Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2 MINUTES 04-17-90MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING - OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APRIL 2, 1990 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy. II. INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Mayor Edgar. III. ROLL CALL Council Present: Richard B. Edgar, Mayor Ursula E. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem John Kelly Earl J. Prescott (Council position vacant) 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 W. Douglas Franks, Chief of Police Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works. Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director Royleen White, Dir./Community & Admin. Services Christopher Jackson, Associate Planner Valerie Whiteman, Chief Deputy City Clerk Approximately 50 in the audience IV. PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Edgar announced the City had a beautiful new proclamation form that exhibited historic scenes of the City. 1. LESLIE PONTIOUS, FORMER PLANNING COMMISSIONER Mayor Edgar read and presented a proclamation to Leslie Anne Pontious, former Planning Commissioner, stating her many accomplishments as a Commission member and appreciation for her service to the community. Leslie Pontious thanked the Council for having had the opportunity to serve on the Planning'Commission. She stated it was challenging, very rewarding and encouraged other citizens -- to serve on the Commission. 2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK - MAY 13-19, 1990 Mayor Edgar read and presented a proclamation to John Sauers, Tustin Area Historical Society, proclaiming May 13-19, 1990 as Historic Preservation Week, promoting local community pride in America and protection of the nation's treasures. John Sauers thanked the present and past City Councilmembers and stated it was an honor for the people of Old Town Tustin. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. RECOVERY OF CITY INCURRED COSTS OF A NOTICE TO CLEAN PREMISES AT 15651 "B" STREET Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, gave a staff report regarding subject vacant lot with a history of code enforcement actions for weed abatement and abandoned vehicle violations. She stated staff recommended adoption of Resolution No. 90-42 approving a special assessment and directing the Finance Director to place the special assessment upon the property. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 'age 2, 4-2-90 Mayor Edgar opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. There were no speakers on the subject and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Kelly, to adopt the following Resolution No. 90-42 approving a special assessment of one hundred ninety-four dollars and forty-three cents ($194.43): RESOLUTION NO. 90-42 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ASSESSING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15651 "B" STREET FOR THE COST INCURRED BY THE CITY FOR THE NOTICE TO CLEAN PREMISES The motion carried 4-0. 2. APPEAL OF VARIANCE 90-2 / ALLWAYS SPACE Christopher Jackson, Associate Planner, stated that at the March 5, 1990 City Council meeting, Councilman Prescott requested that the Planning Commission action to deny Variance 90-2 be placed on the agenda. He stated Variance 90-2 was requested to allow a 25 square foot secondary accessory sign which would read "Garden Center". The sign was proposed to be located on the front elevation of the garden center portion of the Allways Space retail establishment at 1212 Irvine Boulevard in the Tustin Heights shopping center. He gave a slide presentation on what presently existed at the site as well as businesses in the immediate vicinity that had similar types of signage. Mayor Edgar opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. There were no speakers on the subject and the Public Hearing was closed. Councilman Prescott stated he was willing to uphold the Planning Commission's action since the applicant was not interested in pursuing the initial request for a 25 square foot sign. It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kennedy, to deny the appeal of Variance 90-2 by adoption of the following Resolution No. 90-43: RESOLUTION NO. 90-43 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF VARIANCE 90- 21 A PROPOSAL TO INSTALL A 25 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY SIGN AT 1212 IRVINE BOULEVARD The motion carried 4-0. "Ti. PUBLIC INPUT 1. COURT RULES APRIL 10 ELECTION VALID Mayor Edgar announced the Superior Court had ruled in favor of the City of Tustin and the April 10 General Municipal Election would proceed. 