The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES 07-21-86III. E IV. ~ I~E CITY (~I~IL ~ THE CIT~ OF TUb'TIN. C.~.IFORNIA JULY Z1, 1986 Q~LL TO OROER/Iq,~ (~ ~LLEGINL'E/INVOCATION The ~ng wes call~ to order by ~ayor $altarell~ at 7:01 p.m. ~n the Cl~y C~nc~l Ch~e~, 300 Centennial Way. ~e Pl~ge of Allegiance ~ 1~ by C~nc~l~n Edgar,. a~ the ~nvocat~ ~as g~v~ by Council- man K~n~y, Counctlpersons Present: Counc~lpemons Absent: ~chers Present: Donald J. Saltare111, Hayor Ronald B. ~estere~, ~ayor Pro Te~ R~ch&rd B. Edgar John Kelly Ursula E. Kennedy gone ~tlltam A. Huston, Ctty Hanager Men ~atts, Oeputy Ctty Attorney Eva A. Nava, Oeputy City Clerk Ed~a~l H. Kntght, Sentor Planner Rohegc $o L~end~kec, O~e, of Public ~o~ks Cap~aln F~ ~akef~eld, PoHce Depa~men~ Ro~l~ A. ~h~te, D~. of C~. & Adm~n, Scvcs. Ronald A. Nault, F~nance Susan Jones, R~ea~on Supe~n~enden~ ~peoxt~ely 30 tn ~he audience Si~CIAL PRESENTATION OOIIATIOII BY HEN. THCARE /~DICAL C~NTER ~ ~STIN TO TUSTIN ,~RF..,A SENIOR ~r. NTER FUNO, INC. Htke F~elcL1 and Barbara Keene, Healthcare Hedlcai Center of Tust~n, presented a $1,000 donation to the Tust~n Area Sentor Center Fund, Into Nargarete Thompson and J~m Kane accepted the donation and expressed Chenks on behalf of ?:he Steering Committee for a Sen~or Center. 41 PUBLIC IIEARIN~ 1. ERST 1USTIN ASSF~SNENT DISTRICT NO. 85-1 - RE~OLUTION NO. 85-89 & R£_cCI__UTIOII NO. 86-93 Gary 0tesart, gtlldan Associates, Inc., assessment engineer for subject ~str~ct, presented the staff report and recommendatlon as contained tn the memoranda dated July 21, 1986, prepared by the Department of Publlc ~¢orks/Engtneertng Dtv~ston and C~,z,~untty Development Department. Hr. Dtesart responded to Counc~ ques- t1 offs · The publlc heartng vn~s opened by Hayor Saltare111 at 7:10 p.m. There vere no speakers on the matter, and the public heB~ng ~as closed. Council/staff/consultant discussion folloved regarding the moun?: of assessment to each Individual parcel. Ketth Greet, The I~v~ne Company, stated that the Increase In tax for thts property ~er and above other Tust~n properties ~ould be ~n the magnitude of .05% or approximately S600 per year on a S120,000 home ~htch v~ll floc be over-Imposing on future ~ome- o~ners. He stated that typlcally p~opert~es ~tth the ~gher burden to bear are commercial retail properties ~h~ch The ~v~ne Company plans to continue to o~, As recomeended by the Deputy ~tty Attorney, ~t was moved Hoesterey~ seconded by Edgar, to adopt the following: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 7-21-86 RESOI.~ION NO. ~-89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNXA, CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (EIR) 86-2 AND 84-3, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRON- MENTAL QUALITY ACT The motion carried 5-0. 25 It was moved by Edqar~ seconded by Hoesterey, to adopt the follow- ing: R~UTIOII NO. 86-~ - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 8S-1, ORDERING THE PROPOSED IMPROVE- MEHTS TO BE MADE, AND DESIGNATING THE CITY TREASURER TO COLLECT AND RECEIVE ~ONEY Motion carried $-0. 25 It wms moved by Hoestereyt seconded by Edqar, to approve utility agreements subject to final 'approval by the City Attorney's office as they r~late to the following utility companies: Southern California Edison Co~any, Southern California Gas Company, Pectftc Bell, C~mmunity Cable Television, and Irvine Ranch Water District; and authorize the Mayor and City. Cler~ to execute same. Carried s-_jo. 86-32; 86-33 86-34; 86-35 Ve PUBLIC INPUT 1. TUSTX# C~ER OF CO~v~RcE James Klncannon, Tusttn Chamber of Commerce, requested the possi- bility of installing wishing well logo signs at the freeway off- rms. There was Council consensus that staff review placement of subject signs along Red Hill Avenue, and that the former Community Oevelopment Director's plan for City entry signs be brought back for Council review. 