Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 08-07-89MINUTES OF A REGULAR F" 'TING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ~ )HE CITY OF TUSTINt CALIFORNIA JULY 17, 1989 me II. III. IV. Ve CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kennedy at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Hoesterey. INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Lt. James V. Asparro, Chaplain of the Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. ROLL CALL Council Present: Council Absent: Others Present: Ursula E. Kennedy, Mayor Richard B. Edgar, Mayor Pro Tem Ronald B. Hoesterey John Kelly Earl J. Prescott None William A. Huston, City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Christine Shingleton, Dir./Community Development Fred Wakefield, Acting Chief of Police Robert Ledendecker, Director Of Public Works Royleen White, Dir./Community & Admin. Services Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Valerie Whiteman, Deputy City Clerk Approximately 35 in the audience PROCLAMATION - PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH, JULY OF 1989 Mayor Kennedy commended the Parks and Recreation Department and the Parks and Recreation Commission for the services and enrichment provided to the City. She read and presented a procl~amation, proclaiming July of 1989 as Parks and Recreation Month, to Sam Randall, Chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Sam Randall thanked the Council, on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Department and Commission, for their recognition, encouragement and support. 84 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LEVY OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 1989-90 FISCAL YEAR, TUSTIN LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works, reported no written or verbal protests had been received regarding the annexation of additional territory to the existing district and the annual levy of assessments of the district. He distributed to the Council a map outlining the Tustin Landscape and Lighting District. Mayor Kennedy explained the procedure for submitting a written protest and opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no speakers on the subject and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kelly, to adopt the following Resolution No. 89-103: RESOLUTION NO. 89-103 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF ADDITIONAL TERRITORY TO ANEXISTING DISTRICT AND CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL 1989- 90 FISCAL YEAR LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC LANDSCAPE AND STREET LIGHTING FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRITORY INCLUDED IN THE TUSTIN LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT The mOtion carried 5-0. 63 CITY COUNCIL MINUTEs Page 2, 7-17-89 2. USE PERMIT 89-21 - RETAIL CENTER AT NEWPORT AVENUE/MAIN STREET Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner, gave a background report on the proposal to construct an 18,200 square foot retail center on a 1.49 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Newport Avenue and Main Street. She noted the prohibition of any auto related uses in the center and traffic/parking control. She requested a language modification to Resolution No. 89-102, Exhibit A, 2.3(6), as follows: "Any required improvement costs shall be the responsibility of the developer and security shall be posted in the appropriate amount for such improvements with the Public Works Department for a period of two years from the date a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the project." Mayor Kennedy opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 p.m. The following members of the community spoke in opposition to the proposed project: Elizabeth Springer, 1056 Andrews Street, Tustin Louis Drapac, 13636 Estero, Tustin Their concerns included: safe access to Newport Avenue, police enforcement of "Keep Clear" signs and installation of warning signs. The following member of the community spoke in favor of the proposed project: John Champion, representing Champion Development 'Co. At Mayor Kennedy's request, Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works, reported on traffic/parking mitigation and realignment of access'drives. There were no other speakers on the subject and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:34 p.m. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to approve the following: 1. Certify the Negative Declaration as-'adequate for the project by adoption of the following Resolution No. 89-101 as submitted or revised: RESOLUTION NO. 89-101 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR USE PERMIT 89-21, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 2. Approve Use Permit 89-21 by the adoption of the following Resolution No. 89-102 with modified language: RESOLUTION NO. 89-102 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (USE PERMIT 89-21) FOR A RETAIL CENTER ON A SITE IN PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (PC-C) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE AND MAIN STREET, 13662 NEWPORT AVENUE Councilman Hoesterey expressed concern with traffic using the shopping center as a throughway to surrounding streets. Councilman Prescott commended the developer, Champion Company, for proposing a beautiful project without requesting a "hand out" from the City. Councilman Kelly expressed concern at the amount of trash receptacles and also commended the developer for not relying on a "hand out" from the Redevelopment Agency. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar praised the developer for an excellent project and said the City's goal was always to gain development Page 3, 7-17-89 vi. without supplemental income but each project had to be considered on an individual basis. Mayor Kennedy also commended the developer and cited differences between this project and the Tustin Promenade project. The motion carried 5-0. 8'1 PUBLIC INPUT 1. TUSTIN PROMENADE PROJECT - FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Carole Bryant, P.O. Box 772, Tustin, expressed her disapproval of the $1,000,000 financial .assistance approved by the City Council on June 19, 1989, for CMS.Development (Tustin Promenade Project). She stated the subject had been discussed during clandestine meetings of the City Council and requested the matter be reagendized at the August 7, 1989, City Council meeting. Councilman Hoesterey asked the speaker for specific dates of secret city council meetings and questioned her use of the Tustin News as her source of information. He explained the details of the financial assistance and expressed, as his own personal opinion, that the Redevelopment Agency process was not adequately explained in the newspapers, even when considerable time had been spent educating reporters on the complexities of Redevelopment law; that it was arrogant for the two Councilmembers whose families had benefited the most from Redevelopment Agency funds to support a project in meetings with the developer and then vote against it at a City Council meeting; that he, personally, had not participated in secret City Council meetings with anyone regarding this project or any other; and that unless the speaker could specifically identify when the secret meetings occurred, she was out of order in accusing the Council of that type of action. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar noted that he had not participated in closed sessions and his decisions were made in open public hearings. He explained that the City was not issuing a check to anyone; that if the project was successful and the projected revenue of $3,000,000 was realized, then $1,000,000 of that revenue would be returned to the developer and the City would benefit by $2,000,000. The purpose of this type of agreement was to make the project viable so large corporations, such as Marriott and Carl's Jr., could obtain funding. Large companies did not become profitable by investing money to improve blight in Tustin, they were profitable because of sound business practices. It was incumbent-upon the City to encourage investment of corporate money, which had been done, and because of that he was proud of his vote and was not prepared to reagendize the matter. Mayor Kennedy said part of being in public office was submitting to accusations with an understanding that the public was concerned about government operation; however, members of the City Council, at least the members that she had worked with for some years, were honest and acted in the City's best interest. The City had spent $3,000,000 in the downtown Redevelopment area in which both Councilmen Kelly and Prescott owned considerable property in the downtown area and they did not voice protests during the upgrading and beautification of that Redevelopment area. The irregular shaped lot at Newport/Santa Ana freeway was, not only a crime center, but the worst blight she had ever seen in a City and included a vacant Texaco site inhabited by the homeless. An individual who owned a portion of one of the seven lots requested an exclusive right to negotiate, as was his right under State law. The Council allowed the Redevelopment project to proceed and it was done during open and public meetings. She noted that if the project was unsuccessful, the City.would not pay the $1,000,000 and, if it did succeed, the project would not only generate $2,000,000 in tax revenue for the City but the developer would repay the $1,000,000 at the end of 10 years. She pointed out that tax increments for Redevelopment areas were frozen and all of the tax revenue was returned to the City. She encouraged the speaker to learn the law and meet with staff so CITY COUNCIL MINUTA~ Page 4, 7-17-89 she would not feel motivated to accuse the Council of committing a crime. Councilman Kelly stated that he did not own property within the Redevelopment Agency area. He had received numerous complaints regarding the lack of public notification prior to the City Council's action and he thought the matter should be reagendized. At Mayor Kennedy's request, Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, gave a background report on the matter which included: project originated in July of 1987 when the City Council, after extensive public hearings, rezoned the subject property to Planned Community and instructed staff to meet with existing property owners to draft a master plan for development of 11 properties in that area; first and second notification of individual property owners offering them the right to participate and requesting them to submit proposals through a public notification process; in September of 1988, the Redevelopment Agency agendized an award of an exclusive offer to negotiate with CMS