Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1975 05 19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL May 19, 1975 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Saltarelli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Councilman Sharp. III. INVOCATION Given by Mayor Saltarelli. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Saltarelli, Edgar, Sharp, Welsh. Absent: Councilmen: Sutcliff. Others present: City Administrator William Bopf Assistant City Administrator Dan Blankenship Assistant City Administrator for Community Development Ken Fleagle City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe Mayor Saltarelli announced that the Public Concerns portion of the agenda would be taken out of order and considered at this time for the convenience of members of the audience. VI. PUBLIC CONCERNS 1. STEVE MCHARRIS, RE: DONATION FOR COMMUNITY BUILDING (Taken out of order) Mr. Steve McHarris, representing the Tustin Blue and Gold 4-H Club, presented to the Council a check in the amount of $40.00 as a donation for the Con~aunity BUilding. Mayor Saltarelli accepted the check and thanked Mr. McHarris and the 4-N Club on behalf of the City Council. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. SALE OF REAL PROPERTY, 155 WEST FIRST STREET Mr. Rourke advised that no bids had been received on this prop- erty, although two people had earlier taken out bid forms. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 7:37 p.m. There being no coEents or objections, the public portion of the hear- ing was closed. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Welsh, that this matter be!continued to the next regular meeting of June 2, 1975. Carried unanimously, Councilman Sutcliff absent. 2. NOISE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN Mr. Fleagle explained that this Noise Element was prepared in conformance with State law, and is intended to provide guide- lines and standards for enhancement of the quality of life in the Tustin area. The Element is based on a survey of the noise levels and contours conducted by the City of Tustin with the assistance of the Orange County Health Department, and Dr. Nilliard, a local acoustical engineer, also provided input. There has been no opposition expressed to the plan, and the Planning Cormnission, following public hearing, had recommended Council adoption of it. Mr. Fleagle said that the Element offers realistic guidelines for future noise control. In reply to Councilman Sharp, Mr. Fleagle reported that the first draft of the Seismic Element is in study session. City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page two The public portion of the hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m. There being no coIm~ents or objections, the public portion of the hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 75-28 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin ADOPTING A NOISE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Ed.~ar, that the Noise Element of the Tustin Area General Plan be approved by adoption of Resolu- tion No. 75-28. Replying to questions from the Council, Mr. Fleagle explained that standards are incorporated in this Element and in State guidelines requiring any State-initiated modification of free- way interchanges to incorporate sound attenuating measures, including special bridge treatment to disperse noise. Regard- ing possible reversal of landing patterns at Orange !County Airport, and other such contingencies, Mr. Fleagle said that although the Noise Element does not address this, the County would have to approve an environmental impact report before implementing any such plan. In further discussion, Mr. Fleagle stated ~that the Noise Element is an essential background step before adopting a noise ordinance, which would implement the Element's concepts and provide measurable means of enforcement. The department ultimately enforcing the ordinance would be a matter of Council discretion, Mr. Fleagle said, although his initial reaction would be that the Community Development Depart- ment has the equipment and the expertise to provide enforcement action; that equipment would also be available to the Police Department. In addition, the Health Department's'mobile van including a sound measuring computer would be available for enforcement cases. Mr. Edgar stated he was impressed with the technical depth of the plan as presented. Above motion carried by roll call vote. Ayes: Saltaretli, Edgar, Sharp, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: Sutcliff. 3. COLUMBUS TUSTIN SCHOOL ANNEXATION NO. 89 The staff report noted that the Local Agency Formation Commission approved Annexation No. 89 on March 12, 1975, and that the Tustin Unified School District Board had unanimously approved the proposed annexation. A protest hearing was scheduled for this date by Resolution No. 75-16, adopted by the Council in April. The public portion of the hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Bob Dahlmann, 18071 Irvine Boulevard, .Tustin, presented to the Council a letter of protest, and requested information which he had not been able to attain in the past on measures the City might take if the annexation is approved which might hamper business operations of the affected office buildings along the north side of trvine Boulevard. His specific con- cerns were the location of proposed center