HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1A MINUTES 05-05-86MINUTES OF A REGULAR ~INB
OF ll(E Clll~ COUNCIL OF ll4E
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 21, lg86
II.
III.
IV.
Ye
VI.
VII.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Greinke at 7:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance
was led by Councilman Kelly, and the Invocation was given by Mayor
Saltarelli.
ROLL CALL
Councilpersons Present:
Councilpersons Absent:
Others Present:
Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor
Ronald B. Hoesterey, Mayor Pro Tem
Richard B. Edgar
John Kelly
Ursula E. Kennedy
None
William A. Huston, City Manager
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
Robert S. Ledendecker, Dir. of Public Works
Edward M. Knight, Senior Planner
Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police
Royleen A. White, Dir. of Com. & Admin. Srvcs.
Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent
Approximately 80 in the audience
~ H~ESENTATION
1. TUSTIN AREA' COUNCIL (TAC-1) STATUS REPORT - CHAIPJt~N JOE ANDERSON
Joe Anderson, Chairman of TAC-1, acknowledged committee members
present in the audience. Mr. Anderson provided an update on what
the committee has been doing in the past 3-1/2 years, and identi-
fied the committee's goals and objectives.
Mayor Saltarelli thanked Mr. Anderson for his report and for the
work the committee has done thus far.
COI~DNITY NOll~S
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
PUBLIC INPUT
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items 1 and 8 were removed from the Consent Calendar by Kennedy. It
was then moved b~ Hoestere~, seconded b~ Edgar, to approve the
remainder of the Consent Calendar. Carried 5-0.
e
APPROVAL OF DE#ANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,105,685.80
RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $135,672.45
5O
REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-10; CLAIMANT*: EFIILY & ANNA COLLINS; DATE
OF LOSS: 12/12/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 3/18/86
Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40
REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 85-38; CLAIMANT: SAMUEL BEGEL; DATE OF
LOSS: 5/30/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 8/19/85
Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 40
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2, 4-21-86
10.
RE~UTION NO. 86-51 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO AND PROVIDING TERMS AND CONDI-
TIONS FOR RELOCATION OF CERTAIN PIPELINES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-
OF-WAY
Adopted Resolution No. 86-51 as reco,.~ended by th, Public Works
Department, Engineering Division. 104
COOPEIU~TIVE AGREEMENT NO. D06-068
Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject agree-
ment with the County of Orange; and authorized a supplemental
budget appropriation within the Water Enterprise Fund in the
amount of $8,100 to fund said work as recommended by the Public
Works Department, Engineering Division. 45; 8~-21
RESOLUTION NO. 86-41 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT
86-6 FOR AN OFF-SITE BEER AND WINE SALES LICENSE AT 13842-A NEWPORT
AVENUE
Adopted Resolution No. 86-41 pursuant to Council action on
March 17, 1986. 81
RESO. UTION NO. 86-49.- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, C&LIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP 85-287 LDCATED AT
13882 NEWPORT AVENUE
Adopted Resolution No. 86-49 as recommended by the Community
Development Department. 99
RE~UTION NO. 8~-53 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 SIDEWALK AND CURB REPAIR PROGRAM
Adopted Resolution No. 86-53 as recommended by the Public Works
Department, Engineering Division. 92
Consent Calendar Item Mo. 1 - Minutes of March 17, 1986 - Councilwoman
Kennedy requested corrections as follows:
Page 1, last paragraph, May 5 should be corrected to May 4.
Page 4, next to last paragraph should read, "Councilwoman Kennedy
expressed delight that the building was no higher than 30 feet."'
Page 7, seventh paragraph should read, "The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy
opposed."
It was then moved by Kennedy, seconded .i.iby..Hoesterey, to approve the
Minutes of the March 17, 1986, 'Regular Meeting as corrected. Motion
carried 5-0.
Consent Calendar Ztem No, 8 - General Plan Amendment 86-2c - Council-
woman Kennedy stated she removed subject item from the Consent Calendar
in order to register a "No" vote.
Pursuant to Council action on April 7, 1986, it was then moved by
Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to adopt the following:
8. R£SOLUTION NO. 8~-48 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ll4E LAND USE DIAGRAM OF THE LAND
USE ELEMENT FOR THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR 1101 SYCAMORE
AVENUE
The motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed.
56
VIII.
IX.
ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION
None.