Development; on June 19, 1989, the Redevelopment Agency . agendized a Memorandum of Understanding in which the terms of Agency assistance were discussed at length. William Huston, City Manager, added it was important to note that the Agency's action at the June 19, 1989, meeting was to only approve the Memorandum of Understanding based on the exclusive right to negotiate and the next step would be the Development Disposition Agreement, which would contain complete details of the agreement and all Agency/Developer commitments. The Development Disposition Agreement would be submitted for Redevelopment~Agency action within a 90-day period. The subject would be returning to the Agency and had not been finalized. Councilman Kelly stated the public as well as himself was shocked regarding the financial assistance and he did not recall having knowledge prior to the June 19, 1989, Redevelopment Agency meeting. He requested the issue be agendized at the August 7, 1989, Redevelopment Agency meeting. Council concurred. 2. PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON ROSALIND DRIVE AND VICINITY Ralph and Sue Westrum, 13651 Rosalind Drive, Tustin, addressed the Council regarding parking restrictions on Rosalind Drive and in the alley behind their home. Their concerns included lack of driveway parking for their home, legality of petitions requesting parking restrictions, inconsistency of alley parking restrictions and issuance of traffic citations. Mayor Kennedy directed staff to investigate and agendize the matter at the August 21, 1989, City Council meeting and Acting Chief of Police Wakefield to defer the traffic citations until the issue was resolved. Council concurred. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar reiterated the policy set by the City Council which determined that 2/3rds approval of residents on a street would be a sufficient number to gain a "No Parking" restriction. 3. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL (BETWEEN BRYAN AVENUE/IRVINE BOULEVARD) - VANDALISM AND LOITERING Keith and Cathy Rankin, 13321 Nixon Circle, Tustin, reported that the recent concrete construction of the Orange County Flood Control District channel, adjacent to their home, had resulted in excessive vandalism and loitering. They noted lack of police access to the channel, the raised height of the channel banks provided easy accessibility to their property, and damage to their home from de-watering. Mayor Kennedy directed staff to meet with the homeowners on Nixon Circle and submit a written report to the City Council. CITY COUNCIL MINUT~ Page 5, 7-17-89 VII. 4. LEFT TURN TRAFFIC SIGNAL - WALNUT AND FRANKLIN AVENUES Tom Prenovost and Christine Hall, representing Far Western Bank at 14511 Franklin Avenue, Tustin, requested a left-turn traffic signal at the corner of Walnut Avenue and Franklin Avenue due to increased traffic and safety hazards. Mayor Kennedy directed staff to investigate the request and agendize for the August 21, 1989, City Council meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Kennedy and Item No 7 and 13 were removed by Mayor Pro Tem Edgar. It was moved by Kelly, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. The motion carried 5-0. 2. APPROVED DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,903,988.52 (6/23/89) APPROVED DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,100,143.35 (7/10/89) RATIFIED PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $197,795.63 (6/23/89) RATIFIED PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $201,390.46 (7/10/89) 5O 3. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 89-21; CLAIMANT-BARRY COOPER, DATE OF LOSS-4/23/89, DATE FILED WITH CITY-6/15/89 Rejected subject claim for personal injury of an undetermined amount. 40 4. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 89-15; CLAIMANT-EDWARD HANSEN, DATE OF LOSS-2/1/89, DATE FILED WITH CITY-5/16/89 Rejected subject claim for property damage in the amount of $140.00. 40 5. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 89-14; CLAIMANT-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, DATE OF LOSS-3/20/89, DATE FILED WITH CITY-5/23/89 Rejected subject claim for property damage in the amount of $200.00. 40 6. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 89-20; CLAIMANT-CHRISTINE YORGA, DATE OF LOSS-5/23/89, DATE FILED WITH CITY-6/15/89 Rejected subject claim for property damage in the amount of $672.00. 40 8. RESOLUTION NO. 89-100 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION FOR TRIMEDYNE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISPLAYING A 40 SQUARE FOOT CORPORATE LOGO FLAG AT 1311 VALENCIA Approved a Sign Code exception authorizing Trimedyne to display a flag bearing its corporate logo at 1311 Valencia Avenue by adopting Resolution No. 89-100 subject to the conditions contained therein, as submitted or revised. 93 9. RESOLUTION NO. 89-99 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CENTENNIAL PARK PLAY STRUCTURE Accepted the public improvements installed by The Miracle Recreation Equipment Company at Centennial Park by adopting Resolution No. 89-99 and authorized the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion. 77 10. RESOLUTION NO. 89-104 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR SIDEWALKAND CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR PROJECT, 1988-89 FISCAL YEAR Adopted Resolution No. 89-104 accepting subject work and authorizing the recordation of the Notice of Completion. 