HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1973 02 20 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
February 20, 1973
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Miller called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
II.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE Led by Councilman Langley.
III.
INVOCATION Given by Mayor Miller.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Miller, Saltarelli, Langley,
Welsh, Woodruff (Woodruff
arrived 10:37 p.m.)
Absent: Councilmen: None.
Others present: Asst. City Administrator
Dan Blankenship
Asst. City Admin.-Community Develo
Ken Fleagle
City Attorney James Rourke
City Clerk Ruth Poe
PRESENTATIONS Mayor Miller presented a City plaque to Mr. George
Ritsi, for seven years of service on the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS NONE.
VI.
PUBLIC
CONCERNS 1. MR. DAVE KING, RE: REALIGNMENT OF YORBA & PACIFIC
Mr. Dave King, 314 S. Pacific, Tustin, requested that
the Council reconsider their decision approving the
Yorba/Pacific realignment at First Street.
VII.
CONSENT
CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 5, 1973, meeting.
2. RATIFICATION OF DEMANDS in amount of $118.,061.23
3. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DEEDS
Authorization for execution b~ the City~and for
acceptance and recording by t~e City~erk of
street right-of-way deeds on F~irst Street front-
age of Peppertree Park and Brya~And Red Hill
frontages of proposed Red Hill/Bryan Park--as
recommended by the Engineering staff.
4. EXONERATION OF IMPROVEMENT BONDS, TRACT 7332
Acceptance of street improvements adjacent to
Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of Lot 33: extension of
Subdivision Agreements for Tract 7332 to
December 31, 1973; acceptance of $4,000 cash
bond for lot 33° Parcel 4, and exoneration of
all Surety Bonds for Tract 7332--all as recom-
mended by the Engineering Department.
5. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT #115 and SURETY BOND FOR
UP 72-398, SPORTS FOR FUN, INC., 305 EL CAMINO
REAL.
Authorization for execution of Improvement
Agreement ~115, and acceptance of Surety Bond
City Council -~lin~=.,
2/20/73 Page 2
Mayor Miller requested that Consent Calendar Item
No. l, Approval of Minutes, be considered separately.
~oved by Langley, seconded by Saltarel]i that Con-
sent Calendar Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 be approved.
Carried unanimously, Councilman Woodruff absent.
Mayor Miller requested that Other Business Item No.
12 (page 15), in the Minutes of the February 5th
meeting, be changed to reflect the Council's direc-
tion that staff initiate recruitment of a City
Engineer. The other Councilmen agreed that this
had been their intent.
Moved by Welsh, seconded by Saltarelli that the
~inutes of the February 5, 1973, City Council meet-
lng be approved as corrected. Carried.unanimously,
Councilman Woodruff absent.
VIII.
ORDINANCES
FOR
ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 570
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE,
RELATIVE TO REGULATING VEHICULAR PARKING.
2. ORDINANCE NO. 571
An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California,
" PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS OF SAID CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $950,000.
Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Langley that Ord-
Inances 570 and 571 have second reading by title
only. Carried unanimously.
The secretary read Ordinances 570 and 571 by title.
Moved by Langley, seconded by Welsh that Ordinances
570 and 571 be adopted. Carried. Ayes: Miller,
Saltarelli, Langley, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent:
Woodruff.
ORDINANCES
FOR
INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 572
An Interim, Urgency Ordinance of the City of
Tustin, California, PROHIBITING FREE-STANDING
SIGNS, PENDING FURTHER STUDY.
Mr. Jerry Mack, 14652 Pacific, Tustin, spoke on the
importance of advertising and signing to retail and
wholesale businesses, and recommended that before any
.action is taken on this ordinance, the Council meet
with representatives of the business community, whose
livelihoods will be affected by it. He noted that
the success of businessmen also means more sales tax
revenue for the City and therefore a more stable tax
base.
Mr. Crady Henry, President of the Chamber of Commerce,
asked how restriction of pole signs had anything to
do with the protection of public health and welfare,
as stated in the proposed ordinance.
City Council Minutes
2/20/73 Page 3
Mr. Rourke explained that in order to adopt an
urgency ordinance, the Council must make the find-
ing that it is for the protection of the public
health, welfare, etc.; the Council has the power
to protect the interests of the whole public and
can take into account the effect on the general
population of things such as signs. Esthetics are __
part of the public welfare and it has been so
determined.