islands and their effect on access to and from the buildings; the present loca- tion of the crosswalk across Irvine to Columbus Tustin School which interferes with parking for businesses; and the effect of annexation on business owners' property taxes. City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page three Mayor Saltarelli stated that Mr. Dahlmann's requests were not unreasonable, and said that if the area is annexed, meetings would be held to give property owners an opportunity to pro- vide input as to ingress and egress of the business offices, and that Mr. Fleagle would calculate the tax impact and notify Mr. Dahlmann of his findings. Comments related to relocating the crosswalk would be taken under consideration. There being no further comments or objections, the public por- tion of the hearing was closed at 7:56 p.m. MS, Fleagle then reported on the valuation of parcels whose owners had filed protests, as follows: Parcel Owner Assessed Valuation 401-161-01 Harry M. Martin $ 19,230 401-161-02 " " " 401-161-04 Bowman-Schneider 16,930 401-161-05 John Siegel 18,660 401-161-06 (Benson) Dahlmann-Casselman 17,690 401-161-07 Kenneth R. Garrett 19,400 401-161-08 Ansel E. Young 23,580 40!-161-09 RObert C. Dahlmann 19,150 TOTAL $134,640 Mr. Fleagle stated that $134,640 represents only 42% of the total assessed valuation in the annexation a~ea. The consent- ing valuation was 58%, including the School District property. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Edgar, that it is determined that a majority protest has not been filed, and that the staff be directed to present a resolution at the next regular: meeting of the Council to that effect, and an ordinance for introduc- tion approving the annexation. Councilman Edgar commented that he was committed to the prin- ciple that Irvine Boulevard can be attractive in its entirety, and favored a crossing guard to assure school children's safety, and expressed his support of the annexation. Mayor Saltarelli requested that staff notify all property owners that everything will be done to give them the opportu- nity to comment on center islands and other actions the City may propose to take. Councilman Welsh noted that the Council's intent is to enhance business in that area, not stifle it. Mr. Flea~le advised that based on the 1973-74 tax rate, the annexation would result in a difference of $124 per year on a small building to $133 per year on a large building, subject to what the fluctuating rate may be. Above motion carried unanimously, Councilman Sutcliff absent. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 5, 1975, meeting. 2. RATIFICATION OF DEMANDS in the amount of $57,061.25. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 75-23 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT STAN- DARDS AS CONTAINED IN THE HANDBOOK FOR PLANNING, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT. City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page four 4. RESOLUTION NO. 75-24 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPOINTING WILLIAM L. BOPF AS CITY ADMINISTRATOR. 5. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM a. RESOLUTION NO. 75-25 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, RECOGNIZING THE NEED FOR FLOOD INSURANCE AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR REGULATION OF LAND USE AND CONSTRUCTION IN FLOOD PRONE AREAS. b. RESOLUTION NO. 75~26 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ESTABLISHING REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN FLOOD PRONE AREAS. Adoption as recommended by the staff. 6. TUSTIN BRANCH LIBRARY ELECTRICAL SERVICE EASEMENT Authorization to execute grant of non-exclusive easement to Southern California Edison Company for underground electrical service to the proposed Tustin Branch Library to be located on the City Center site. Approval as recommended by the City Engineer. 7. WALNUT AVENUE AND DOW AVENUE RAILROAD CROSSINGS Irvine IndUstrial Complex Approval to grant permits as recommended by the City Engineer. 8. TRACTS 8590 AND 8603 Exoneration of Monumentation Bond and Reduction in Required Amount of Improvement Bond. Approval as recommended by the City Engineer. 9. TRACTS 8028 AND 8029 Exoneration of BOnds for Block Wall Construction Approval as recommended by the City Engineer. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar, that the Consent Calendar be approved. Carried unanimously, Councilman Sutcliff absent. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 649 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, PRO- VIDING FOR LICENSING OF BICYCLES. Moved by Edgar, seconded by WelSh that'Ordinance No. 649 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously, Councilman Sutcliff absent. The secretary read Ordinance No. 649 by title. City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page five Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 649 be adopted. Carried. Ayes: Saltarelti, Edgar, Sharp, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: Sutcliff. