterey seconded by Edgar, to approve the following: 1. Certify the final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of the following Resolution No. 89-159: — RESOLUTION NO. 89-159 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-25 AND DESIGN REVIEW 88-66, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 2. Adopt the following Resolution No. 89-139 conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit 89-25: RESOLUTION NO. 89-139 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-25 AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF A FULL SERVICE CARWASH LOCATED AT 240 E. FIRST STREET The motion carried 5-0. 81 3. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND TUSTIN CREATING THE TUSTIN-SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to continue this item. The motion carried 5-0. 45 4. PUBLIC ALLEY ABANDONMENT/VACATION See Page 6. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. SPECIAL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE ON LAFCO (LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY) It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to officially oppose LAFCO appointment of Special District representatives. The motion carried 5-0. 24 2. STATUS OF NOISE COMPLAINT AT 621 W. SIXTH STREET #A It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. Mayor Kennedy directed staff to forward a copy of the subject staff report to Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Anderson. The motion carried 5-0. 81 3. PROPOSED PROBLEM RESOLUTION COMMITTEE It was moved by Hoesterey seconded by Kelly, to continue this matter until staff and Mr. Maughan have had an opportunity to discuss the alternatives. The motion carried 5-0. EX: '-. 4. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF SLOPE WARRANTY PROGRAM Mayor Pro Tem Edgar, referencing the warranty time period, stated the time period for the warranty was one in which the City was estimating future rain fall. The recommended five years assumed a certain statistical likelihood that a rain storm of significant CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11, 10-16-89 magnitude would occur. He felt it was unfair to include that kind of standard in something as rigid as a Resolution or Ordinance. He recommended the three-year time period with clarification that the grading certification of completion be interpreted from the planting of a slope including the usual 90 - day maintenance period. He clarified when the slope was planted to the City's standards, the clock started. The timeline would be 90 days following that for the contractor's responsibility and after that 90 day period had elapsed, then the 3 -year time period would start. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Prescott, to approve the Planning Commission's action with modification, changing paragraph three from 5 years to 3 years and interpretation of the grading certification of completion timeline. Mayor Kennedy questioned staff when the time clock started on the three or five year plan and why the City had written the warranty with a 5 -year slope protection. Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, responded time began when the slope was certified as completed by the City and she preferred to use staff's judgement rather than use an absolute time frame. In response to the five-year warranty, she stated California was in a 22 -year drought cycle. County hydrologists had expressed the likelihood of a severe weather condition within two to three years would be marginal. She cited statistical information indicating a 70 percent chance that such an event would occur in a five year time frame and a five-year protection would assure the City had done everything to protect the City's health/safety and financial position. She requested the record reflect her strong lack of confidence in recommending the two -three year plan. The following members of the audience addressed the Council regarding the Slope Warranty Program: Mr. Olson, representing The Irvine Company William Collins, 2261 Pavillion Drive, Santa Ana Mayor Kennedy stated this program established a system so if there was a manufactured slope failure, the developer had a five- year financially responsibile period and the City was attempting to define that financial responsibility to protect the City and homeowner associations. Council/staff discussion followed regarding the City's financial liability and data on slope failures. Councilman Hoesterey commented on the two issues involved, (1) an open-ended time of certification vs. a defined time of planting certification and (2) guessing when the next rain storm would occur. He felt the best course of action was to select a four-year period of time with a definitive 90 -day plan; it would protect the City for a longer period of time but also prevent the developer from having project liability for an infinite period of time. As a substitute motion it was movea Ay xenneay. 5eccnueu Uy Hoesterey, to hold developers/builders responsible under a four- year warranty plan; that certification of completion of grading 1 shall be when said slopes are certified by the City and within 90 -days of installation of all effective required planting; and uphold the Planning Commission's remaining findings on the Slope Warranty Program. Councilman Kelly felt a three-year warranty plan was sufficient and a four -five year plan was excessive. The substitute motion failed 2-3, Edgar, Kelly and Prescott opposed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12, 10-16-89 S. 6. The original motion was amended, maker and second agreeable, to include the 90 -day certification language as stated in the substitute motion. The original motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. 