Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1976 11 15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL November 15, 1976 CALL TO ORDER ~eeting called to order by Mayor Edgar at 7:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers, Centennial at Main, Tustin, California. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Edgar. III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman Welsh IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen.: Edgar, Schuster, Sharp, Welsh, Saltarelli. Absent: Councilmen: None Others present: William L. Bopf, City Administrator R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator--Community Development James G. Rourke, City Attorney Florence Kortmeyer, Deputy City Clerk PRESENTATION--MARCH OF DIMES Mayor Edgar presented proclamation declaring Week of Concern for the March of Dimes to one of the volunteers, Doug Ash- lock, for the service that he has had as a scout in serving the March of Dimes. Following the presentation, it was moved by Sharp, seconded by Welsh, that Item No. 11 be removed from the Consent Calendar, concerning adoption of Amendment to Tustin Redevelopment Plan as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1567. Carried. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Saltarelli to convene the Redev- elopment Agency into joint session with the City Council Carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AREA Councilman Saltarelli inquired whether there is any relevance to the proposed item New Business #2, Proposed Housing Guide- lines, which recently came out of State Legislature, to pro- posed redevelopment being considered at this time. Mr. Bopf replied that Item #11 has been created through Housing and Community Department of State of California and is separate and distinct. The State Attorney General and that Department have promulgated some new housing guidelines but they are irrespective of any Federal program and anything we are doing in the Redevelopment Authority. Councilman Saltarelli inquired whether it has any relevance to the proposed projects that we have approved under the Housing and Community Development Act which proposes to install a storm drain on E1 Camino:.~Real. Mr. Bopf replied not directly. The first program that has to do with the stonn drain is our program which we propose to embark on under the Housing and Community Development Act which is a Federal program, which we started before the City Council Minutes 11/15/76 page 2 Redevelopment Authority. The Redevelopment Authority will not precipitate new Federal Housing guidelines or pressures. However, there will be pressures and guidelines from the State notwithstanding what we do in regard to the Redevelop- ment Authority. Public hearing opened at 7:40 p.m. relating to Environmental Impact Report. There being no protests or comments, the hearing was declared closed. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Welsh that Resolution No. 76-129 be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Edgar, Sharp, Welsh, Saltarelli, Schuster. Noes: none. Absent: none. 2. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT AREA Hearing opened at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Corea, E1 Camino Real - opposed. Bob Hill, Chairman, Tustin Planning Commission. Planning Commission has officially and formally endorsed this plan unanimously. Chuck Sine, 155 S. Prospect, stated he was for improving this blight area but stressed before anything is done an ingress and egress off the Santa Ana Freeway at the point slightly north of Red Hill is needed. In reply to Mr. Sine's question whether there are any unsafe or unsanitary situa- tions in the City today, Mr. Bopf commented that any viola- tions of the Code that would exist today can be handled under existing codes and existing laws, so the Authority does not bring any greater burden than we have or authority Council has today. The Council could already take action against an unsafe building. Larry Day, 1192 Laguna Road, Tustin. I want to work hand in hand when it comes to redeveloping our land and our property, and work parallel with the City in order to enhance the property in the City of Tustin--the finest City in Orange County and wants to see more business come into the area. Hines Kablonski, owner condominimm Palmwood. Residents of his condomininms concerned about reduced parking and restric- tions on First Street, and concerned about increase in taxes, and whether people outside the area will have to carry s~ne of the burden for the business developments. He added he does not think public is ready for this. Don Goodall, who owns four houses in blight area. We have not done anything to these houses. We are definitely in favor of this plan and plan to tear down our houses and do sc~nething with the property. Redevelopment has been very beneficial to other property we have owned. Sarah Barnett. My main concern is fear--the costs basis-- what is going to happen to our property. Mayor Edgar replied that the plan presented by the consultant for E1 Camino Real will be our prime concern. Whatever we do will be in the realm of public improvements--better streets, sidewalks put in place--street lights--storm drains will be better--with the expectation that by enhancing the value of the property through that mechanism that the private owners of property will be encouraged to do something worthwhile with their own properties. Specifically that will be the out- come of a committee--I hope everybody in this room will be encouraged and motivated to participate. City Council Minutes 11/15/76 page 3 ..... councilman welsh suggested that procedural information which will help the people in the audience to understand and ~ haps alleviate some of the concerns and even some of the questions be explained. Mr. Bopf explained that blight is a term which we must use according to State