Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 06-17-91MINUTES . 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. II. 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 90-01, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 90-292, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 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 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 6-3-91 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 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: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 6-3-91 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. 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 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 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 6-3-91 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 proj ect we have in our City is to make sure we do the very best technical j ob 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 from this building. You have an opportunity where they are CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 6-3-91 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: If 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 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 6-3-91 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, 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 off 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 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 6-3-91 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. 3. DECLARATION OF PUBLIC 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 El 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 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 6-3-91 V. 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. PUBLIC 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10, 6-3-91 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. 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 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. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11, 6-3-91 Motion carried 4-1, Pontious opposed. VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1071 - REGULATIONS FOR FIRE ALARMS AND FALSE ALARMS 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. 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. 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 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. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1069 - LOITERING It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Pontious, that Ordinance No. 1069 have second reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12, 6-3-91 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).. 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). IX. OLD BUSINESS 1. STATUS REPORT ON OLD TOWN CHARETTE 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. Councilmember Prescott announced he would abstain from discussion on this issue. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13, 6-3-91 It was moved by Potts, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. Motion carried 4-0, Prescott abstained. 2. SOIL REMEDIATION UPDATE, 1011 EL CAMINO REAL 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. 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. X. 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. 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. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14, 6-3-91 3. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS AND VACANCIES 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. XI. REPORTS 1. EL CAMINO REAL/RED HILL AVENUE LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Potts, to receive and file subject report. Motion carried 5-0. 2. ON -STREET AMBULANCE PARKING - "B" STREET STATUS REPORT It was moved by Pontious , seconded by Edgar, to receive and f ile subject report. Motion carried 5-0. 3. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF APRIL 301 1991 It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. Motion carried 5-0. 4. WATER CONSERVATION UPDATE 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 Councilmember Edgar commended staff on the Chili Cook -Off held on June 2, 1991 and looked forward to next year's event. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 15, 6-3-91 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. 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 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 16, 6-3-91 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 MARY E. WYNN, CITY CLERK