81 PROJECTED WATER DEBT SERVICE FUND CASH FLOW Councilman Hoesterey's motion to approve Option No. 1, four-year amortization in approximately $100,000 increments, died for lack — of a second. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Prescott, to approve Option No. 2, three-year option divided into two approximately equal payments with delay of the second payment until the City had repaid the $300,000 issue of TWW Bonds in November, 1990. The motion carried 5-0. 50 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF STREET DEDICATION, IRVINE BOULEVARD/NEWPORT AVENUE (CHEVRON USA, INC.) Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works, responding to Mayor Kennedy's question regarding the timeline for this project, answered in approximately 3-5 years the City would need to modify the left turn movement at the intersection. Council/staff discussion followed regarding acquisition of the public right-of-way. The following member of the audience addressed the City Council regarding the dedication and resulting closure of subject business: Robert Fiscus, representing Chevron USA, Inc. Council/staff/speaker discussion followed regarding improvement of the intersection, acquisition of right-of-way and salvaging the subject business. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Prescott, to permit staff, the property owner and Chevron USA, Inc. to meet and attempt to resolve this matter. The motion carried 5-0. 95 7. TUSTIN RANCH ROAD EXTENSION BETWEEN WALNUT AVENUE AND EDINGER AVENUE Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works, reported Peppertree homeowners raised concerns regarding installation of a wall extending to join the bridge. He stated this would be reviewed in the environmental documentation for the project. Mayor Kennedy questioned what mitigating measures would be taken and staff responded that a berm similar to that proposed adjacent to the northerly section of Walnut was planned. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar cautioned participation of the homeowners' action. that mitigation language and association be included in the,_ 1 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Prescott, to approve the following: 1. Receive and file Tustin Ranch Road Project Design Report. 2. Authorize staff to solicit proposals for final design services, plan preparation, and preparation of environmental document based on Alternative I. 3. Authorize commencement of negotiations with the Marine Corps for approximately 12.3 acres of right-of-way acquisition. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13, 10-16-89 4. Provide adequate sound mitigation, reduce visual pollution, and residents to participate in the design process. Council/staff discussion followed regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the project. The following member of the audience spoke in favor of the proposed motion: rte. Guido Borges, 2132 Dogwood Road, Tustin The motion carried 4-1, Hoesterey opposed. SII. REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA - OCTOBER 9, 1989 It was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar, to ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of October 9, 1989. The motion carried 5-0. 80 2. COMMUNITY CABLEVISION COMPANY RATE INCREASE It was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 5-0. 4 3. SEVENTEENTH STREET MEDIAN ISLAND LANDSCAPING It was moved by Edaar, seconded by Prescott, to receive and file subject report with correction of completion date noted, Spring 1990. The motion carried 5-0. 95 4. GAS POWERED LEAF BLOWERS It was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 5-0. 5. NARCOTICS ACTIVITY - CARFAR DRIVE It was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 5-0. 82 6. VANDENBERG LANE WATER WELL STATUS REPORT It was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 5-0. 107 7. STATUS OF LANDSCAPING - 235 W. MAIN STREET It was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 5-0. S. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1989 It was moved by Hoesterev, seconded by Edgar to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14, 10-16-89 XIII. PUBLIC INPUT XIV. OTHER BUSINESS 1. TUSTIN TILLER DAYS Mayor Pro Tem Edgar congratulated everyone who contributed to the success of the Tiller Days parade and activities. Mayor Kennedy also noted the success of Tiller Days. 2. POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF BROWN ACT, L.A. TIMES PHOTOGRAPH OF COUNCILMEMBERS Councilman Kelly noted a possible violation of the Brown Act when three members of the City Council posed for a photograph in the Los Angeles Times. He requested a written response from the City Attorney pertaining to this matter. 3. WEED ABATEMENT, TEXACO STATION - NEWPORT AVENUE Councilman Kelly directed staff to notify the owner of the abandoned Texaco station on Newport Avenue of a weed abatement violation. 4. CONFLICTING CITY COUNCIL AND TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETINGS Mayor Kennedy reported receiving a formal request to consider changing the City Council meeting schedule because it conflicted with meetings of the Tustin Unified School District Board of Education. She requested the subject be agendized. Council concurred. XV. ADJOURNMENT At 1:14 a.m., the meeting recessed to the Redevelopment Agency' and then adjourned to the next Regular Meeting on Monday, November 6, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. 0. TY CLERKJ L�C-�,. MAYOR