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that the Fire Department and Parks and Recreation Department employees be appointed as bicycle licensing agents in addition to the Police Department personnel, pursuant to Ordinance No. 649. Councilman Sharp asked that staff do the best possible job of publicizing this program and of licensing the bikes as smoothly and easily as possible. In reply to Mayor Saltarelli's question as to whether the per- sonnel will be sent out in the field to find bicycles that are not licensed, Chief Kelly indicated that the City doesn't have the personnel available for that type of enforcement, but that bicycle rodees, etc., at the schools will be continued to lic- ense as many bikes as possible. Above motion carried unanimously, Councilman Sutcliff absent. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 650 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL EXPENSES. Moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 650 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously, Councilman Sutcliff absent. The secretary read Ordinance No. 650 by title. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 650 be adopted. Carried. Ayes: Saltarelli, Edgar, Sharp, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: Sutcliffo IX. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 651 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, PROVIDING FOR THE PROCESSING OF SUBDIVISIONS. Mr. Fleaqleexplained that the 1974 Subdivision Map Act requires immediate changes in the City's implementing Ordinance, so the entire City Ordinance has been redrafted to incorporate the new requirements and procedures of law. Meetings have been held with other cities and the County with the objective of developing a model ordinance to serve as the format and criteria for all cities and the County. Ordinance No. 651 is proposed as an interim ordinance for the purpose of processing filed subdivision applications. Replying to Councilman Edgar, Mr. Fleagle listed some of the changes necessitated by the 1974 Act including the required hearing process for appealsand teehnical changes within the Act itself asto what could be required of the developer as related to the size and improvements. It basically removed the subdivision ordinance from the Business and Professional Code and placed it within the Government Code under the Planning and Zoning Act. The option to make tentative map approval by the Council has been retained in this draft ordinance. There is no longer'any definition in the State Act for a minor adjustment; all land developments are now considered subdivisions. City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page six Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 651 have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously, CounCilman Sutcliff absent~ The secretary read Ordinance 651 by title. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Welsh that Ordinance No. 651 be introduced. Carried~ Ayes: Sattarelli, Edgar, Sharp, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: Sutcl iff. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 651 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously, Councilman Sutcliff absent, The secretary read Ordinance No. 651 by title. Moved b~F Welsh, seconded by Edga~ ~that Ordinance No. 651 be passed and adopted as an urgency measure. Carried. Ayes: Saltarelli, Edgar, Sharp, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: Sutcliff. (See page 11 for introduction of Ordinance Non 652.) X. OLD BUSINESS 1. CITY OPERATION OF TUSTIN HIGH SCHOOL SUMMER RECREATION AND AQUATICS PROGRAM Mr. Rourke replied to Conncilman Sharp's question about liability coverage and cost, indicating that assumption of this program operation by the City will not require a special policy; the existing policy is quite broad and the City is covered even though its activities and exposure to liability may change from day to day~ He said, though, that it is to' be expected that anything the City undertakes that does in fact add exposure will eventually result in greater premium cost. He offered to try to obtain more meaningful information on this if it is desired. Mr. Biery, Parks and Recreation Director, felt that the cost shouldn't be prohibitive, as the local pools with certified personnel on duty have a fine record, and he doubted that the risk would be any greater than that associated with any other facilities the City operates. Some of the risk would be shared indirectly at least with the School District. The District staff has agreed to a hold harmless agreement. Councilman Edgar commented that the City is more legitimately in the business of providing parks and recreational facilities for the community than the School District is, and he felt that the Parks and Recreation Department could achieve the maximum benefit to the community from~ the program. Fees will more than cover the cost of personnel hired, but he encouraged considera- tion of the cost of administrative personnel as well. He also suggested communicating to the District the-City,s~!position that the District is not in the recreation business but it is in the business of providing capital expenditures through their com- munity services tax. CoUncilman Welsh agreed that the public would be better served by the City operating the program. Moved~ by Welsh, seconded by Edgar, that the Parks and Recreation Department be authorized to assume the Tustin High School summer recreation-aquatics program, and that staff and the City Attorney be authorized to prepare an agreement with~the School District which will clarify responsiDility for insurance, maintenance costs, sharing of profit beyond program