2. ABUSE OF POWER AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BY COUNCILMEN PRESCOTT AND KELLY DURING NOVEMBER 1988 ELECTION Guido Borges, Tustin, stated that Tustin Residents Action Committee (TRAC) had obtained police documents recently released to the public. The police reports stated: a police officer witnessed Councilmembers Prescott and Kelly removing political signs; Councilman Prescott made an illegal U-turn, and after being stopped by an officer, presented his Council business card instead of his driver's license; on November 8, 19:88, election night, Councilman Prescott demanded to know from the election workers what precinct locations had not delivered ballot boxes; Councilman Prescott accused the precinct workers of stuffing ballot boxes; Councilmembers Prescott and Kelly interfered with the collection of ballot boxes; Councilman Kelly attempted to look inside one of the ballot boxes that was in a Sheriff's van; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES nage 3, 4-2-90 and Councilman Kelly was under the influence of alcohol the night in question. TRAC wanted the unprofessional activities and abuse of power brought to the public's attention prior to the election. Councilman Kelly responded that the statements were false and his opponents were engaging in dirty, negative campaigning and political smearing. He stated the release of the police log was a conspiracy between staff and Mr. Borges. He noted there were no formal allegations or citations issued and the statements were scurrilous and misleading to the television viewing audience. Councilman Prescott noted that the press had known about the police log for over a week and did not find it newsworthy. He stated it was obvious that the only people that could have known about the events were City staff, City Attorney, City Manager and the Chief of Police and, as public employees, had broken the law by engaging in political activity. He added that he -and Councilman Kelly were never charged with breaking the law. Rex Combs, 1642 Roanoke Avenue, Tustin, read from the police log reports and stated this was not a smear campaign, the logs revealed facts. 3. BEHAVIOR OF COUNCILMEN PRESCOTT AND KELLY Paula Massimino, 17880 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, stated the disruption by Councilmembers Kelly and Prescott was immature behavior, not healthy debate. She quoted an article from the March 25th Orange County edition of the Los Angeles Times entitled "Talk About Sore Losers". She stated as a taxpayer, she resented all the court actions to achieve what should had been accomplished automatically without expense and it was time for the Councilmen involved in the disruptive activities to cease and proceed with City business. 4. RELOCATION OF THOMPSON HISTORICAL STRUCTURE Charles Anderson, 255 West 6th Street, Tustin, stated he nor anyone in the area, including the Los Angeles Times, had been properly notified of the house moving. He said he found out by observing Field Service personnel marking trees. He stated his concern was that the City had a professional report from a horticulture consultant and did not heed the recommendations set forth in the report. He questioned the type of compensation he would receive if one of his trees was damaged or demolished. Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works, gave an update since the Special Council Meeting of March 29, 1990. There would be a minimum one -day delay in the moving of the structure. He stated necessary street signs had not been posted by the Thompsons and staff had not received the insurance certificate from the traffic signal contractor. Staff would not issue the permits for relocation of the house to Bell Movers until the signal contractor had complied. Staff had learned that the moving contractor's original agreement with Mr. Thompson was based on providing a clear right-of-way for the moving of the house. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy questioned compensation to the City for the loss of trees; compensation for the Andersons for the loss of the shelter the'tree gave, and who was responsible for the incidental costs such as street sweeping and cleaning after the move. ' She stated the Council was deeply concerned about saving the trees and the house, but would not put the taxpayers in the position of subsidizing the move. Council/staff discussion followed regarding exact trimming of the trees; the City's reimbursement from Mr. Thompson; and the direction of the moving route. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ''age 4, 4-2-90 Councilman Prescott stated he was swayed by the photographic evidence of avocado trees that had been severely trimmed and, in a short period of time, renewed themselves. William Huston, City Manager, stated the photograph was submitted by a resident. The City did have a report prepared by an expert that had been retained by the City. The report estimated that, with the severity of pruning required, the trees had approximately a 50% chance of survival. Mayor Edgar stated he was satisfied with the Council's decision rendered at the March 29 Special meeting and, if the conditions of the approval were not valid, then the issue would need to be readdressed. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy stated she would be willing to have another Special Council meeting after the contractor, house movers and tree trimming experts had an opportunity to meet again to save the trees and move the house. Council/staff discussion followed regarding a possible Special Meeting and the Los Angeles Times access during the move. Jean Thompson, 2922 Boxwood Place, Tustin, stated she was appalled by the allegations made by Mr. Anderson. She stated that her son, Jeff Thompson, and his wife, Cherie, had notified people in the area of the house move. 5. SUPPORT FOR COUNCILMEMBERS KELLY AND PRESCOTT Michael Paul David, 445-1/2 Sixth Street, Tustin, stated Councilmembers Kelly and Prescott had demonstrated an unswerving commitment for honor and dignity to the City and to the people of Tustin. 6. COMMENDATIONS TO MAYOR PRO TEM KENNEDY Jessica Curry, 14771 Foxcroft, Tustin, presented Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy with flowers in appreciation and "thank you" for 12 years of tireless dedication to the City of Tustin and the residents. Shirley Ruff, 14761 Foxcroft, Tustin, expressed she was very proud to be Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy's friend and on behalf of the Ruff family, the Tustin Meadows family and the wise voters of Tustin, thanked her for service above and beyond the call of duty. -ITII. CONSENT CALENDAR Items No. 7 and 11 were removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilman Kelly and Item No. 6 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilman Prescott. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. The motion carried 4-0. 1. APPROVED MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1990 REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVED DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,348,243.52 RATIFIED PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $268,745.77 3. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 89-44 - CLAIMANT: WILLIAM LEWAND; DATE OF LOSS: 4/23/89; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 11/89 Rejected subject claim for personal damages in the amount of $9,000. 4. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 89-36 - CLAIMANT: WALTER AND IRENE THOMAS; DATE OF LOSS: 3/3/89; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 3/1/90 Rejected subject claim for general damages of an undetermined amount. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES page 5, 4-2-90 5. AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL - COURT LIAISON SERVICES Approved the contract amendment authorizing the City of Tustin to continue to perform the court liaison duties for the California Highway Patrol, Santa Ana office. 8. CALTRANS DISTRICT AGREEMENT NO. 12-039, AMENDMENT A-2 Approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject agreement amendment. 9. TUSTIN/SANTA ANA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT -FIRST STREET/TUSTIN AVENUE INTERSECTION Approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject agreement. 10. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF JAMBOREE ROAD (EDINGER AVENUE TO BARRANCA PARKWAY) EXTENSION PROJECT THROUGH MARINE CORPS AIR STATION Approved professional services agreements with (1) Church Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $46,316.00; (2) CDC Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $50,672.00; (3) Leighton and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $177,164.00; (4) R.L. Stollar and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $10,437.00; and (5) Johnson -Frank and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $277,407.00 for construction consulting services during Jamboree Road construction, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreements on behalf of the City. CONSENT CALENDAR NO. 6 - CITY OF TUSTIN AUDIT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION FOR SELECTION OF EXTERNAL AUDITORS FOR THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING JUNE 30, 1990 Councilman Prescott stated he had not had time to review the audit committee's recommendation and requested continuance. It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kennedy, to agendize this item at the April 16, 1990 City Council meeting. The motion carried 4-0. CONSENT CALENDAR NO. 7 - RESOLUTION NO. 90-28 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1990, BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK Councilman Kelly stated he wanted to be consistent and would cast a "no" vote on the Resolution. He stated the Superior Court had ruled that the City Clerk was authorized to proceed with the election, therefore, it was unnecessary for the Council to adopt the Resolution. Mayor Edgar noted the important point mentioned in the courtroom was the City Council had a duty to perform routine tasks relevant to the City election. It was appropriate for the City Council to take the action; when the City Council chose not to take that action, then the City Clerk could overrule the unwillingness of a City Council. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt Resolution No. 90-28 ordering the canvass of the April 10, 1990 General Municipal Election be made by the City Clerk. Councilman Prescott stated he would abstain from voting on the Resolution. The motion carried 2-1-1, Kelly opposed, Prescott abstained. CONSENT CALENDAR NO.11 - RESOLUTION NO. 90-37 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AND PAPERS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY BUSINESS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SECTIONS 34090, 34090.5 AND 34090.7 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES �Dage 6, 4-2-90 Councilman Kelly stated he had not had an opportunity to review the items scheduled for destruction and wanted to delay passing the Resolution until he had an opportunity to examine them in detail. Mayor Edgar explained it was a routine task and the Water Works records pre -dated the acquisition in 1980. He noted the records were voluminous and complex. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt Resolution No. 90-37 authorizing the destruction of certain City records and papers no longer required. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy requested the Finance Director, Ron Nault, confirm the contents of the records in question. Ron Nault responded that the majority of the records were water billing registers, indicating bills sent to residents and the amount due. Councilman Kelly stated the Loni Hamblin embezzlement included water payments and thought it would be wise of the Council to examine the records. Councilman Prescott stated a Councilmember should have an opportunity to review any record at his convenience. He noted there was an empty warehouse by the service yard where the records could be stored. As a substitute motion, it was moved by Prescott, seconded by Edgar, to store the records until there was a Council majority willing to authorize destruction. The substitute motion carried 3-1, Kennedy opposed. The following member of the audience addressed the Council regarding destruction of the records: Zipora Shifberg-Mencher, 16282 Main Street #3B, Tustin VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None IX. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1044 - BINGO GAMES It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 1044 have second reading by title only. The motion carried 4-0. Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1044 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Kelly, that Ordinance No. 1044 be passed and adopted as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1044 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PARAGRAPHS B AND C OF SECTION 3242 AND PARAGRAPH L OF SECTION 3244 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE LICENSING OF BINGO GAMES The motion carried 4-0. (Roll call vote). X. OLD BUSINESS 1. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT (JWA) , COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS) AND AIRPORT SITE COALITION (ASC) Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, reported that the topic of a cumulative impact study of high rise development on navigational aids was not included in the agenda for the March 15, 1990, Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) as staff had anticipated. Staff was still attempting to find out from the ALUC when the matter would be agendized and staff would continue to monitor the issue and keep the Council informed. She stated the Airport Site Commission would be CITY COUNCIL MINUTES --page 7, 4-2-90 presenting to the Board of Supervisors on April 3, 1990 a full report on the final site selection recommendation. She noted the report had not been released to any party to date, they had delayed providing and receiving input from any outside influences that could create strong responses to their recommendations. She reported the Inter -County Airport Authority met on March 28, 1990 and would continue to meet at 7:30 p.m. on the third Wednesday of each month. A member of staff along with the airport representative would be present. Kathy Weil, Coalition for a Responsible Airport Solution (CRAS) Representative, reported that CRAS would be having their annual meeting on Wednesday, April 4, 1990, at Leisure World Administration Building, and encouraged members of the Council to attend. Council/staff discussion followed regarding CRAS Representative Rod McLeod, Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, Councilman Prescott and two staff members attending the ORAS meeting. It was moved by Kelly, seconded by Kennedy, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 4-0. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. LETTER FROM MARK PETRACCA REGARDING TUSTIN TODAY NEWSPAPER The following member of the audience spoke in opposition to the Irvine Company-owned Tustin Weekly newspaper: Mark Petracca, Irvine Councilman Prescott requested the Council instruct the City Attorney to file a complaint against the Tustin Weekly, with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). He stated that Mr. Petracca, a UCI professor, spoke from an educated, objective point of view and was an outside observer. Councilman Prescott stated the laws suggested that political pamphleteering was in direct violation of the FPPC reporting laws and a complaint should be filed against the newspaper. It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kelly, to instruct James Rourke, City