statute and term which has many meanings-- it can mean that the street is unimproved, there is vacant property that is not developed--it can mean substandard housing. We have an obligation to bring about proper housing to every citizen, to make sure codes are complied with. The City does not go into everybody's house and inspect all facilities, but as they are pointed out to us from time to time we have taken a great deal of enforcement action. The City has not had a long history of condemning property-- the City has authority to condemn property right now for public works projects and they do not use that authority-- even when used, there is the court protection--relocation provided--which means we must pay the person for moving, we must put them up in comparable facilities and we must pay them an offset for their rent. In the Redevelopment Plan, nobody envisions a regional shopping center downtown--it's not in the cards. But we do have in this plan the need for some $5- to $6-million worth of improvements. The City spent $1.5-million this year out of existing taxes for the Newport Blvd. improvement, and storm drains, etc. We are committed to making public improve- ments which the citizens have supported year after year. Tustin is a nice City through the cooperation of citizens and people working through the Council to get those accom- plishments. We drew the boundary around commercial center downtown-- attempted to not include single-family residences. The multiple dwellings, which are either condo or apartments, will likely not be affected. Where does the money come from? Tha~ s the money that you are going to pay already-- money going to County, school district and the special districts. You are going to pay it regardless. No new taxes envisioned in this program--we cannot by State law levy new taxes. If we freeze the value, and take some of the money that comes back from the new growth, we can put that new money back into the Authority. We will be taking $10 of every $11 that you pay right now and put it back in that AuthOrity. You are paying approximately $11 tax for your whole tax system. $1 or 11% goes to City and rest to other agencies. By this action tonight $10 will come back into this area. Councilman Saltarelli added that a new bill has been passed in the State Legislature recently which will require and put new strings on any Redevelopment Agencies created after January 1, 1977. The bill will attach many State controls on what we could do with the money. The City of Tustin is opposed to any type of State programs which require us to do things we do ~not want to do, therefore we are in a hurry to create this Redevelopment Authority prior to December 31. Private enterprise is the way to develop the City which allows the individual business freedom to expand and renew. Freezing taxes is good because 89 percent of my property tax bills and yours goes to agencies other than the City of Tustin. By freezing the tax increment we will be able to take and create a pool of funds with which we will continue to do some type of capital improvements to make Tustin a better place in which to live. City Council Mindtes 11/15/76 Page 4 William Hockenberry, Architect. I heartily endorse the idea of the Redevelopment Authority which enables you to define the problem and then begin the process of implamentation of the solution. Lou Gerding, E1 Camino Real. I think the Redevelopment Authority should be formed as a nucleus--group of business- men, property owners, laymen, who wish to work on a commit- tee in conjunction with the Redevelopment Authority. I'm in __ favor of it. John Prescott, 18752 E. 17th Street, Santa Ana. I own several parcels of property within the area. I would like to go on record to announce the sidewalk will be put in in front of Parque Santiago by March 1, 1977. Tom Kelly, E1 Cemino Real. I am completely in favor of redevelopment, happy to see it come. Frank Greinke, 1011 Laguna Road, inquired if the schools would lose their tax base. Mayor Edgar replied the existing tax still goes to the School District. If we do a good job of redevelopment, a healthy downtown community, the value of the property will rise which is a mixed blessing, taxation goes up but with hopefully a profit that can justify it. Bill Moses, Tustin News, inquired whether there will be an increase in City staff or increase in Council members because they have to go to more than two meetings a month. Mayor Edgar replied there will be no change in change, or change in salary for the Council members--just an added burden we are taking on ourselves. j" Closed public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Moved by Schuster, seconded by Welsh that Ordinance No. 701 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. The title of Ordinance No. 701 was read. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Saltarelli that Ordinance No. 701 be introduced. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Edgar, Saltarelli, Sharp, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: none. Abstained: Schuster. Mayor Edgar declared the Redevelopmerit Agency meeting closed at 9:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. after a fivesminute recess. 3. AMENDMENT TO LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN 76-2 A. Property located at the southeasterly corner of Main and Williems Streets from the Commer- cial to Multi-Family, Residential Classifica- tion. Opened public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Dr, Fleagle stated he had received this evening a communication addressed to the Mayor and City Council that Covington Brothers has withdrawn a general plan amendment to the property located on the southeast corner of Main and Williems Streets to reclass- ify three-acre parcel from commercial to multi-family. It is the recommendation of staff that the matter be continued for 30 days as an open public hearing to see if there are other proposals submitted for the subject parcel. City Council Minutes 11/15/76 Page 5 Public hearing closed at 9:49 p.m. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Welsh, that public hearing b~ continued until December 20, 1976. Carried unanimously. 76-2 F. Property located on the north side of Second Street between Pacific and "A" Streets from Single-Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential. Dr. Fleagle read a letter addressed to the City Council from Reckford M. Lindquis~ stating property owner requests an opportunity to show City Council and Commission slide presentations of the alternatives. Opened public hearing at 9:50 p.m. William L. Hockenberr~, Architect. Told the Council the property is mixed zone--some commercial or multiple family, single family. He intends to develop a multiple family complex in the center of the block and essentially mainRain properties along 2nd Street as R-1. He would like specific guidelines and specific input from the Planning Commission, City Council and staff for him to design an adequate project. Citizens in Opposition. We are opposed to this plan because we do not want to have a congested and crowded neighborhood. Property owners who live completely around the east, south and west of the property that is in question have signed a petition objecting against this development. We do not want a multiple family development like this in our neighborhood. Another citizen spoke in opposition to the project. There is not enough room for our own people to park. Closed public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Reopened public hearing at 10:01 p.m. Mr. Brunet, 425 Second Street, property located on north side of Second Street between PaCific and "A" is zoned residential, not multiple family. Closed public hearingat 10:02 p.m. Mayor Edgar stated he was against taking an R-1 area and rezoning to multiple family. The Council can take the position of supporting planning Commission finding and we are prepared to do that; advise the proposed developer that we would not rezone R-1 land, but existing land could be developed the way it is presently zoned. Mr. Hockeuberry asked whether it would be reasonable to have the hearing continued pending discussion with staff in an effort to t~ to arrive at some definition as to what R-3 and R-1 should be. Dr. Fleagle replied ~hat there would be some value in referring it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration with criteria established by the Council, such as preserve Second Street frontage as R-l, establish minimum lot size on Second Street, retain it in single-family, provide for the redevel- opment of the trailer court that would gain access off First Street, which would convert part of the rear areas of the deep lots in R-1 to be used as consolidated development. All property with Second Street frontage should retain R-1 class- ification, 150 feet south R-1 could be rezoned. City Council Minutes 11/15/76 P.age 6 Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Sharp that matter be referred back to Planning Commission with basic guidelines as set forth, and with recommendation as to density and site plan with access for the property, and submitted to City Council with reconunenda- tion. Carried by 4-1 vote, Councilman Welsh voting no. VI. ~"~ PUBLIC CONCERNS 1. CONCERNS OF LAURELWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ~ Mr. Jonathon Bromberg, President of ~aurelwood Homeowners Association, acknowledged assistance provided by staff on request of July 19 in making recommendations for develop- ment of asphalt standards to prohibit future damage to private roads and parking lots. He stated he is requesting Council to: 1) instruct Bolthe Disposal to confine compac- tion portion of trash collection to dedicated streets; 2) develop standards for future construction of parking lots and private roads to withstand trash trucks; 3) cooperation of City in animal control in private communities--leash law enforcement, barking dogs; and 4) if citizens could be empowered to issue citations requiring a penalty fee to be mailed directly to City or County general fund. Mayor Edgar agreed there was a problem re animal control and stated he would be pleased to sign a letter to the State Legislature. The problem of trash compaction was referred to the Traffic Commission. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 11 has already been acted upon. Item 5 delayed for discussion. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 20, 1976 - November 1, 1976 ! 2. CONFIRMATION OF PAYROLL LISTING - $58,497.68 3. STANDBY DUTY FOR FIRE CHIEFS Approval as requested by City Administrator. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 76-125 A Resolution of the City Council, City of Tustin, California, FINDING AND DETERMINING NON-DISABILITY OF MELVIN L. HEIL. Adoption as recommended by staff. 5.FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS - COLUMBUS TUSTIN PARK Approval as requested by City Administrator. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 72-127 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin AppROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 76-87 AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VALENCIA AND RED HILL AVENUES. Adoption as recommended by Planning Conunission. City Council Minutes 11/15/76 Page 7 7. FILLING OF VACANCY IN MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT Approval as requested by City Administrator. 8. VARIANCE FOR ON-STREET PARKING TRINITY BROADCASTINC. Approval as requested by City Administrator. 9, SWINE FLU REPORT Approval as requested by City Administrator. 10. IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX - DOW AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS Approval as recommended by staff. 11. AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Approval as recommended by Planning Commission. Movec~ .by Welsh, seconded by Schuster that Consent Calendar be approved. Carried. 5. FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS Council discussed requesting additional $15,000 Federal Revenue Sharing to partially cover the shortage occurring as a result of bids for Columbus-Tustin Park, Phase I. Moved by Schuster, seconded by Saltarelli, that Mayor write Supervisor Clark a letter requesting these addi- tional funds. Carried. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 700 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, ADDING CHAPTER 25 TO THE CITY CODE, REGULATING BATHS, SAUNA BATHS AND MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Saltarelli that Ors~n~nce No. 700 have first reading by title. Carried unanimously. Following reading by title, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh that Ordinance No. 700 be introduced Carried. IX. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION NONE. X. OLD BUSINESS 1. CANVASS OF VOTES FOR THE "SYCAMORE-NEWPORT. ANNEXATION NO. 94' AS CERTIFIED TO BY THE CITY CLERK Moved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh that after a canvass of all votes cast in the Sycamore-. NewpO~t"Annexation No. 94, it is determined that this annexation did not pass. Carried. 2. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AGREEMENT Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh that Mayor be author- ized to execute contract calling for various services to be rendered by Tustin Chamber of Commerce in exchange for finan- cial support of $6,500 during fiscal year 1976-77. Carried. City Council Minutes 11/15/76 Page 8 3. NICKEL BUS Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that Mayor trans- mit a letter to Supervisor Clark requesting continued sup- port of the OCTD of the Tustin Nickel Bus for a period of an additional six months from January 1, through June 30, 1977. Carried ~ 4. AIRPORT POLICY Moved by Welsh, seconded by Schuster, that Mayor corres- pond with Supervisor Riley's office indicating the City of Tustin supports the proposed airport policy guidelines and strongly recommends their adoption and continued enforcement. Carried. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 76-128 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN RELATIVE TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY SIDE OF HOLT AVENUE, NORTHERLY OF IRVINE BOULEVARD AND SOUTHERLY OF THE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, AND PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF 17TH STREET, WESTERLY OF LAURINDA WAY; AND PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF NEWPORT AVENUE, SOUTHERLY OF ANDREWS, Moved by Welsh, seconded by Saltarelli that Resolution No. 76-128 be passed and adopted. Carried. 6. NEWPORT/SANTA ANA FREEWAY INTERCHANGE--RESOLUTION 76-130 Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar that Resolution No. 76-132, petitioning the Director of CALTRANS to provide the necessary improvements for the Santa Ana/Newport interchange be forwarded to Supervisor Clark urging the revision of this very hazardous interchange and that the County join the Cities of Santa Aria and Tustin in this endeavor, be passed and adopted. Carried. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. AB 1246 BOARD MEMBERS NO action. Received and filed. 2. PROPOSED HOUSING GUIDELINES No action. Received and filed. 3. PUBLIC WORKS ASSURANCES Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh that the City Council confirm by minute order the participation of the City in the Title II portion of the Public Works Act. Carried. 4. PARAMEDICS POSITION PAPER Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh that this matter be continued to the next CounCil meeting in order to have more input from staff. Carried. City Council Minutes 11/15/76 page 9 5. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CITY PROPERTY Moved by Saltarelli, seco~ by Sharp, that staff seek the approval of the Planning Co~sion re~ardin~ the disposal of the City property, and offer that property for sale in accordance with the Request for Proposal. Carried. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 76-126 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON PORTIONS OF HOLT AVENUE AND FIRST STREET AND TO FIX A TIME AND PLACE OF PUBLIC HEARING THEREON. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Schuster that Resolution No. 76-126 be passed and adopted. Carried. XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Mr. Bopf requested permission to fill vacancy of his secretary, who is transferring to the City of San Clemente. Permission granted by Council. 2. Moved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh to spend $750 additional money to revise the decorative light system in front of Cit~x Hall. Carried. 3. Mr. Bopf requested a Special Meeting of the Tustin City Council to be held in the City Council Chambers, at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 22, 1976, to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 701. COUNCIL CONCERNS Mayor Edgar requested a meeting on the 5th Monday in January 1977 with all Commissions and Council to discuss goals and objectives, in the Community Building, sitting around tables. The Traffic Commission was requested to study red curbs at Tustin High School, with the view toward parking during football games. .Mayor Edgar requested City to re-establish principal of annexing County islands. Councilman Welsh asked staff to study business license fees for mini-warehouses. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned to Redevelopment Agency. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Adjourned to next special meeting in the Council Chambers at 5:00 p.m., Monday, November 22, 1976. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. CITY CLERK