operations, etc. City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page seven Mayor Saltarelli proposed making the City's assumption of this responsibility conditional on the District spending a certain portion 0f their community services tax on capital expenditures, as the City has no assurance that that will happen. He inqUired whether approval of this would commit the City in future years. Mr, Biery replied that the agreement is subject to renewal annually. Mayor Saltarelli recommended that in entering into the program the City should specify terms and conditions, one of which should be that any overage of revenues be retained by the City to cover our administrative costs. In further discussion, he stated that he was reluctant to fund an unbudgeted item without assurances against unanticipated losses. Mr. Bier~ responded that he couldn't see any chance of the City losing money on the program this summer. The City has flexi- bility in the staffing and the program which should allow adjustments for any unanticipated problems or costs that might arise. Councilman Sharp noted that the School District had asked pro- ration of any profits on a 50/50 basis between the District and the City; he proposed that the District be asked to agree to share any losses which might occur. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Welsh, that the above motion be amended to provide that any profits or losses in the first year of operation of the program be prorated between the two agencies. Carried by 3-1 vote, Mayor Saltarelli voting no. The original motion, as amended, was carried by a 3-1 vote, Mayor Saltarelli voting no. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. CERTIFICATION OF AMENDMENT TO E.I.R. 74-2 (Tract 8490, east of Newport Freeway, Fairhaven to Santa Clara) Mr. Fleagle reported that the Council had certified in August 1974 an environmental impact report for Tract 8490, authorizing single-family, one-story dwelling units. An amendment to the EIR was considered by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1975, to authorize two-story dwelling units. The Planning Commission recommended Council certification of the EIR amendment, subject to the condition that the two-story units, with the exception of LOt 26, be located on lots other than those adjacent to the freeway. Mr. Jerry Klein, President of K & W Development Korporation, 111 East Third Street, San Dimes, stated.that for flexibility of appearance and design he was proposing that eight or nine two- story houses be interspersed along the freeway side of the tract, with not more than two next to each other. Dr~cHilliard of Bio-Acoustical Engineering Corporation in Tustin made recom- mendations related to sound attenuation for the two-story homes which Mr. Klein said he intended to adhere to in his development; these included a regular wall without openings facing the free- way and ~-inch-thick glass in the side windows~ provided that the area of the windows is less than 15% of the floor area. Mayor Saltarelli inquired of the City Attorney whether it was within the City's power to disallow two-story homes along the freeway. Mr. Rourke stated that the Council has to take into account all City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page eight the factors of the impact of! the proposed development on the environment. He thought that the Council could prohibit the installation of two-story homes if they determined there would be an unjuStified adverse !impact upon the environment. Mr. Klein presented tO the Council copies of cross-sections of the tract, to illustrate that the Planning Commlission's contention that the two-story units would adversely impact the environment from the perspective of the line of sight from the freeway exposure was not valid. To Mayor Saltarelli~s question as to whether theviability of the tract from a sales standpoint would be damaged without the two-story units, Mr. Klein replied affirmatively. In further discussion, Mr. Klein explained that the lots adja- cent tO the freeway differ in elevation by less than a foot; at the lowest point, the lots are about three .feet below the freeway and at t/~e midpoint, lots and the freeway are at about the same elevation. Mayor Saltarelli stated that if the~builder~Can certify that sound attenuation measures are met, he should be able to put two-story units wherever desired. Mr. Fleagle stated that factors other than sound attenuation figured into the Planning Commission decision, including the visual impact from the freeway. Mayor Saltarelli stated that under the zoning on the property, the City was obligated to give the developer a chance to dev- elop something that is marketable. If the developer can miti- gate against problems, as he says, then it makes no difference whether one- or two-story houses are built along the freeway. Councilman Sharp agreed, stating that he didn't see how environ- ment within the houses would be affected whether on one side of the street or the other, as long as! the structures themselves are sound-attenuated to whatever standards exist. Replyingto Councilman Edgar, Mr. Klein stated that the letter from Dr. Hilliard outlined measures for those houses on the other side of the street, where the noise problem would not be as severe as in houses against the freeway. Replying to Councilman Sharp's questions, Mr. Fleagle stated that to his knowledge there were no CC&Rs for ~adjacent tracts located in County area which would prohibit two-story develop- ment in that area, and that those residents had attended the Planning COmanission hearing but no one had spoken against this development. Councilman Welsh stated that he could not support overruling the Planning Commission's finding about the twosstory houses without more justification, because of the considerable study the commission had devoted to the matter.. ~ He s~ggested fur- ther investigation ~0~ ~Pia~ning= Commission' s reasoning. Mr. Fleagle explained that they didn't want to create a building wall of two-Story homes along the freeway with no~! greater depth of the] lots because of the visual impact to freeway travelers. Mr. Klein showed a pI6tI plan with the two-story and one-story locations marked, which demonstrated that there would not be more than two two-story houses next to each other. Mr. Fleagle advised the CounCil that the Planning Commission had not had the benefit of that drawing. City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page nine Mayor Saltarelli said that the arrangement would not create a wall effect. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Sharp, that the proposed Amendment to E.I.R. 74-2 be certified subject to all the terms and conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1439, and subject to the further amendment of paragraph 2d of said Resolu- tion to authorize two-story units on an~F portion of the subdivi- sion, with not more than two contiguous two-story units, on the basis that the mitigating factors of variety of housing styles and sound attenuation are in keeping with the objectives of the City. Carried by 3-1 vote, Councilman Welsh voting no. Mr. Klein then referred to a requirement contained in Council Resolution No. 74-48, approving the tentative tract map, which required the approval of the State Division of Highways for drainage and State right-of-way facilities, slope easement, boundary walls, and landscape permit. Mr. Klein said that the drainage facilities are no problem, but that his plans envisioned the sound barrier berm to be on his property and to be landscaped in accordance with City standards. In discussion with Jack Turley, Maintenance Engineer with CALTRANS, he had been advised that under no conditions would the State at this point assume maintenance along that area because that section of the Newport Freeway is not landscaped, and the slope would be outside State property. In exploring moving the berm par- tially onto State right-of-way, Mr. Turley had advised that there is some precedent for this, but that the request would have to be processed through the State rather than locally; if that were accomplished, though, the State still would not allow landscaping or sprinkler installation on the west side of the slope because they wouldn't maintain it. Mr. Klein said he was anxious to proceed with the tract, and the berm and land- scaping, and referred to the maintenance district which the City required to be formed for the residents to assume the cost of maintaining the berm and other common ~reas, but said that the State simply will not issue landscaping permits and won't accept slope easements, and gaining approval of moving the berm to State right-of-way could be a lengthy process. Mr. Fleagle said that all these requirements had been coordinated with the State at the time of the submission of the EIR. Councilman Welsh recommended authorizing the staff to correspond with the State on this matter. Councilman Edgar stated that the City may not get any response, and he was concerned with the burden the delay would impose on the developer. Mr. Fleagle stated that no request has been made of the State since the E!R process, and they were responsive at that time. He suggested contacting the State with a 30-day deadline for a response. Mayor Saltarelli proposed removing it as a condition of the tract map, and having the builder bond for the improvements, and in the meantime get an answer from the State. Mr. Fleagle pointed out that the main question would be, then, where to put the wall. The concept accepted put the wall on the property line, not ten feet inside which would reduce the rear yard area. Replying to Mayor Saltarelli, Mr. Klein said that it was not possible to put the wall on the property line, without the State permitting them to build half the berm on their right-of-way. City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page ten Mr. Fleagle reported Mr. Rourke's suggestion of an alternative w~hich would put the wall on the property line and raise the wall to 11 or 12 feet, rather than constructing a 5-foot berm and a 6-foot, 8-inch wall. Then no slope easement from the State would be needed. Mr. Sharp noted that a block wall that high would require expensive footings. Mr. Welsh again suggested corresponding with' the State, and if they are uncooperative, come back with suggestions for a mainte- nance district, etc. He was against erecting a 12-foot wall. Councilman Edgar inquired of Mr. Klein what he thought the Council could do tc encourage him to proceed with the develop- ment, and still provide the protection the Council is seeking in the way of aesthetics and. sound attenuati6n. Mr. Klein proposed his company dedicating the easement for that part of the berm that faces the freeway to the City, planting landscaping and taking down the