Attorney, to hire an outside, objective counsel to file a complaint with the FPPC and pursue allegations made by Professor Petracca against the Tustin Weekly newspaper. Council/speaker discussion followed regarding lack of Irvine City Council action against the Irvine Company-owned newspaper in the City of Irvine. The following member of the audience spoke in support of the Tustin Weekly newspaper: Zipora Shifberg-Mencher, 16282 Main Street #3B, Tustin Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy stated that freedom of the press, responsibly used, was one of the cornerstones of the nation. She stated in most cases the press was the "watchdog" of City Councils all over the country and was part of a necessary system. She wanted both the Tustin Weekly and Tustin News to remain and was glad Tustin could welcome and enjoy two newspapers. She noted she had an interest in the intellectual argument of the professor but would not take action against a newspaper that was responsibly reporting. Council discussion followed regarding, the Irvine Company's development lobbying of the Council and; the Irvine Company's contributions to the Measure M campaign. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -nage 8, 4-2-90 Mayor Edgar stated he was thrilled over the opportunity for free enterprise in the City and the level of competition would be beneficial to both newspapers and to all residents. He noted the differences in points of view between the two newspapers was healthy and was unwilling as a Councilmember, to use City resources to question whether or not the Tustin Weekly had committed improprieties. Councilman Kelly stated Professor Petracca made some interesting points that deserved the Council's consideration. He noted the Council had a responsibility to probe into the matter and to follow up with the professor's professional advice. The motion died 2-2, Edgar and Kennedy opposed. 2. TUSTIN NEWS REPORTING Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy stated that after Councilman Prescott agendized a review of the new Tustin Weekly, she thought, in the spirit of fairness and constitutional awareness, the Council should equally review the older, local newspaper, Tustin News. She stated the Tustin News had been in her home for over 20 years and she had a long on-going personal "love - hate" relationship with the publisher. She had the deepest respect for some of the reporters on the Tustin News, they spoke to all of the Councilmembers on a regular basis and reported on the issues with each being polled as to their opinion, their vote and their reasons. It was her belief that in the last 1-2 years there had been a steady decline in the reporting of the City's side in the Tustin News. She thought it was interesting that the Tustin News chose to report that the City of Tustin was conducting an investigation of violations by property owners on El Camino Real, where the City spent $3.5 million dollars of Redevelopment money. A picture of the City inspectors was in the paper but no follow-up story on the sixteen to twenty one violations of City Code that were revealed as a result of the investigation. Mayor Edgar noted two items that concerned him: after he was chosen Mayor at the November 20, 1989 Council meeting, he received headlines from the Los Angeles Times and the Register but noted the story was on the second page of the City's local newspaper, the Tustin News; and the unsuccessful court case regarding former Councilman Hoesterey's residency was not covered at all in the Tustin News. He stated he felt there was bias, the community understood that bias, and he felt the competition of two newspapers was healthy. The following member of the audience spoke in opposition to the Tustin News: Carl Kasalek, Tustin Council/speaker discussion followed regarding Bill Moses serving on the Water Board; financial statements filed by members of the Water Board; the January court ruling being published in the Tustin News; Tustin Residents Action Committee (TRAC) disclosing their contributions and unflattering campaign flyers distributed in the City about Councilman Kelly. Mayor Edgar clarified that when Bill Moses was first on the Water Board a financial disclaimer statement was not required. During his term, the law changed and members on the board were required to file a,financial disclosure statement. After the requirement was adopted, Bill Moses and others decided to leave the board. The following member of the audience spoke in support of and defended allegations made against the Tustin News and himself: Bill Moses, owner, Tustin News CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Wage 9, 4-2-90 XII. REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA - MARCH 26, 1990 It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Kelly, to ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of March 26, 1990. 