Mr. Henry objected to any further "unnecessary
control" of signs, stating that sales will go down
a minimum of three percent in the City as a result
of this ordinance. He also stated that the Chamber
of Commerce Board of Directors had voted as being
opposed to this ordinance, although membership had
not been polled.
Councilman Langley explain'ed that businessmen have
repeatedly had to appeal to the Council decisions
of the Planning Commission, due to inadequacies and
ambiguities in the present Sign Ordinance~ which the
Council is trying to resolve. Businessmen in the
City have a right to know what is in the best interests
of the City, and there should be no doubt as to what
is permitted under the Sign Ordinance once it is read.
Appeals should not be the result, of misunderstanding
the Ordinance or contradictions within it.
Councilman Saltarelli stated that the moratorium dn
pole signs should be required in fairness to the
business community, in the interest of equality under
the ordinance for all individuals. He said that if
there is no moratorium established, owners of new
businesses about to open might make considerable in-
vestments in pole signs permitted under the present
Ordinance, which might be illegal under the new Sign
Ordinance, and the City wil.1 have to amortize the
nonconforming signs. He maintained that s~gns can
be esthetically pleasing and still advantageous to
businessmen, and the Council is seeking only reason-
able control on this, with fairness to all the prime
concern.
In response to the Mayor's question as to how many
persons in the audience were an agreement with Mr.
Henry's conunents against the ordinance, approximately
eighteen persons raised their hands°
Mr. Arthur Turner, Arthur Turner and Associates, In-
vestment Realtors, 18071 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin
(County), stated that it is wrong for the Council
to correct shortcomings in the Sign Ordinance by
imposing a moratorium which will put people out of
business. He stated that people thinking of estab-
lishing businesses in the City will go elsewhere,
as some businesses depend on having a pole sign°
Mr. Ray Lynch, Federal Sign and Signal Corporation,
3036 South Oak, Santa Ana, offered the services of
his company to the City to aid in drawing a Sign
Ordinance that will be satisfactory to the City and
to businessmen.
Mr. Marvin Lee, President, Abundant Water Company dba
Tustin Honda, 624 East First Street, Tustin, questioned
whether the Council has considered the penalties that
businessmen pay because of competition from nearby
firms located in County islends and other areas adjacent
City Council M.~
2/20/73 Page
to City boundaries, which are no~ subject to the
sign restrictions that Tustin businessmen are. He
felt that if there is not a better climate for
business in Tustin, and if businesses are not
encouraged to locate in Tustin, the City can expect
to have to raise property taxes to meet the cost of
needed additional police and fire protection and
other services. Mr. Lee stated that his new location,
corner of First Street and Tustin Avenue, is surrounded
by the City of Santa Ana and the County of Orange on
three sides, and he is confronted with the problem
of "trying to outshine" his neighbors with regard to
signing. He has had a pole sign designed which is
satisfactory under the present Ordinance, but may
not be under a revised Ordinance; the pole sign is
essential because the bUilding is set to the rear of
the property.
Mr. Lee added that he has received excellent assist-
ance from the City Hall staff, particularly Mr. Fleagle.
He felt that from the businessman's standpoint, "it
is a joy to have a City Hall with some people you can
enjoy working with"
Mr. Frank Greinke, Greinke Petroleum, 1011 Laguna
Road, Tustin, stated that the company has been in
busine.ss at the same location since 1931, and that
within the last two years has received a variance
to put up s sign; since that occurred, their sales
tax has quadrupled, due to increased public exposure
by means of the freeway type sign. He objected to
the Council making any decision on this without
interface with the Chamber of Commerce, and felt
that the citizens' freedom of choice is being eroded
by additional laws.
F~r. Lee B. Lewis, Tustin Convalescent Hospital, 165
North Myrtle, Tustin, (residence: 170 Preble Drive),
stated that his facility is located in a cul-de-sac
and is extremely difficult for doctors and families
of patients to find. He explained that due to this
lack of visibility, design was started about a month
ago for a pole sign.
Mr. Raymond Kemp, 1671 Blueberry Way, Tustin, Execu-
tive Director of the Academy of Scientology on Sixth
Street, suggested that "human emotional reaction" to
Ordinance 572 may be due to the semantic implications
of such words as "urgency" and "prohibiting", and he
questioned whether the Council's intent is actually
to prohibit free-standingsigns. He suggested that
a survey of business people be made to determine what
is needed and wanted by the users, as well as by the
viewers of the signs. He offered his organization's
services to survey Tustin's population house by house
at no charge.