91 YI. Item No. ! was removed from the Consent Calendar by Kelly; and Item No. 21 was removed by staff. Zt was moved by EdDar~ seconded by Kennedy, to approve the remainder of the Consen~ Calendar, The motion carried 5-0. 2. APPROVAL OF OF.I~N(DS IN THE A~IOUNT OF $1,002,55g.84 RATIFICATION OF PAYROU. IN THE AMOUNT OF $~35,208.45 50 3. REJECTION OF CLAIM ND. 86-27; CI.AII4ANT: STATE FARM/ROBERTS; DATE OF LOSS: 3/14/8~; DATE FILED BITH cITY: 6/5/86 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 44) 4. ~JECTION OF CIJ~IM NO. 86-31; CLAIK~NT: JOE B. O)YKENDAU.; DATE OF LOSS: 4/?/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 6/23/B6 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 6o REJEC~'IOR OF CI.~IM NO. 86-32; CIJ~IMANT: CATHERINE BANKSTON; DATE OF LOSS: 4/~/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 6/23/86 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 6. REJECl'XON OF CtJ~IM NO. 86-33; ~AIHANT: NARK BANKSTOM; DATE OF LOSS: 4/22/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: ~/23/86 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 7. REJECTIOM OF C~d~IM NO. 86-34; CId~XMANT: ABEL ~TILLO; DATE OF LOSS,,. 3/16/86~ OATE FII, ED WITH CITY: 6/24/86 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 7-21-86 8. RralEClI011 ~ CLAI# NO. 8S-35; CLAIIWIT: JOSEPll CAVN.L0; DAlE OF [__n~_: 3/19/8S; OATE FILE0 IllTH CITY: 6/~7/8S R~acted subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 44) 9. HOLT AVENDE/IRVIME B~VARD tYrILITT U~RGItOflNO OISTRICT NO. 8 Approved subject mgremnt wtth the Southern California Edison Co.~any pursuant to Section B of the Utility's Rule No. 20; authorized the ~yor to execute same; and authorized the pay- merit of funds in the estimated amount of $35,503 to Southern California Edison Company as recommended by the Public Works Departmont/Engt neeri ng Division. 104 45; 86-36 10o IqlOl=OSED DLA8011) IE.~I)/GARLNIO ANNETJ~TXOII NO. 137 Authorized staff to advertise a public hearing for August 4, 1986, on the City Council's intent to adopt a resolution as application for subject annexation to the'C~ty of Tustin as recommended by the Community Oevelopment Department. 24 Co~se~t Calendar It~- No. ! o 141heres of July 7, 1986- Councilman Kelly requested that page 3 be ~nded to reflect introduction of Ordi- nance No. 974 (Solid Waste Collection Fees Placed on Tax Rolls) on a 4-1 vote, Kelly' opposed. Mayor Saltarellt noted that Councilman Kelly did not express an opposing vote. Councilmen Kelly stated that due to his dtsgust aa the matter, he did not express his agposition. Council concurred to amend the mtnuteS to reflect same. APPROVAL OF 14[NUTES - JULY 7, 1986, REGULAR HEETING (As Amended) JULY 14, 1986, ADJOURNED REGULAR HEETING Vll. OIl)llt~lCE$ ~ llm~ooc?lO# viii. None. ORDIMm:£ R~ ~lm~TIOII SOLID tIL~Z QX.L~CTIO# ~ ~ ffi T~ ~t~ . O~I~E ~. 974 ]t ~s mv~ by Konn~yt s~onded by Edgar, that Ordinance Ho, 974 have s~o~ reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0. Following s~ond ~dtng by title ~ly of Ordinance NO. g74 ~y the Deputy City Clerk, tt was ~v~ by Edgar, s~ond~ by Hoesterey, that Ordinance No. 974 be pass~ and adopt~ as follow: ORI)llI~IC£ NO. 974 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TU~TIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6473 ET $EQ OF THE HEN. TH & SAFETY CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FINALLY APPROVING KO ADOPTING A REPORT RELATIVE TO PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY RECEIVING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES, DETERMINING THAT A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS NOT BEEN MADE, AND DETERMINING THE CHARGES FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION TO BE' ASSESSEO AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE LOTS OR PARCELS OF LANO AS THEY APPEAR ON THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT ROLL. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarellt NOES: Kelly ABSENT: None g7 NGENOA (III)ER C(MISEMT C~LENOAR lIEN NO. 11 Coeseat Calendar Ires No. Il - Tentative Parcel Map 86-201. Resolution No. B~-B8 - The City Manager redirected Council consideration to sub- Ject item. The Director of Public Works presented the amended staff redort and recomendation as contained in the inter-tom dated July 17, 1986, pre- pared by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 7-21-86 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to approve Parcel Map 86- 201 as presented, except that sidewalks be required on both street frontages of Walnut Avenue and Chambers Road and that the width of sidewalk be reduced from 8.0 feet to 5.0 feet, except at locations where permanent objects exist such as street lights and fire hydrants, the sidewalk would be widened to provide a minimum clear width of 5.0 feet. The motion carried 5-0. 99 Note: NO COUNCIL ACTION was taken on the following at this time: 11. RF-9)~UTIOR NO. 86-~8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF llJSTIN, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-201 LOCATED AT 2472, 14451 ANO 14471 CMAMBER$ RO4D Adopted Resolution No. 86-88 as recommended by the Community Development Department. 9g IX. 1. ]I~STI{I AUTO CZWTER LOUDSPEAKER CRITERIA The Senior Planner presented the staff report as contained in the inter-rom dated July 21, lg86, prepared by the Community Develop- ment Oepartment, A question-and-answer period followed. Ne~bert Huber, 13880 Dell Lane, Santa Aha, read a letter to the Council from Dr. A. J. Hughes, 1752 Lance Orive, dated July 18, 1986, urging amendment to Planning Commission Resolution No. 233¢, Exhibit A, as described by Mr. Huber. Mr. Huber spoke in opposition to the loudspeakers. He also requested restricting use of loudspeakers on weekends in addition to government holidays. Mr. Huber introduced the following speaker: Brett Fallavolltta, 5712 Verano Place, Irvine, UCI, sppke on the adverse effects of noise on people, both mentally and physically. He responded to Council questions. At the Mayor's request, the Senior Planner reiterated staff's recoem~ndation. It was then moved by Edsar~ seconded by Saltarellt, to: 1) Approve the Planning Commission criteria as adopted in Resolu- tion No. 2334; 2) Loudspeakers cannot be used on holidays (City of Tustin offi- cial holiday list); 3) A dealer who wants to expand the hours or use of his loud- speaker system must be heard by the Planning Commission with notification through an interest list on file with the City for the Tusttn Auto Center, advertisement in paper I0 days prior to the hearing, and notification to owners/renters within a 300- foot radius; 4) Loudspeakers would be set at a maximum combined courtyard sound level of 72 dba; and 5) The matter be brought back to the Planning Commission for review after lB months, with notification, to determine if it is a nuisance. Councilme~ers Hoesterey and Kelly spoke in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Kennedy felt that the City's existing sound criteria is not stringent enough to resolve noise nuisances, and requested warding for a built-in remedy stronger than v~at currently exists to protect existing and future residential con~nunities. The Deputy City Attorney responded that the matter is more a factual situation than one resolved by whether or not the word "nuisance" is inserted in the resolution. The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. 