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION
1. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE PROGRAM -
ORDINANCE NO. 964 & RESOLUTION NO. 86-14
~,ITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3, 4-21-86
The City Manager stated that all proposed "amendments have been
reviewed by the City, Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee,
and the Orange County Fire Department. All h~ve indicated concur-
rence with Ordinance No. 964.
Regarding the matter of who should pay the fees to administer the
program, he noted that there are two fees involved. One fee is for
actual disclosure enforcement - the cost of Fire Department person-
nel to enforce the disclosure requirement. It is now State mandate
and the City cannot~get reimbursement for same.
The second fee is for actual administration of the emergency plan
for hazardous spills or anything related to the ordinance itself.
Staff estimates the total cost to be anywhere from approximately
$60-100 thousand per year to administer both the emergency plan and
disclosure requirement. This involves inspection on a case-by-case
basis of any business that would have to report, which the City and
OCFD estimate at approximately 282 businesses.
This is not an optional program and is based solely on State law.
The question now is who pays that cost? Should the City absorb
the fees, or should businesses subject to regulations pay? If the
City pays the fee, there is no recourse but to take it from the
General Fund. The fees would range from $110-$220 for the disclo-
sure program, and from $157-$230 for administration of the emer-
gency plan.
The Mayor stated that since it is a State-mandated program, the
fees should be paid by them and not passed on. Additionally, he
felt a ceiling should be placed on the fees so that they are not
raised administratively.
The City Manager clarified that the ordinance adopts the disclosure
requirements based on State law, and the resolution designates the
Orange County Fire Department as the agency to administer the pro-
gram on the City's behalf. In administering the program, the
County would collect the fee.
Michael Cate, Fire Marshal, spoke on the County's plans to admin-
ister the program. He sta~ed that the County will annually review
the number of businesses that fall under the ordinance under State
law vs. program costs. They will strive to maintain conservative
staffing and continue to meet with city representatives prior to
recommending any action to the Board of Supervisors.
Mayor Saltarelli expressed concerns regarding costs. He recom-
mended that the City adopt the State-mandated ordinance, but wait
to adopt the resolution until the County has an idea of costs. If
they are reasonable, the City could then contract for same and
review them annually.
The Fire Marshal indicated that the County has already adopted a
fee schedule and proceeded to explain same.
Councilman Hoesterey expressed concern that there will be duplica-
tion of information from the lack of an overall State program. The
Fire Marshal stated the County is making efforts to link data bases
and then joint-share information which will probably take 2-3 years
to complete.
Fire Marshal Cate responded to Council questions.
It was then moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance
No. 964 have second reading by title only. Motion carried 5-0.
Following second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 964 by the
City Clerk, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, that
Ordinance No. 964 be passed and adopted as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 964 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 5600 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE
OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4, 4-21-86
Frank Greinke, Jr., Tustin Chamber of Commerce, suggested a user
pay program so that the local business community does not bear the
brunt of the program. He expressed a desire that the program be
included in the General Fund as part of total fire services charged
to the City of Tustin. This would allow better understanding of
the total cost to the community and whether Tustin is receiving
responsible service from the County.
Further Council discussion followed.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Edgar, Hoesterey, Kelly, Kennedy, Saltarelli
None
None
Mayor Saltarelli spoke in opposition to Resolution No. 86-14. He
felt there should be local control on fees, with annual review of
same.
It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to:
Adopt the following:
RESO~UTIO# NO. 86-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN NAMING THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT AS THE
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING THE REQUIRE-
MENTS OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2185
2)
3)
Make Resolution No. 86-14 effective for a one-year period; and
Stipulate that any proposed increase in fees from the $110-$220
for the disclosure program, and $157-$230 for emergency plan
administration, must be. approved by the City of Tustin.
At Mr. Greinke's request, the following addition was made to the
motion with approval by the maker and second:
4)
The County shall report to the City the total cost of services
to businesses in Tustin so that it can be considered in its
total overall cost of fire services.
The motion carried 4-!, Saltarelli opposed.
BUSI~SS
102
1. SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE: CHILI COOK-OFF ANO TUSTIN TILLER DAYS
The staff report was presented by the City Manager as contained in
the inter-com dated April 15, 1986, prepared by the Administrative
Services Department.
Councilman Kelly spoke in opposition to the Chili Cook-off and
recommended cancellation of both events.
Councilman Edgar spoke in support of Tustin Tiller Days and urged
Council consider the two events separately.