Councilman Saltarelli agreed that the business com-
munity may be justifiably upset by reading the word
"prohibit", but repeated that the intent of the
Council is not to cut down all pole signs in 120
days, but to save the businessman the expense of
having a sign designed and installed which would be
out of tune with the new Sign Ordinance. The effect
of the urgency ordinance will be that the City will
not take any more free-standing sign applications
until it is known within the next 60-90 days exactly
what will be allowed.
City Council Minutes
2/20/73 Page 5
'Mr. Bill Moses, Tustin News, 649 South "B", Tustin,
questioned the need for an urgency ordinance, and
said all that can be accomplished is that the City
will produce something more restrictive than the
present Ordinance. He stated that it is difficult
for people in so~called "ethical professions",.such
as architecture, medicine and law, to understand the
merchant's need for signs; they do not think in the
same concepts as retailers, etc. He doubted that -
home owners are offended by signs in the business
districts.
Mr. Bill Becker, Custom Signs, 160 Centennial Way,
Tustin, noted the great contribution signs make
toward the success of a business, which in turn bene-
fits residents by the effect on their property values.
Several of his clients, two of which are national
corporations, had abandoned plans to move to Tustin
because of the overall sign problem and particularly
because of the possibility of this moratorium taking
effect. He suggested appointing a committee to
formulate a workable sign ordinance, which he would
be happy to serve on.
Mayor Mill'er acknowledged that the interests of the
residential and business communities do not always
coincide, and that the Council has received expres-
sions of dissatisfaction from residents about th~
size and proliferation of signs in the City. The
present Ordinance allows signs which are too large.
In response to Mayor Miller's question as to how
many of those present were contemplating putting up
pole signs within the next 90 days, eight people
raised their hands.
Mr. "Speed" Schuster, 13841 Tustin East Drive Tustin
'(County), operator of McDonald's at 245 East ~irst
Street, stated that as a Tustin businessman and
member of the Chamber of Commerce, he felt that the
urgency ordinance would discourage businesses from
locating in the City, and questioned the need for
a new Sign Ordinance at all.
Mr. Jack Vodrey, Federal Sign and Signal Corporation,
stated that he had worked with the Development Pre-
view Commission on many actions, and suggested that
the Ordinance be retained with only necessary changes
being made. He suggested that in view of the Council's
and Commissions' lack of knowledge about the sign
industry and what good signing is, experts from the
field.come up with ideas and meet with the Chamber of
Commerce to modify and correct shortcomings in the
present Ordinance. He volunteered the services of
his company for this purpose.
RECESS Mayor Miller called a recess at 8:55 p.m. The meeting
reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
Councilman Welsh reiterated the right of citizens to
appeal and the Counci!'s responsibility to hear and
respond to these appeals. He noted that residents
need to identify shopping areas, and businessmen need
signs to stay i~ business. The City benefits from
sales tax gathered from t~e business co~nunity, and
should this revenue be jeopardized by failing businesses
due to inadequate signing, the tax load wou].d be in-
creased for the home owners. The City staff is cog-
City Ccu~cil t'linutc~
2/20/73 Page 6
Ordinance, and sign applicants could be instructed
in the Council's philosophy on signs. He favored
the business community being involved in redrawing
the Sign Ordinance.
Replying to'Councilman Langley-, ~r. Fleagle explained
the timeframe for obtaining a sign permit, including
application, staff review, DPC review--which is about
five days if approved by the DPC as submitted with a
recommendation from the staff, or two weeks if modi-
fications are required. For Councilman Saltarelli,
he estimated that there may be four to five meetings
of the business community before a, consensus is
reached; it may be difficult to reach consensus by
the Planning Commission and Council. He felt that
there should be guidelines from the Council as to
the standards they want staff to work with. The
staff can prepare something in that direction and
.then go through the process of meeting with the
business community, the Planning Commission hearing,
and the Council hearing. He estimated that once the
Council establishes its guidelines, it will be a
period of about two months before the Ordinance can
come back to the Council for hearing.
Mayor Miller-stated that the issue before the Council
is that if any of the councilmen intend that stand-
ards for signs are to be strengthened--not only for new
signs, but in respect to amortization of existing ~
sxgns not in conformance with the new ordinance--
then it would be unfair to allow businessmen to un-
knowingly invest in a sign which may become illegal.