81 XI. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page B, 7-21-86 ~ I~/JN~ RON) EXTENSION BETt~rdl EI)ZNOIR AVEIIJE (MOULTON PM~UaMY) ~ B~LNRNr.~ ~ FUNOINO ~ As recamended in the inter-cai dated July 14, 1986, prepared by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division, it was moved by Edgar-; seconded by Hoesterey. to approve the Road Funding Agreement between the City of Tusttn, the City of ]rvtne, and The Irvfne Com- pany for extension of Myford Road/Jamboree Road through MCAS- Tusttn; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same. At Councilmn Edgar's request, the Otrector of Public Works pro- vlded a timetable for subject project. Council/staff discussion followed° Mayor Saltarellt requested that staff monitor the phas- tn~ of the West Par~ develoi~aent in Irvine which was conditioned upon construction of subject road. Motion carried 5-0. 45; 86-38 PNtI(INO RE~XCTIONS 0N WEST SXDE ~F C~N#XAL IETWEEM FIRST AMI) $ECOm STREETS Pursuant to the rec~mendatton contained in the inter-cai dated July 3, 1986, ~re~ared by the Public Works Oepartmnt/Englneering Otvtsion, it was nmved by Hoesterey! seconded by Edgar, to restrict all c~rb perking on the west side of Centennial Way between First and Second Streets. Councilwoman Kennedy requested trimming of trees in subject area. Following Council/staff discussion, the motion carried 5-0. 75 1. PLANNINO COlllISSlOII ACTIONS - JULY 14, 1986 Altec a brief question-and-anser period, it was mov~ by Hoestereyt seconded by Edqar, to ratify the entire Planning Co~nis- slon Action Agenda of duly 14, 1986. Carried 5-0. 80 2. IlffEST~NT SC~EI)UI.Z AS (IF ,JUNE 30, 198~ It was ~ved by Hoestere~e seconded by Edgar, to receive and flle subject reqort dated July [4, 1986, prepared by the Finance Depart- ment. Motion carried 5-0. 50 3. llIN~IC $I~IAL M~OIFICATI01I (L~.i-llIRN PliA.ilNO) AT I7TH SlllEET & YOI~ ~ (101111l)/~l)ERl~ C~I~t£K WAY Councilman Edgar clarified that his request on the possibility of a left-turn pocket and arrow at Yorba turning west onto 17th is where Yorba becae~ Carroll Way north of 17th Street, one block west of Enderle Center Way The Director of Public Works apologized for the misunderstanding. lie indicated staff would reevaluate the Yorba Street/Carroll Way & 17th Street intersection and report back on the matter. 95 Xll. OTHER 1. BI.lC-ON ITEM - P~OPO::~:~ RELOCATION Or .~/(TA AHA LINCOLN. MERCURY IN THE IlJSTIN NITO CENTER - RESOLUTION ND. 86-85 The City Manager presented the staff report and recommendation as contained in the inter-tom dated July 15, 1986, prepared by the City Attorney's office. It was moved by Kennedy~ seconded by Edgar, to adopt the following: R~__~I'IOII NO. 8~-~ - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF llJSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING ANO DECLARING THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF AND SUPPORT FOR THE RELOCATION OF SANTA AltA LINCOLN-MERCURY MOTOR VEHICLE OEN. ERSHIP TO THE TUSTIN AUTO CENTER CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 7-21-86 The motion carried 5-0. 