It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kelly, to cancel the
E1Camino Real Chili Cook-Off.
Councilwoman Kennedy expressed regret in having to withdraw support
of the Chili Cook-Off due to economics. Councilman Hoesterey was'
opposed to cancellation of the Chili Cook-Off.
The motion carried 4-1, Hoesterey opposed.
The City Manager responded to Councilman Edgar that the City could
not advocate a pro or con position on Proposition 51. He indicated
that the City could, however, notify the public through "Tustin
Today" that the E1Camino Real Championship Chili Cook-Off was can-
celled due to the cost of insurance premiums.
"ITY COUNCIL MINUTES
/age 5, 4-21-86
XI.
Discussion followed on whether insurance could be obtained easier
if alcohol were not available at Tustin Tiller Days.
Cherrill Webb, Tiller Day~ Committee Chairperson, said there are
more problems when people bring in their own beer than when alcohol
is served in a controlled area. She was informed that the City
· would attempt to include her and the Committee in its coverage of
the event.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded 'by Kennedy, to proceed with the
Tustin Tiller Days on the basis that the City attempt to purchase
self-insured retention coverage, and if not, cover the event under
the City's general liability policy.
Mayor Saltarelli was in favor of Tustin Tiller Days without the
sale of alcohol. Councilman Kelly spoke in favor of the motion.
The motion was amended by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to proceed
with Tustin Tiller Days and have it covered under the City's gen-
eral liability policy, with no alcohol beverages permitted.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey reflected on the situation of the insurance
marketplace and liability exposure in this day and age.
The motion carried 5-0.
41
2. PROPOSEB STI~EET NANE ~AN~E - MOULTON PARKWAY TO EDINGER AVENUE
Following consideration of the inter-com dated April 14, 1986, pre-
pared by the Public Works Department, Engineering Division, it was
moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to adopt the following:
RESOI. UTION NO. 06-52 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC
HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF
MOULTON PARKWAY, BETWEEN RED HILL AVENUE AND HARVARD AVENUE, TO
EDINGER AVENUE
The Director of Public Works responded to Councilwoman Kennedy that
the usual procedure in a street name change is to carry both street
names for a period of one year.
The motion carried 5-0.
96
NEW BUSINESS
1. NAIN STREET TEN:FIC CONTROLS
The Director of Public Works requested an additional two weeks to
complete the supplemental warrant study for the four-way stop
installation at Main and "B" Streets.
The Director presented the remainder of th~ staff report as con-
tained in the inter-com dated April 14, 1986, prepared by the
Public Works Department, Engineering Division.
He added that once the intersection is signalized, it will encour-
age more traffic to utilize that particular intersection to gain
access to Main Street or to cross Main Street, and increase north
and south traffic on Pacific Street.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded ~y Hoesterey, to authorize the
Engineering Division to proceed with design and installation of a
traffic signal at the intersection of Main and Pacific Streets.
Council discussion followed on whether Pacific would be the best
location for the traffic signal. Councilwoman Kennedy suggested a
temporary warning light because of traffic traveling eastbound on
Main over the hill. The Director stated that during the design
phase staff will investigate whether a permanent advance warning
light/sign is required for eastbound traffic approaching the inter-
section.
GITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6, 4-21-86
The motion carried 5-0.
g4
ORAFT EIR-EIS FOR THE SANTA ANA (I-B) FREEWAY WIDENING PRO~ECT
BETWEEN ROUTE 405 AND ROUTE 55
In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, the Director of Public Works
stated that Alternatives 2 and 3 will affect the frontage of Tustin
High School.
He provided a brief overview of the widening pattern of the freeway
from the interchange to the vicinity of Myford Road.
Council/staff discussion followed regarding the impacts on Tustin
High School.
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to continue consid-
eration of the matter to May 5, 1986.
The Director responded to Mayor Saltarelli that he would report
back on CO.m.ents by Tustin Unified School District on the matter.
Councilman Edgar voiced support of the motion. However, he recog-
nized that it is inevitable that any widening of the freeway will
have a major impact on the co.m,unity. However, he felt the bene-
fits of the project outweigh the impacts.
The motion carried 5-0.
