Care Ambulance will start off the evening with a presentation on why they are the best suited to haul our sick and injured folks around. Care was recently awarded the county ambulance contract after protracted discussions, arguments and threats over the past year. It seems that no one could decide who was best suited to award the contract.
The presentation will be followed by two Public Hearings. Item 1, Public Hearing to Consider leveying of Annual Assessment of Tustin Landscape and Lighting District, comes up every year. I don’t think I have ever heard anyone speak on this mostly pro forma issue.
Item 2, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1457, will give water guru and city councilman Allan Bernstein another chance to wow us with his expertise on water conservation again. He still hasn’t told us how our cutting edge efforts have netted us another 3% over the state mandate that our city must now conserve.
Most of the Consent Calendar is the usual approvals for expending funds and destroying records. However, I am wondering about Item 3, Waive Reading in Full of All Ordinances and Resolutions on the Agenda. Why? I am sure it is something discussed in Closed Session that we will never know why. I assume it is for this agenda only.
Then, we come to the big ticket item.
I can imagine that, regardless of the leanings of the city coucil, people may still want to discuss the pros and cons of Item 12, Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1455. Anytime you are taking a basic right away from a group of people (yes, I think parking on city streets is a basic right), there had better be a good reason. While complaints from the area and a resulting investigation showed some pretty surprising parking issues for the homeowners, many of them expressed concern over the proposed permitting because it would not really solve the overall probelm. Unless there is an all out demonstration in council chambers, this item will pass, probably unanimously. And, in a few months time the city will be dealing with a new area.
Item 14, Resolution Supporting the Senate Constitutional Amendment SCA 2, is a feel good vote for the city council so they can stand with the rest of the righties in showing their patriotism. Mind you, I am also in favor of the heart of this amendment that should not have to be. I mean, this is America after all. And, while I will defend your right to burn, stomp or otherwise desecrate our flag because that’s your personal right (remember the First Amendment?), a public school or any public institution should not be allowed to ban the symbol of our country from being flown. Period. This state amendment should not even be necessary. But, if it’s the only way to get bureaucrats to understand basic flag law, then so be it. I wonder if John will have a tear in his eye when they read item? Oh, wait, they won’t. They aren’t going to read any of the ordinances or resolutions, remember?
If you are one of those to believe the drought may be here to stay, you may be interested in the final item on the agenda before Dr. Bernstein gives us his water lecture.
Item 15, Amendment of the Municipal Water District of Orange County’s Turf Removal Program. The turf removal program of the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County gives a rebate of $2.00 per square foot of turf to aid homeowners in removing grass lawns and replacing it with drought resistant landscaping. The city proposes to provide supplemental funding of an additional $1.00 per square foot.
Now, there are companies out there who are advertising they will come in, remove your turf and replace it with drought resistant landscaping for the price of the rebate. At least one company says they will do it all without any out of pocket expense to the homeowner, taking assignment of the rebate itself as full payment. That’s a pretty good deal if you are considering (as we are) going to a drought resistant front yard. Truth is, I can’t get my grass to grow anyway.
As usual, we’ll let you know if there is anything to report back after our city fathers meet.
News flash for Austin Lumbard: Austin, you’re no Jeff Thompson.
Lumbard was under the vague impression he could possibly be mistaken for Chairman Jeff Thompson, who was absent, and wanted to clear that up before the meeting adjourned. Let’s see how well that works for him when he runs for city council.
Last week’s meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission was not long but it answered a couple of key questions regarding plans for schools on the old MCAS base property – sort of. I suspected Item 2, regarding a General Plan Conformity Determination for school property, was merely a shell game for the moving around of acquired school property. And, I was right.
Item 2, General Plan ConformityDetermination for the Disposition and Acquisition of School Site at Tustin Legacy, et al, asked the planning commission to validate the intentions of TUSD in dumping a 10 acre site previously marked as another elementary school in favor of building a 40 acre 6-12 super magnet school that would miraculously meet the needs of Legacy kids.
The presentation cleared up a few things in the staff report when questions were asked about whether the district offices that were previously moved down to the former Heritage Elementary School site would be moved to the 40 acre site. Sad to say, the TUSD representative said the offices that would be moved were the district offices in Old Town Tustin and the offices at Heritage would remain.
In addition, the timeline is pretty vague with the 6-8 magnet school being built by 2019 and the 9-12 school being built in 2020. No other timelines were offered and the school district will only say that the administration, warehouse and alternative education projects included in the concept will be built if funds are “available” (read, “if we can con the public into floating another useless school bond”).
A couple of residents in the area voiced concern and questions that were artfully dodged by the TUSD representative who basically said the schools that kids use now are the ones designated for use in the future until new agreements are made. So, really, nothing changes until it changes.
Overall, the procedure was succinct and to the point, even if it left everyone feeling a bit vague about what happened. The only one who was really lost was Commissioner Sam Altowaiji, who can’t seem to stay on point with anything.
My irritation with Altowaiji is his obvious disconnect with the proceedings. While the rest of the commissioners and the staff are talking about zoning issues and land swaps, Altowaiji wants the school district representative to be sure to make the driveways for moms dropping off kids so they don’t interfere with traffic. He’s a bureaucrat, Sam, not an architect.
You don’t make this stuff up. You don’t have to in Our Town Tustin.
Only one item on the Planning Commissin Agenda this week.
The Tustin Unified School District and the city have apparently come to terms in negotiations for land to be used for a intermediate-high school (whatever they call them these days). The school will be located on the southwest corner of Valencia Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road. At this time (one never knows with the school district), The Tustin Academy will be a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) school for grades 6-12.