8! #ALIC-ON ~ - PLJUI#%~ COIISULTN(I' ~EIq£NT ¥[TH I. SA As recon~ended in the inter-cam dated July Z1, 1986, prepared by the City ~nager, it was moved by Kennedyt seconded by Hoesterey, to authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with the firm of LSA, Newport Beach, for plannlng services at the rate of $60.00 per hour sub~ec'c to the City Attorney's approval of the form of the ag r eement. After a brief question-and-answer period, the motion carried 45; 86-38 3. ¥IDERI~/UTILIT¥ UNOER6ROUMDI~ ON ~RBA ~E~ IR~I~ Counctl~n Edgar r~uest~ staff conduct a prelimi~a~ study on the COSt Of ~dentng and undergroundlng ~ilities on Yorba Street betw~ Fi~t Str~ and I~lne Boulevard with AHFP funds. The Oir~tor of Publtc Works clartft~ that Yorba Is still on the a~ertal syst~. The City had a widening proj~t approv~ that was withdra~ b~ause of neighborhood objection at the ti~ to maintain the ~stdantial at. sphere. Since then, many prope~ies have been rezon~ and conve~ to offlce/professional-type use. Widening ~uld ~utre an additional 15-foot right-of-way on the easterly s~de, a~ an additional ~5 ?eet ~ the ~sterly s~de. g5 ~ 0~ ~ ~0~ ~VI~ IN ~ ~ Count11 ]otn~ Counc~lw~an Kenn~y tn extending congratulations to Ed ~tght upon hts ~ent ~potntment as Otr~tor of Development Se~tc~ tn Seal 8ea~ eff~t~ve August t, ~86, and thank~ h~m ?or the ~cellent job he has done. 79 Nayor P~ T~ Hoester~ r~uest~ a proclamation for the Tust~n Htgh Ttlle~ ~seba11 team on their effo~s last May ~n the CIF playoffs. 6. ~IV~ ~I~ ~ ~SUITS Mayor Pro T~ Hoesterey not~ a recent n~spaper a~cle where~n ~udges a~ ~nn~ng to 1repose f~nes on attorneys ~o ?~le frivo- lous cla~ a~ create additional costs for the courts. In response to Counc~l~n Hoesterey that the C~ty do something similar, the Deputy C~ty Attorney stat~ that the C~ty Attorney's off~ce can a~ does ?ev~ such matters. In the appropriate case, Tust~n could and ~uld try to proce~ against the ?~ler of a frivo- lous lawsutt and se~ recove~ of legal ?ees and expenses which such a ?tl~ng had cause. The City ~nager ~d~ that there have been cases ~ere the C~ty Atto~ey's off~ce has made such a threat and as a result ~ss~ ?cra la~utts that clearl~ had no relationship to the C~ty. 7e ISLANDS ON I~IN STREET 8ET~EN '8' & MYRTLE Councilman Kelly requested staff conduct a survey of residents on Main Street on the feasibility of islands between "8" and ~rtle. This should have priority over other already-budgeted islands throughout the City. He felt islands along Main Street would beautify the City and further slow traffic In that area. The Director of Public Works responded that staff would review same and report back ~th various options of w~at can be done with existing curb wtdths, g5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7. 7-21-86 8. STATUS ~F RELOCATION gF ~OHN t~YIE AZRPORT SOUND MONITORS The Senior Planner responded to Councilman Kelly that staff had made contact wtth the John Wayne Atrpo~ Noise Abatement via tele- phone and wrttten correspondence regarding his request of July 7. 1986. to ~locate two sound monito~s. A response is expected wtthtn Z-4 weeks w~th an analysts of same. 9. EL C~IINO ~ - II]~lfrIFICATION $I~S & MISSION [urtt TH~NE Councilman Kelly requested that a greeting be placed on the back of four City identification signs on E1 Camtno Real such as "Thank You Fram Old To~n Tusttn" or "Vaya Con gigs." In addition, he requested that the Mission Bell theme be extended along E1 Camino Real all the way through to the Tustin Auto Center. Staff ~111 ~evtee both requests and repo~ back. g3 10. NlllEXAT]OII ~E'rZ~G B[TN NgRT~ TU~TZN ~J#[CXP&L ~V[SORY COUNCIL Mayor Salterellt repo~ced on a recent meeting with the No~h Tustin ~untcipel Advisory Council ~nich was attended by several hundred people. He stated that the Chairperson conducted a straw vote at the meeting's end'v~ntch indicates a strong feeling that their best interests wauld be se~ed by annexing to Tustin. 