54
3.. ANARD (F CONTRACT FOR EL C~INO REAL EXTENSION FROM TUSTIN AUTO
CENTER TO lefFORD ROAD
As requested by the City Manager, it was moved by Hoestere¥, sec-
onded by Kennedy, to continue subject item to May 5, 1986. The
motion carried 5-0. 95
XII. REPORTS
1. PLANNING 'COI~ISSION ACTION AGENDA - APRIL 14, 1986
Following Council/staff discussion, it was moved by Kennedy, sec-
onded by Hoesterey, to appeal Variance 86-3 filed by Carver Devel-
opment to vary from various'sections of the Sign Code. The motion
carried 5-0. ~
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to ratify the remain-
der of the April 14, 1986, Planning Co.,,tission Action Agenda.
Carried 5-0. 80
2. 71'H & 70TH SEMER I~INTENANCE DISTRICT
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to receive and file
subject report dated April 11, 1986, prepared by the Public Works
Department, Engineering Division. Motion carried 5-0. gl
3, STATUS REPORT CONCERNING UPOATE OF CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to receive and file
subject report dated April 16, 1986, prepared by the Community
Development Department. Carried 5-0. 56
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS
1. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION
The City Manager requested a Closed Session for discussion of
personnel matters.
2. TUSTIN HEISTS SHOPPING CENTER
The Director of Public Works responded to Councilwoman Kennedy on
the status of parking lot/street alignment improvements at Tustin
Heights Shopping Center. At the time the City appropriated funds
'TTY COUNCIL MINUTES
· dge 7, 4-21-86
for parking lot/street alignment improvements, it was assumed the
Center had budgeted funds for the project. He stated that during
staff's last contact with the Center 3-4 weeks ago, they were going
back to check with new management about budgeting the project. To
date, staff has not heard back from them. He explained that the
City was going to contribute Redevelopment funds for revamping of
traffic and work within the public right-of-way, and the property
owner would work on-site.
Council concurred to direct staff to prepare a letter for the
Mayor's s~gnature to Tustin Heights Shopping Center in efforts to
proceed with the project.
Mayor Saltarelli suggested the City proceed with the project and
then obtain reimbursement through whatever means are required.
3. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
Mayor Saltarelli informed Councilwoman Kennedy that Edwards Cinema
has committed to a theatre complex at the ~ford intersection in
the mixed use area of East Tustin which will contain six theatres.
Councilwoman Kennedy requested that the City Council continue to
press for pedestrian and bicycle'trails in East Tustin so that com-
mercial centers in the new area .are accessible by foot as they are
in Irvine's Woodbridge subdivision.
4. LII~ITS AT COLUI~US-TUSTIN PARK
Councilwoman Kennedy reported she recei'ved continuous complaints
from residents off of Prospect that the lights at Columbus-Tustin
Park stay on until 2:00 a.m. She requested that staff have the
timers reset.
5. REQUEST FROg BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF llJSTIN
The City Manager responded to Councilwoman Kennedy that staff has
had discussions regarding the Boys and Girls Club request for fenc-
ing on their property. Staff will report back on same.
6. ABANDONED TRAILER Og NEWPORT AVENUE
Councilwoman Kennedy reported that she has received complaints from
property owners along Newport Avenue that an abandoned trailer in
the lot which belongs to an out-of-towner is being used for smok-
ing, partying and drinking by young people. She requested that the
matter be investigated.
7. DUHPSTERS IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Councilwoman Kennedy reported that there are dumpsters on the
public right-of-way on E1 Camino Real (formerly Laguna Road). She
has received complaints that the new striping on E1 Camino Real is
making traffic travel very close to subject dumpsters which are
unlit.
The Director of Public Works stated that subject area was recently
annexed from the County (Pankey Island). Staff has requested the
refuse company to remove its dumpsters out of the public right-of-
way and not replace them after they've been picked up and emptied.
The street striping is the same as it's always been; there is some
different striping right in the immediate intersection at Browning
and E1 Camino Real. A stop sign will be installed for southbound
Browning traffic at E1 Camino to prevent continuous turns, thereby
eliminating high speed traffic rounding subject corner.
8. TRUCKS AND TRAILERS PARKING IN llJSTIN
Councilwoman Kennedy reported she has received a complaint that
trucks continually park in Tustin as though it is a truck stop.
Specifically, they are parked on E1 Camino Real, East Tustin Drive,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8, 4-21-86
Red Hill Avenue, and several other areas. The Chief of Police
responded that the Police Department is enforcing the City's new
ordinance prohibiting same and will continue to do so.