If the intent is to apply more restrictive standards
only to new signs, there is the question of fairness
to a new sign owner who is at a competitive disadvantage.
Replying to Councilman Welsh's observation that he
did not think that the staff would approve a sign which
would no~ be in conformance wxth the revised Sign
Ordinance, Mayor Miller stated that the staff does ~
'not have that discretion if the sign meets the present
Ordinance--it should be able to be built. The staff
could, however, advise applicants that there is a
certain risk involved with proceeding with the sign,
but there is no way of advising them what that risk
might be.
Councilman Saltarelli stated that there would be no
fairness in the business community if existing signs
were not amortized into conformance with the new
Ordinance, to create equal competitive basis. He
felt that the staff does not have the discretion to
disallow a sign if it is in conformance with the
existing Ordinance, and therefore this urgency ord-
inance provides businessmen protection against making
a heavy investmenE within the next few months in a
sign which may have to be amortized under provisions
of a new Ordinance.
Mr. Saltarelli stated that he has nothing against
free-standing signs; it is just a matter of how high
and large they will be under terms of the new Ordinance,
and what to do with those out of character with that
Ordinance. This does not necessarily mean new pro-
visions will be more restrictive; they may be less so,
but they will be equitable.
Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Miller that Ordinanc~
572 have first reading by title'only. Carried unani-
mously. ' '
City Council Minutes
2/20/73 Page 7
The secretary read Ordinance No. 572 by title.
Moved by Saltaretli, seconded by Miller that Ord-
inance No. 572 havesecond reading by title onlZ.
Carried unanimously.
The secretary read Ordinance No. 572 by title~
Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Miller that
Ordinance No. 572, An Interim~ Urgency Ordinance
Prohibiting Free-Standing Signs, Pending Further
Study, be passed and adopted as an urgency measure.
Motion failed'by roll call vote. Ayes: Miller,
Saltarelli. Noes: Langley, Welsh. Absent:
Woodruff.
Councilman Langley stated that while he saw no need
for an urgency ordinance at this time, he did not
take the=position that the Sign Ordinance is satis-
factory; there are changes needed. He was concerned
with such aspects as alternations, size, illumination,
etc., and it is his intention to reduce the size and
other features to a certain'degree. The area in
which the sign is placed is also part of the total
problem°
Councilman Welsh agreed that his "no" vote was not to
be construed that he anticipated no change in the .Sign
Code. With regard to rewriting the Ordinance, he
favored input first from the businessmen, then from
the staff, and finally by the Council.
Following further discussion, it was moved by
Miller, seconded by Welsh that staff be directed
to advise each applicant that the City Council has
under consideration the revision of the Sign Ord-
inance, which may or may not make signs built to
the existing Sign Ordinance nonconforming. Carried
unanimously,-Councilman Woodruff absent.
~ayor Miller directed that the Comnunity Development
Director meet with Mr. Frank Greinke (Chairman of the
Chamber's Sign Committee) and others as the Chamber
may designate, and with Mr. Jack Vodrey of Federal
Sign and Signal, to acquire input of these and other
persons in revising the Sign Ordinance. Councilman
Langley suggested that Jerry Mack, former Mayor, be
asked to participate also.
Councilman Saltarelli proposed that each member of
the City Council review the Sign Ordinance and pro-
vide Mr. Fleagle with any input they may wish to
offer, in order that he will be aware of areas of
concern to the Council and set the tone for 'the Com-
mittee.
Councilmen Langley and Woodruff were appointed the
Council's representatives at the Committee meetings.
Following brief discussion of amortization schedules,
Mayor Miller directed that Mr. Fleagle advise appli-
cants of the amortization schedule that has been
proposed to the Planning Commission on billboards.
City Council ~'~inu~cs
2/20/73 Page
2. ORDINANCE NO. 573
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE TWO (2) PARKING SPACES
PER DWELLING UNIT IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.
Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Langley that Ord-
inance No. 573 have first reading by title only.
Carried unanimously, Councilman Woodruff absent.
The secretary read the title of Ordinance No. 573.
X.
RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 73-10
Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Tustin, California, APPROVING THE OFFICIAL
STATEMENT.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 73-11
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Tustin SETTING A TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER THE DESIGNATION AND ADOPTION
OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT REQUIRING THE
REMOVAL OF POLES, OVERHEAD, WIRES, AND ASSOCIA-
TED OVERHEAD STRUCTURES WITHIN THAT AREA OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATED ON FIRST STREET BETWEEN
THE NEWPORT FREEWAY AND PROSPECT AVENUE WHICH
AREA IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT
"A" ATTACHED HERETO AND ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ON
FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AND CITY
ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 73-12
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Tustin, California, DESIGNATING PLACEMENT OF
CERTAIN STOP SIGNS.
Location: Pacific Street at Third Street,
Third Street at Pacific Street
Mayor Miller asked that Resolution No. 73-11 be taken
up separately, and directed the secretary to read
Resolutions 73-10 and 73-12 by title.
The secretary read Resolutions 73-1D and 73-12 by
title.
Moved by Welsh, seconded by Langley that further read-
ing be waived and that Resolutions 73-10 and 73-12 be
passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Miller, Saltarelli,
Langley, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: Woodruff.
In reply to questioning, Mr. Tom Lacey, Southern
California Edison Company representative, explained
that there is a requirement that the Council set a
date of hearing to formulate the district, in order
that the Edison Company can expend funds allocated
to this project. Property owners who will connect
to the underground lines will have to pay for under-
grounding of their lines from the property line to
their home or business.
Moved by Miller, seconded by Langley that Resolution
73-11 have first reading by title only. Carried
unanimously, Councilman Woodruff absent.
City Council Minutes
2/20/73 Page 9
The secretary read the title of Rcsolution 73-11.
Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Langley that Reso-
lution 73-11 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes:
Miller, Saltarelli, Langley, Welsh. Noes: none.
Absent: Woodruff.
Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Langley that the
City Engineer be authorized to hire an electrician
to work with the utility companies to arrive at an
accurate estimate of each affected property owner's
cost. Carried unanimously, Councilman Woodruff absent.
XI.
OLD
BUSINESS 1. SIGN APPEAL - FEDERAL SIGN & SIGNAL CORPORATION/
RED HILL REALTY (18002 Irvine Boulevard)
Councilman Saltarelli stated that he viewed the "Vision
Realty" sign on Seventeenth Street, and it is suffi-
ciently subdued, and this would be a great improvement,
as modified, over the existing sign face.
Moved by Sa!tarell~, seconded by Langley that "Vision-
Red Hill Realty" s!gn face for location at 18002 Irvine
Boulevard, Tustin~ be approved as modified. Carried
unanimously, Councilman Woodruff absent.
XII.
NEW
BUSINESS
(Taken out
or order) 1. ABANDONMENT OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY
Initiated by the Planning Commission on its own
motion to abandon a portion of Yorba and declare
the parcel in excess to the City's needs, to
allow private development.
Mayor Miller and Councilmen Saltarelliw Langley, and
Welsh each stated for the record that they had been
contacted separately on this matter by Mr. A1 Enderle.
Councilman Saltarelli stated that he fully concurred
with the action of the Planning Commission and staff
in their recommendations, but it appeared to him that
the property did not cost the City any money; regard-
less of any fee interest the City has in the property,
it is no longer within the City's needs. He did not
feel that Mr. Enderle should be required to pay market
value for the property; it should be declared excess
and deeded back to Mr. Enderle for the costs incurred
by the City in the abandonment proceedings°
Mr. Rourke stated that there is no doubt that there
is no present need by the City for the property. In
order to abandon the property, the Council needs to
make a finding that there is no present nor any
reasonably anticipated prospective use of the property.
The Council can then go through a proceeding vacating
the City's interest in the right-of-way./The Council
could, however, proceed by selling the City's interest
in the property to the underlying fee owner, the
adjacent property owner. If it is felt°that it has
any present or prQspective possible use of the prop-
erty and therefore wants to sell the interest, they
can do that; if they do decide to sell it, they must
do so for its fair market value.
City Council Minutes
2/20/73 Page 10
In reply to Councilmen's questions, Mr. Flea$1e
stated that there is not at this time a precise
alignment of any future interchange at Newport and
Seventeenth, presently a very hazardous intersection,
so right-of-way requirements are not known. Apparent-
ly the State did not feel that they would need this
for realignment of off-ramps, or they would not have
given a quitclaim deed. The Planning Commission con-
sidered the point that it has been the policy of the
City Engineer in the past that the City would not
give away any land that the City had an interest in,
in order to avoid being faced with the problem of
buying it back if needed. Also a' zone change auth-
orizing development in a District other than the present
R-1 would create a traffic liability for the City on
Yorba, and the City should be compensated for that
liability, with funds therefrom being used to improve
Yorba southerly of Jacaranda.