chain link fence; and theEeby accomplish the same thing without going through the State bureaucracy in Sacramento. It would still be within the mainte- nance district temporarily, but when the State landscapes that portion of the freeway, the City could assign the easement of that slope facing the freeway to the State. Mayor Saltarelli felt that dealing with the State would be the path of greatest resistance, and he favored removing the con- dition, and requiring a wall to be built to a level for sound attenuation; this would increase the size of the rear yards and make homes mo~e salable. Mr. Fleagle felt that the high wall, without a berm, would be aesthetically disastrous from the freeway viewpoint as well as for the tenants, and said that the City has a good position against the State, to remind them that they made a commitment at the time of the EIR process and urge them to honor that commitment and grant the permits-and not hold up the developer any longer. He felt that a response could be received within 30 days. It was the consensus of the Council that this course would be pursued by staff; if it is not successful, then the Council will give some relief on the tract map. XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS --Community Development Department Received and filed. 2. LETTER OF CONCERNS, PRESTON JAMES Council reviewed the May 8, 1975, letter from Preston James, requesting the assistance of the City in reference to his property at 1281 San Juan. His concerns were related to the sewer service, the property line fence, and front street improve- ments. Mr. Fleagle briefly reviewed the status of these items for the Council. The Council expressed no objection to Fir. Fleagle's recommendation that a response to Mr. James be prepared by staff for the Mayor's signature, citing the City's position as contained in the staff report. City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page eleven 3. ORDINANCE NO. 652 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO REGULATING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND PARKING ON PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. Mr. Rourke recommended introduction of the above ordinance, which includes revisions to the existing code, and includes an additional shopping center (Tustin Heights) whose letter of consent for the enforcement has been filed with the City. The ordinance also provides that any future shopping center additions can be designated by resolution. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Sharp, that Ordinance No. 652 have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously, CounCil- man Sutcliff absent. The secretary read Ordinance No. 652 by title. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 652 be introduced. Carried. Ayes: Saltarelli, Edgar, Sharp, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: Su~cliff. 4. FRONTIER PARK Councilman Welsh referred to phone calls he had received related to problems of older children monopolizing the facilities in the new Frontier Park at Mitchell and Utt. He suggested increased Police surveillance, and consideration of installation of a horseshoe pit to attract adults to the park to discourage prob- lems. Mayor Saltarelti felt that additional facilities for tots are also needed to encourage greater usage of the park, and with Council consent, asked Mr. Bopf to refer this matter to the Parks and Recreation Commission via Mr. Biery, for consideration of a comprehens ire solution. 5. CITY CENTER WINDOW BLINDS Responding to Councilman Welsh's question as to the bidding process for the venetian blinds installed in the City Center, Mr. Blankenship explained that after this item was put out to bid through the contractor, upon the recommendation of the archi- tect, only one company in this area handled and installed this particular blind and gave the City a quote. Ma~;or Saltarelli remarked that the City tries to do business in Tustin whenever possible, but must also consider the best possible price. 6. COMMUNITY BUILDING ACOUSTICS Councilman Welsh related that he had received complaints about the acoustics of the new Community Building, and asked what could be done to remedy the situation. Following a brief discussion among the Council, the matter was referred to Mr. Bopf for appropriate study. 7. BEACH BUS Mr. Biery responded to Mr. Welsh' s question about the status of resumption of the City's beach bus service this summer, stating that this has been discussed with the School District staff; the fare will be increased from 50¢ to $t.00 this year to cover the cost of a supervisor on each bus. It is expected that the City Council Minutes 5/19/75 Page twelve program will still be popular at this price and remain self- supporting. He also reported that the Orange County Transit District may be reviewing a new route to Newport Beach from Tustin; thiswouldchange the need for the beach bus service. 8. ANNEXATION POLICY Council requestedthat staff set up a workshop meeting of the Council and staff for the second week in June, to discuss annexation policy. I~was requested that voter registration information be obtained prior tothat meeting, a~d that a timetable of procedures end actions pertinent to the annexation process be prepared. XIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. to an Executive Session and then to the next regular meeting of June 2 1975.