24 1X. COUI~XIJ~ I~ A~[IIT~ TO ROUTE 55 ADVXSORY COI~ITTEE Council concurred to appoint Councilman Richard B. Edgar as Tustln's representative on the Orange County Transpor~ation Commis- sion's Route 55 Advisory Committee. At 8:39 p.m. it was ~oved by Kennedy: seconded by Hoesterey, ~o recess to the Redevelopment Agency~ and thence adjourn to t~e next Regular Meeting on Monday, August 4, Ig86, at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried IAYOR OF ~E REDEYELOPHENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTI#, CALIFORNIA JULY 21, 1986 The meeting wes called to order at 8:39 p.m. by Chairman Saltarelli in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, Callfornia. Agency Members Present: Agency I~bers Absent: Others Present: Donald J. Saltarellt, Chairman Ronald B. Hoesterey. Chairman Pro Te~ Richard 8. Edgar John Kelly Ursula E. Kennedy None William A. Huston, Exec. Director/City Manager Alan gatts, Oeputy C~ty Atto~ey Eva A. Have, Acting RKord~ng Secreta~ E~a~ M. Kntght, S~lor Planner Robe~ S. L~end~ker, O~rector of Public Works Captain Fr~ gakef~eld, Police Depa~nt Royl~ A. Hh~te, O~r. of C~. & Adm~n. Services R~ald A. ~ult. F~nance D~rec~or Susan dories, Recreation Super~n~endenC ~proxt~tely 20 tn the audience 3. API~OVAL (IF NIIIUES - d*ULY 7, 1986, RF~JL~q I~:Tlll6 It wes moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to approve Minutes of the July 7, 1985, Regular Meeting. Hotton carried 5-0. HOLT AVEI~/IRVIN~ ~Ot~VAilO UTILITY iJI~)EROROUNO DISTRICT NO. 8 A~ recommended tn the inter-tom dated July 14, 1986, prepared by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division, ~t ~s mved by Ed~ar~ sec- ond~ by Hoestarey. to authorize the Tust~n C~ty Counc~ to ex.ute agr~nts ~t~ ~tHty cmpan~es ~th r~pect to the Ho~t Avenue/Irv~ne Boulevard Ut~ltty Underg~und Dlstr~ct No. 8; a~ authorize expenditure of funds up ~ t~e ~rrent fidget ~unts ($55,000.00) as r~u~rfi. ~ot~on carr~ 5~. 45; I~$1GR REVIEW - 12*.i?. NEWPORT AVENUE, RESTAURANT REI~OEL - RESOLUTION NO. ROA 86-8 The Senior Planner presented the staff report and recommendation as con- tatned in the inter-corn dated July 21, 1986, prepared by the Community Development 8epartmont, It wes moved by Saltarelllt seconded by Kennedy, to adopt the following: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 8~- A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF llJSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REDESIGN OF A RESTAURANT AT 124~?, NEWPORT Carried 5-0. 60 COMPLIA~C£ WITH AB 265 COPlCERIIINO "SET-ASIDE" FUNDS FOR LOW/MOOERATE INCOI~ MOUSIltl - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-9 Following consideration of the tflter-com dated July ~1, lg86, prepared by the Community Development Department, it was moved by Hoesterey~ seconded by Edgar, to adopt the following: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Page 2, 7-21-86 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-9 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AND TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COFI~UNITY DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSED STATEMENTS OF EXISTING OBLIGATIONS ANO EXISTING PROGRAMS OF THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SUCH STATEMENTS The motion carried 5-0. 7. OTHER Norle. 8. N~OlJlUelEIrr At 8:45 p.m. it was moved by Hoeste~ey~ seconded by Edgar, to adjourn to the ne~t Regular Meeting on August 4, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 5-0. ~I RMAN RECORI~NG SECRE~...~Y