86B 11. RESOLUTION NO. 89-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVER SIDEWALK REPAIR ON EL CAMINO REAL ANDMAIN STREET Adopted Resolution No. 89-105 accepting said work and authorizing the recordation of the Notice of Completion. 86B CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 7-17-89 12. RESOLUTION NO. 89-106 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON REBECCA LANE, GWEN AVENUE, LUCINDA WAY AND DEBORAH DRIVE Adopted Resolution No. 89-106 accepting said work and authorizing the recordation of the Notice of Completion. 86B 14. TUSTIN RANCH ROAD/I-5 INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Approved the Escrow Agreement for Security Deposits in Lieu of Retention for the Tustin Ranch Road/I-5 Interchange project and authorized the Mayor to execute said agreement. 45 15. DECLARATION OF SURPLUS VEHICLES AND MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT Found that the vehicles and equipment listed in subject staff report were not required for public use and declared them surplus. 86 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO 1 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES/JUNE 19, 1989, REGULAR MEETING Mayor Kennedy requested that the second paragraph under Presentations No. 1 (Fund Raising Proceeds from the Tustin Area Senior Center Fund) be changed to: Mayor Kennedy commented that the senior center project was unique because some of the funding was raised through private contributions rather than government sources. By unanimous informal consent the Minutes of June 19, 1989, were approved. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO 7 - RESOLUTION NO. 89-77 Mayor Pro Tem Edgar questioned the language that limited tile number of employees and patients on the dental office site to a combined total of five. Following a brief Council/staff discussion, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to adopt the following Resolution No. 89-77 with language omission of "to a combined total of five": RESOLUTION NO. 89-77 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT 88-8, AMENDING CONDITIONS 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 AND 1.8 OF EXHIBIT "A" TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2494, TO AUTHORIZE A MAXIMUM OF 31,885 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 1,000 SQUARE FOOT DENTIST'S OFFICE WITHIN A RETAIL TENANT SPACE IN A COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT 17602 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 105 The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. 81 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO 13 - RESOLUTION NO. 89-107 Following clarification with staff concerning the maps attached to the staff report, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to adopt the following Resolution No. 89-107: RESOLUTION NO. 89-107 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ASPHALT CONCRETE REHABILITATION AND OVERLAY PROJECT, 1988-89 FY, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS The motion carried 5-0. 86B VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None IX. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ZONE CHANGE 88-02 - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA, ORDINANCE NO. 1024 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 1024 have second reading by title only. The motion carried 5-0. Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1024 by the Deputy City Clerk, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by CITY COUNCIL MINUT' Page 7, 7-17-89 Xe Edgar, that Ordinance No. 1024 be passed and adopted as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1024 -AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 88-02, A REQUEST TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTORS 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA The motiOn carried 5-0. (Roll call vote) 109 2. ZONE CHANGE 88-03 - EDINGER STREET AND JAMBOREE ROAD, ORDINANCE NO. 1025 It was moved by Hoestere¥, seconded, by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 1025 have second reading by title only. The motion carried 5-0. Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1025 by the Deputy City Clerk, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 1025 be passed and adopted as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1025 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 88-03, A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDINGER STREET AND JAMBOREE ROAD FROM P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO PC- IND (PLANNED COMMUNITY - INDUSTRIAL) The motion carried 5-0. (Roll call vote) 109 3. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01, ORDINANCE NO. 1026 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 1026 have second reading by title only. The motion carried 5-0. Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 102~ by the Deputy City Clerk, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 1026 be passed and adopted as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1026 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN SECTOR 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND NARRATIVE TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN The motion carried 5-0. (Roll call vote) 81 OLD BUSINESS 1. STATUS REPORT - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE MONITORING PROGRAM (JWA), COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS), AIRPORT SITE COALITION (ASC) AND HELICOPTER OVERFLIGHT PROGRAM TASK FORCE (HOPTF) It was moved by Kelly, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, reported a response had been received from the County on the City's comments to the noise monitoring report. The response was currently being reviewed by John Van Houten and his report would be submitted to the City Council at their August 7, 1989 meeting. Mayor Kennedy commended Kathy Weil, the City's CRAS represent- ative, on her factual report. The motion carried 5-0. 101 2. ALTERNATIVE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO ABATE NUISANCE AT 170 EL CAMINO REAL James Rourke, City Attorney, recommended this agenda item be discussed in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). (See page 12 for action taken by the City Council). 81 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 7-17-89 XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. AWARD CONTRACT FOR CARPETING FIELD SERVICES OFFICE It was moved by Edqar, seconded by Kelly, to award a contract to Carpetime, Santa Ana, California, for the installation of carpet for Field Services Office in the amount of $2,549.25 and that the $2,500.00 budgeted in fiscal year 1988-89 be carried over to fiscal year 1989-90 as work will not be completed until first quarter of the current fiscal year. The motion carried 5-0. 86 2. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS AND WHEELCHAIR RAMPSt SB 821 PROJECTt 1988-89 FY It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kelly, to award the subject contract to Damon CoNstruction Company, Gardena, California, in the amount of $22,335.00. The motion carried 5-0. 86B 3. RESOLUTION NO. 89-108 REGARDING BURNING OF THE UNITED STATES FLAG Councilman Kelly requested Resolution No. 89-108 be read into the record and commended the City of Orange for their model Resolution. Following the reading of Resolution No. 89-108 in its entirety by the Deputy City Clerk, it was moved by Kelly, seconded by Prescott, to adopt the following Resolution No. 89-108: RESOLUTION NO. 89-108 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING ITS DISAPPOINTMENT AND INDIGNATION WITH THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SHIELDING pERSONS WHO BURN AND DESTROY THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM PROSECUTION Mayor Kennedy stated, in an effort to ~mphasize Tustin issues, she had drafted another Resolution on the same subject that she thought would be more appropriate than a censure to the United States Supreme Court and she requested that Resolution No. 89- 108 (Draft i-B) be read into the record. Following the reading of Resolution No. 89-108 (Draft i-B) in its entirety by the Deputy City Clerk, as a substitute motion, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to adopt the following Resolution No. 89-108 (Draft i-B): RESOLUTION NO. 89-108 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AMERICAN FLAG' AS THE SYMBOL OF OUR NATION, OUR PEOPLE, OUR FREEDOM The substitute motion carried 5-0. Council discussion followed as to the correct sequence of action to be taken on original motions and substitute motions. Councilman Kelly said he was appalled at Mayor Kennedy's childish behavior and at her modification of Resolution No. 89-108. Councilman Prescott requested a vote on the original motion. James Rourke, City Attorney, said it was advisable to vote on the original motion if there was uncertainty among the Councilmembers, however, the substitute motion was voted upon in the correct order. Councilman Kelly requested adoption of both versions of Resolution No. 89-108. James Rourke noted that the City of Orange Resolution would not pass req~ire~ s~an~r~m ~c~m~ i~ ~~ ~o~~ ~~~, CITY COUNCIL MINUT Page 9, 7-17-89 XII. there already was legislation which the court held unconstitutional. If that language was eliminated, it would be legally acceptable but it would be an idle act to request Congress to pass a statute which would be unconstitutional. Mayor Kennedy said the majority of the Council continued to favor Tustin issues. She wanted to demonstrate an affirmative belief in the importance of the flag, but believed it should be kept at the local level and not enter into a Federal controversy where the City Council had no jurisdiction. Councilman Prescott wanted to respond to the call of President Bush requesting support of his effort to qualify a Constitutional Amendment protecting the flag and he requested agendizing for the August 7, 1989, City Council meeting a Resolution supporting President Bush's attempt to amend the Constitution. Council concurred. The Council voted on both motions with the following results: The substitute motion carried 5-0. The original motion failed 2-3, Kennedy, Edgar and Hoesterey opposed. 103 REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDAS - JUNE 26 AND JULY 10, 1989 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edqar, to ratify the Planning'Commission Action Agendas of June 26 and July 10, 1989. The motion carried 5-0. 8O 2. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 5-0. 50 3. SB 547 UNREINFORCED MASONRY (URM) BUILDINGS Councilman Prescott asked how the subject legislation would specifically effect older buildings in the City. Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, responded that the City would complete a field survey of the older buildings and determine if they were unreinforced masonry and then the property owners would be notified of that determination and could submit information indicating the accuracy of the survey and provide additional information, including their own engineering studies, to indicate that the buildings were safe. Staff would develop an implementation tool evaluating a variety of alternatives for adoption of an ordinance that would provide for design criteria for reinforcing unreinforced masonry buildings and community workshops would be held enabling property owners to review any proposed design criteria that would be developed as part of an ordinance. She emphasized that data indicates unreinforced masonry buildings performed poorly under damaging earthquakes and the City ought to be prepared as well as recognize the significant threat to public health and safety that exists in the presence of unreinforced masonry buildings. Staff was currently completing the Cultural Resources overlay survey of historical districts and it would be used as a guideline to designate, by City Resolution, buildings of historical value which would create a different set of criteria that provides implementation mechanisms available to the individual historical property owner which would be slightly less stringent. It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kennedy, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 5-0. 81 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10, 7-17-89 4. TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY STUDY Mayor Kennedy commended staff for a excellent, concise report. Councilman Hoesterey said the City should guard against hotels/motels becoming long-term residencies and noted that many hotels now advertise as residence inns which create increased traffic that generally is mitigated through transit occupancy taxes. When that tax was eliminated after a 30-day period, it created an entirely different situation including possible circumvention of zoning and higher densities. He suggested Council investigate methods through ordinances to insure that the City was not confronted with those problems. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to instruct staff to develop an ordinance which expressly prohibits transient occupancy for over 30 consecutive calendar days, as well as placing a minimum length on renting motel/hotel rooms to a 24- hour period. Councilman Prescott did not think the City should be involved in this area of business, it was a contractual relationship between the owner of a hotel and the owner's guest. Mayor Kennedy stated when a landlord/tenant relationship developed, through long-termresidency, and an innkeeper enlisted the Police Department to evict a non-paying tenant, the City was legally unable to assist the innkeeper. Some motel/hotel owners had requested protection through zoning, which would forbid the use of a hotel room as an apartment with inadequate parking, recreation areas and kitchen facilities. The following member of the community spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance: Skip Hall, representing Key Inn (formerly Sixpence Inn) His concerns included: law governing acceptance of fees for periods exceeding seven days resulting in a landlord/tenant relationship, elitist attitude of City, valuable assistance given to innkeepers by long-term residents and timid eviction action by Police Department. He suggested the establishment of the number of long-term residents per property and then impose restrictions. As a substitute motion, it was moved by Hoestere¥, seconded by Edgar, to direct staff to survey other cities, meet with motel operators and submit a recommendation to the City Council within 60-90 days. Councilman Kelly said he was surprised the Council would become involved.in creating a complicated ordinance that would expend valuable staff and legal time. He felt an ordinance would create additional problems, the City should not become involved and should be grateful the area motels were not leasing their rooms on an hourly basis. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar stated the most significant issue was correct zoning/land use and when a motel created improper parking, then it became a serious consideration for the City. The substitute motion carried 3-2, Kelly and Prescott opposed. James Rourke, City Attorney, commented that the Tustin Police Department was not timid but acted upon the.advice of the City Attorney's office as to the interpretation of eviction law. Sl XIII. PUBLIC INPUT 1. ~NO P]tRKING" RESTRICTIONS - YORBA STREET AND ROSALIND DRIVE Helen Edgar, 13622 Loretta Drive, Tustin, gave a background report on the "No Parking" restrictions in the alleyway between Yorba and Rosalind and the submittal of petitions for those restrictions. CITY COUNCIL MINUT Page 11, 7-17-89 2. LONG-TERM MOTEL OCCUPANCY AND MARRIOTT FAIRFIELD INN XIV. Nancy Prescott, 230 South "A" Street, Tustin, spoke in favor of hotel/motel long-term occupancy in Tustin and spoke in opposition to the addition of another motel, Marriott's Fairfield Inn. OTHER BUSINESS 1. ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY OF SARAH COLEMAN AND CARMAN BOB BARNETT Mayor Kennedy requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of Sarah Coleman, founder of Lilliput Players and LP Repertory Company in Tustin, who succumbed on July 12, 1989. Councilman Kelly requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of Carman Bob Barnett, a Tustin resident since 1959, who died on July 1, 1989. 2. CITY OF TUSTIN PUBLIC RELATION PACKAGE Councilman Kelly requested a status report on the City's public relation'package. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION PRAISED Councilman Kelly commended the Planning Commission for the level of concern and analysis in determining a color scheme for the East Tustin area. 4. FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION Mayor Pro Tem Edgar complimented the staff and the Tustin Unified School District for another successful firework display.- He requested, if possible, that future ground firework displays be elevated for visibility to those outside of the stadium. Royleen White, Director of Administrative and Community Services, responded that the height of the firework displays remained close to the ground for safety reasons but she would forward the suggestion to the contracting company. 5. TRAFFIC STUDY - IRVINE BOULEVARD/YORBA STREET INTERSECTION Mayor Pro Tem Edgar requested a traffic study at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Yorba Street. He felt the traffic signals were preferential to Irvine Boulevard traffic flow and gave inadequate time to left-turn traffic flow. 6. NEXT PHASE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Mayor Pro Tem Edgar asked that the Southern California Edison Co. be contacted as to when the next phase of underground utilities would be installed. 7. DEDICATION OF THE TUSTINAREA SENIOR CENTER Councilman Hoesterey noted the historic dedication of the new Tustin Area Senior Center on July 28, 1989. 8. CITY COUNCIL DECORUM · Councilman Prescott expressed his displeasure at the conduct of Councilmembers during the Tustin Promenade project discussion and commended Mayor Pro Tem Edgar for his lack of participation in the discussion and for his level of professionalism. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF TUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT DURING RECENT ABORTION DEMONSTRATION Mayor Kennedy thanked and commended the Tustin Police Department for their professional conduct, which resulted in no arrests or injuries, during the recent Operation Rescue demonstration. She mentioned there had been concern expressed by those unable to reach their places of employment and she requested a future CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12, 7-17-89 system be established to allow necessary access to businesses and places of employment. 10. ALL STAR CENTENNIAL PARADE Mayor Kennedy extended her appreciation to Denise Still, Executive Coordinator for the City; the Greinke family; Olympic Medal winner, Bruce Ibbetson; UCI students; Chamber of Commerce; and Joan Hoesterey for their coordination, assistance and donations during the City's participation in the All Star Centennial Parade. 11. I-5 FREEWAY WIDENING/CLOSURE OF MAJOR CITY STREETS Mayor Kennedy requested staff agendize a review of the I-5 freeway widening project and the closure of major City streets. 12. INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC STATEMENTS BY COUNCILMEMBERS Mayor Kennedy announced, as a public disclaimer for the protection of the City, that all Councilmembers were welcome to lobby for any issue they desired, but Councilmembers who spoke -on radio, television or to the press without the consensus of the City Council were not speaking for the City but spoke only as individuals. ' 13. VIDEO TAPES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Mayor Kennedy had received complaints from individuals who had purchased video tapes of City Council meetings and discovered the tapes were not of complete meetings. She requested staff contact the cable company and investigate. 14. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING Council concurred to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on August 15, 1989, at 5:30 p.m. 15. 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MOON LANDING/FLIGHT OF STEALTH BOMBER Mayor Kennedy noted that July 20th was the 20th Anniversary of America's landing on the moon and the successful flight of the Stealth Bomber this date. 16. BUDGET WORKSHOP gouncil concurred to hold a Budget Workshop on July 24, 1989, at 5:30 p.m. XV. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Kennedy announced the City Council would recess to Closed Session to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and to confer with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). ADJOURNMENT At 9:47. p.m, the meeting recessed to the Redevelopment Agency, to the above Closed Session and then adjourned in memory of Sarah Coleman and Carman Bob Barnett to a Budget Workshop on July 24, 1989, at 5:30 p.m. and then to the next Regular Meeting on Monday, August 7, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. ' FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION - PROPERTY AT 170 EL CAMINO REAL It was moved by Edqar, seconded by Hoesterey, to direct the City Attorney to file a misdemeanor criminal action against the owner of the property at 170 E1 Camino Real for violation of City Codes. The ~otion carried 5-0. CITY CLERK MAYOR