9. TREE DAMAGE ON DEVONSHIRE
The Director of Public Works responded to Councilwoman Kennedy's
concern regarding tree damage on Devonshire. He stated that it is
a common result from the heater remix process when resurfacing
streets. Staff is aware of the matter, and the trees will outgrow
the damage.
10. UIIDERGROUNDIIIG OF NAIl( STREET
Councilman Edgar reported that last week the Orange County Trans-
portation Commission approved all submissions for different cities
in terms of what is referenced as "OKA" money (interest on Transit
District funds). Tustin's request was to replace pavement on Main
Street, from "C" Street westerly as far as funds would allow.
To coincide with subject street improvements, he suggested under-
grounding that portion of Main Street (almost to Pacific) where
there is no high voltage power. He did not recommend going further
west where there is high voltage wiring and costs would be very
high. If the cost is prohibitive, he recommended that conduit be
put in so that undergrounding could be done when convenient in the
residential area.
The Director of Public Works stated staff could prepare a full
report on the matter. He explained how undergrounding is accom-
plished with Rule 20A funds. If undergrounding of Main Street was
attempted using Rule 20A funds, it would take a minimum of 3-4
years to accumulate enough funding.
He explained that the second problem would be with street light-
ing. Main Street is in a street lighting maintenance district
which is presently administered by the County, but will soon be
taken over by the City at the County's request. Staff will come
back in the next 3-4 months with a program which would involve
overlaying another Street Lighting Assessment District. This must
be done to cover all of the energy charge because there is not
enough funding at the present time to cover the existing demand.
Mayor Saltarelli requested that staff prepare a brief report on
what the costs might be. He also requested that all utility com-
panies be notified when Main Street is going to be resurfaced so
that all work in the area can be done simultaneously.
11. CARS PARKED ON CITY STREETS WITH "FOR SALE= SIGNS
Councilman Edgar complained that some arterial streets have become
"used car lots," where cars for sale are left parked. Following
input from the Chief of Police and the City Attorney, Council con-
curred to direct staff to come back with an ordinance prohibiting
same.
12. TIMETABLE FOR FREEWAY IMPROVEtlENTS
Councilman Edgar reported that Phase I of the I-5/55 Freeway Inter-
change Project is scheduled to go out to bid in June, 1987. Phase
II of the project is scheduled to go out to bid in August, 1989.
Widening of the I-5 from the 405 to Route 55 is presently scheduled
to go out to bid in April, 1989.
The ~ford Interchange project is scheduled to go out to bid in
May, 1988.
r-~y COUNCIL MINUTES
,.ge 9, 4-21-86
XIV.
13. SIGNALS ON REOHILL & I-5 FREEWAY
Mayor Saltarelli thanked staff for replacement of the synchroniza-
tion mechanism in the traffic signal control box at Redhill and the
Santa Aha Freeway. He stated traffic is moving safely and quickly
again.
14. COI~ITTEE APPOINT)~ENTS BY t4AYOR SALTARELL!
Mayor Saltarelli made a partial list of committee appointments for
1986-87 as follows:
Committee Represent at i ve A1 ternate
O.C. Sanitation District #1
O.C. Sanitation District #7
O.C. Sanitation District #14
Joint Powers Authority, Eastern
Transportation Corridor
O.C. Vector Control
League of Cities
-NEOCCS
Hoesterey Saltarelli
Edgar Saltarelli
Kennedy Saltarelli
Saltarelli Edgar
Kennedy Kelly
Hoesterey Edgar
Kelly
15. EAST TUSTIN STREET SYSTEM
Mayor Saltarelli referenced a letter he received from County Super-
visors Stanton and Nestande regarding impacts of the street system
relative to East Tustin and the County's plans.
He reported that the letter states particular interest in' analyzing
the impact of both the East Tustin plan and the normal future
regional traffic increases on existing La Colina. They further
propose that the joint effort be guided by a central policy of
utilizing La Colina and parallel routes for serving primarily local
traffic and focusing regional traffic on more efficient routes such
as Irvine Boulevard.
The Mayor stated that such action by the County would worsen the
traffic situation in Tustin. He indicated he would provide all
Council members with a copy of same so that Council can take a
position on the matter.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION - AI~OURNNENT
At 10:00 p.m. it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to recess to
a Closed Session to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government
Code Section 54957; and thence adjourn to the next regular meeting on
Monday, May 5, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. Carried 5-0.
MAYOR
CITY CLERK