2. CITY OF TUSTIN AUDIT COMMITTEE'S ANNUAL REPORT AND PRESENTATION OF CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Councilman Prescott requested staff indicate where the $100,000 City investment loss was in the report. William Huston, City Manager, explained the subject loss was reporting in the prior fiscal year. Council/staff discussion followed regarding when the expenditure was found by the Audit Committee; when the financial reports were printed; Council's notification of the loss, and recovery of the $100,000 investment loss. Mayor Edgar requested an updated report outlining all timelines concerning the $100,000 investment loss. Council concurred. It was moved by Edc{ar, seconded by Prescott, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 4-0. XIII. PUBLIC INPUT 1. TUSTIN WEEKLY'S COVERAGE OF THE INVOCATION ISSUE Frank Kazerski, 17121 East Edinger Avenue, Tustin, commended the Council on passing the Invocation Resolution and accused the Tustin Weekly of "Christian bashing" in its coverage of the recent invocation issue. 2. COMMENDATION TO MAYOR PRO TEM KENNEDY Bill Robbins, 22002 Fallen Leaf Place, Tustin, stated it had been a pleasure over the last 12 years to be Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy's treasurer. He noted that when she ran for election and re-election, she restricted donations to a $100 per person and, as a result, did not owe anything to special interests and that was one reason she had given the City excellent service for 12 years. He stated she demonstrated she was a woman of strength, extreme patience, tolerance and he thanked her. 3. COUNCILMAN KELLY'S CONDUCT AS NOTED IN POLICE LOG REPORTS Gregg Lynch, 14692 Cheshire Place, Tustin, accused Councilman Kelly of avoiding the issues of the police record, presented previously in the meeting. He questioned Councilman Kelly if he would admit to removing political signs with Councilman Prescott or was he accusing the police officer of filing a false police report. He stated the citizens of the City deserved a straight, direct and non -evasive answer. Councilman Kelly responded there was no citation issued and he did remove a sign for Proposition 102; it was not a competing sign for the City Council race. He stated there were errors in the police log. He said these were "cheap political shots" taken during a Public Input session and Public Input was for City business only. 4. IRVINE COMPANY DEVELOPMENT/MEASURE M Larry Bales, 2264 Juniper Road, Tustin, spoke in opposition to Measure M and questioned taxation of Irvine Company-owned land in the City. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 'gage 10, 4-2-90 Mayor Edgar responded that all vacant Company owned in Tustin was presently value and reported on the critical need to alleviate traffic gridlock. 5. USE OF "PUBLIC INPUT" land that the Irvine taxed at its maximum for alternative funding Zipora Shifberg-Mencher, 16282 Main Street #3B, Tustin, expressed her right to use Public Input to discuss any subject that was not agendized. XIV. OTHER BUSINESS 1. NON -CITY FUNDING SOURCES FOR PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC HOUSES Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy stated staff had advised her that the Cultural Resources Committee was investigating the establishment of a funding program to protect historic homes. Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, noted that one of the goals of the Cultural Resources Committee was to identify non -City financial resources for preservation of threatened structures that could be impacted by development activity. Possible suggestions were identification of vacant land available within the cultural resources district and a non- profit corporation which would provide for endowments. 2. MAYOR PRO TEM KENNEDY EXPRESSED APPRECIATION FOR SUPPORTERS Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy expressed her astonishment that people who supported her in 1976 were at the Council meeting. She said she felt deeply touched and thanked everyone. She noted that Shirley Ruff gave her a memento from her first fund raiser which was a Kennedy half dollar and a key chain. 3. BUILDING PERMITS/PROPERTY WITH CONTAMINATED SOIL Mayor Edgar suggested staff use aggressive action in attempting to accelerate the issuance of building permits for property with contaminated soil problems. He noted the process was hindered by County administration involvement. Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, stated City staff had no control over this particular issue and could not release building permits until a statement from the Orange County Health Department had been received indicating that their needs had been satisfied. 4. ADJOURNMENT TO APRIL 16 OR APRIL 17 Mayor Edgar polled the Council as to their preference for adjournment to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on April 16, 1990 or to April 17, 1990, when the newly elected Councilmembers are required to be installed. Following a brief Council discussion, it was determined that the meeting would adjourn to April 16, 1990, with the possibility of cancellation dependent upon content of the agenda. XV. ADJOURNMENT At 9:50 p.m. , the meeting recessed to the Redevelopment Agency then to the next Regular Meeting on April 16, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. MAYOR CITY CLERK