The Tustin City Planning Commission is being asked to approve a resolution to determine the site (a) is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan; (b) the 40 acre site identified is suitable for a school and (c) that the city acknowledges TUSD’s plan to overrule the zoning applicability to a 40 acre site.
We Appreciate the Approval but We’re Gonna Sue You Anyway
It is the last part that has me a bit confused. I’m sure it will confuse a few of the commissioners as well. Look for stupefied faces on the dais Tuesday night.
In reading the staff report, it looks like the snag may be with all the “extras” the school district wants to include. Of particular note is the inclusion of new TUSD District offices and an “alternative education” facility. That usually means continuation school.
So, Hillview is already taking up space at Heritage Elementary School. Does this mean they will move that facility to the new (and dare I say more appropriate) site? That would resolve a lot of heartache the city has had with the school district over the use of Heritage. The school district has previously said they plan to open Heritage for its intended purpose in 2016. They were, however, planning to leave Hillview there as well. So now, perhaps this will resolve the complaints.
The issue could simply be one of location and the number of schools. The school district had intended originally to open a high school on an identified 10 acre site. Other schools were planned as well. The inclusion of proposed population numbers, housing build-outs, etc., is an indicator that will change. Oh yeah, and they basically said the new magnet school will handle the entire Tustin Legacy population.
All in all, it should make for an interesting, if not lengthy, meeting for the planning commission. Even with Binsack patiently explaining things to Ryder Smith and Austin Lumbard, I think they may need a whiteboard (or the creative use of a choo-choo) to chart it all out for them. Oh, and expect an amiable lawsuit out of this as well. I know, I read the staff report (and I’m still confused).
After a two week hiatus, the Tustin City Council should be ready to tackle the second unit ordinance for Old Town Tustin this Tuesday. After extensive discussion by the councilmembers at the April 21st meeting, they voted to continue the item so that city staff could come up with answers to the chief complaint: parking.
Staff return this week with a second unit ordinance fortified by a recommendation for parking. Well, it’s not really a recommendation, just a copy of an existing policy on the adminstration of parking permit systems in Tustin. Mind you, there is no draft ordinance prepared for a potential permit system in Old Town and the city council may still have to consider the parking issue separately. I’m not sure that is what they wanted. One has to wonder why the delay in the second unit ordinance at all if they were just going to address the parking issue separately anyway.
The second unit ordinance proposal and the parking issue, as it turns out, are only vaguely related. Over the past year or so, parking has become a real problem in Old Town, particularly on the west side around Pacific and Main Street. Part of this is surely due to permit parking the city created a few years ago for the area around the condos on Main Street West of Pacific.
Driving along Pacific Avenue on any evening reveals a gauntlet of cars and trucks streching nearly to Main Street. While many of these may be attributed to the residents in the area, many of them, it turns out, are from either the previously mentioned condos or -as I’ve personally witnessed- from beyond the freeway overpass. There also appears to be a pattern with the number of out-of-area cars on our streets increasing toward the end of the week.
While I am not a proponent of permit parking on city streets (its that libertarian streak in me), it may be the only answer to the problem. In any case, parking should be addressed regardless of the second unit ordinance. The question then will become one of enforcement. Will the 2am to 6am cops want to travel the streets in search of errant parkers?
Lately, I have been questioning the validity of the second ordinance unit itself. As it turns out, there is no pressing need to make any changes. Although the city said in their presentation that affordable housing mandates are a factor, they really aren’t. Affordable housing requirements are for the city, not a specific area.
And, though the city also says that a 2002 Assembly Bill signed by Gray Davis requires the city to ministerially (say that three times real fast) consider second residential units, it does not require any changes be made to current ordinances. California Government Code 65852.8 states:
When a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require a local government to adopt or amend an ordinance for the creation of second units.
So, from a legal standpoint, there is no mandate to change current law.
The biggest argument for change to an all second unit ordinance is the elimination of deed restrictions on proposed guest units. A few years ago, Elizabeth Binsack and Jerry Amante arbitrarily decided to place the requirement for deed restrictions on guest accessory units. This was in obvious retaliation for their defeat in the Fairbanks issue, a city-created debacle.
Since the proposal for the second unit ordinance was raised a few months ago, city staff have received more grief than praise. Parking has been just one of the issues raised by residents. Concern for density and a general degrading of the Old Town area have also been cited by home owners. Yet, Binsack amd her chief hatchet man Scott Reeskin, have used a variety of unsubsantiated arguments for enactment of the ordinance they appear to want so badly.
So, why the push for unneeded change? Surely, if deed restrictions are an issue, they can be done away with. And, since they are policy and not law, they only require a change in the mindset of city staffers.
In any case, residents have another opportunity to state their case for or against the ordinance. Judging from the city’s indifferent attitude toward opponents of the ordinance, I would suggest they turn out in force to state their case. Calls to councilmembers John Nielsen and Beckie Gomez may be the best bet toward swaying votes or, at least, extending further argument.
Other issues before the city council are pretty much routine. Aside from the usual business, the Consent Calendar is littered with requests to award contracts for various construction projects at city hall and parks.
The sole item for consideration under Reglar Business is an Amendment of Waste Disposal Agreement between the city and the county. Amon other things, the amendment will allow the county to continue to import wast from outside the county and to share the revenue generated with the city. It could be worth a cool $76,000 to the city.
In an unusual departure from the norm, due to a Water Management Workshop at 5:30 pm, the Closed Session has been moved to the end of Regular Business. With only a few items on the agenda, discussion of labor negotiations will likely take up the majority of the session.