Mr. A1 Enderle, 14192 Yorba, Tustin, summarized the
history of this property, including past correspondence
on the matter from the City Engineer. He introduced
Mr. Frank Luer of First American Title Company.
Mr. Frank Luer, Litigation Title Officer for First
American Title Company, Santa Ana, explained that
his Company maintains complete indexes of property
in Orange County by legal description. On request ~.
of Mr. Enderle he made an examination of the property
in question starting from about 1890, to the present
date, finding that the actual fee ownership, or under-
lying fee, is vested in the contiguous property owner,
now the Enderles, subject to the public right which
was established in 1902. The public right can be
relinquished by abandonment. Normally, a city does
not sell to an individual an easement for the public
right--it just vacates interest or right. Also, the
political subdivision, or city, usually incurs the
total expense of abandonment, except in certain in-
stances the cost of publishing notices will be passed
on to the underlying fee owner. He noted also that
this parcel would not be pertinent to realignment of
off-ramps, as discussed by Mr. Fleagle. In reply to
questions, Mr. Luer said that his findings had been
concurred in by the Senior Vice President, Chief
Title Officer, two advisory Title Officers and another
Litigation Title Officer, and the firm is ~n the
position to ~ssue a policy of title insurance, sub-
ject to the right of the public to use it, as the
situation stands now.
Replying to Council's questions, Mr. Rourke stated
that Mr. Enderle is free to enter into an agreement
to pay administrative costs, but is not obliged to
do so; and the City iS not obliged to vacate or sell
the property.
(Councilman Woodruff arrived at this point in the
meeting, at 10:37 p.m.)
Replying to the Mayor, Mr. Enderle stated that he
would have no objection to agreeing to pay $200
administrative costs.
Following further discussion about the underlying
fee owner assuming administrative costs of abandonment,
City Council Minutes
2/20/73 Page 11
it was moved by Saltarelli, seconde~ by Welsh that
the staff be directed to initiate proceedings for the
abandonment of sub]ect property upon agreement of
Mr. Enderle to pay administrative costs of $200.
Carried unanimously.
XI.
OLD
BUSINESS
(Cont'd) 2. APPEAL OF RICH SIGN COMPANY - COAST FEDERAL
SAVINGS, Administrative Ruling
Mayor Miller explained that Rich Sign Company, on
behalf of CoaSt Federal Savings had requested recon-
sideration of the Council's decision at the last
meeting to uphold an administrative ruling denying
them a roof sign, as they had not been notified
that it would be on the agenda of the last Council
meeting and therefore were not heard at that meeting.
Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Miller that this
matter be reconsidered by the Council to allow
applicants to make their presentation. Carried
unanimously.
Mrs. Helen Crider, Assistant Vice President/Manager
of Coast Federal Savings, 530 E~st First Street, Tustin,
stated that the Planning Commission had unanimously
approved nonconforming status and continued use o~
a roof sign formerly used by Bank of America, with a
change of sign face. The sign was removed in error
~ j without the knowledge or control of Coast Federal by
an agent of Bank of America, and the Community Develop-
ment Director then ruled that any right to use of
a nonconforming sign was terminated and the roof sign
could not be replaced. Potential depositors have com-
Cc plained of difficulty finding the facility, even once
inside Larwin Square, due to lack of proper signing.
Mr. Ken Lovell, Manager, Bank of America, denied
any knowledge about the removal of the sign, but
stated that a roof sign is essential for identifica-
tion of that building, and urged Council's favorable
consideration of the matter.
Mr. Rourke stated that he did not see how the Council
~ould make any finding other than that made by Mr.
Fleagle, based on the facts as known, which are that
the sign simply is not there and so does not have
any of the rights of an existing nonconforming sign.
The Council must abide by the Ordinance, regardless
of the unfortunate mistake that occurred°
Mr. F!eagle explained that the Planning Commission
had determined that the right to continued use of
the sign would be only until such time as the~-~ign
is removed by any condition, as stated in Paragraph
2(f) of Resolution No. 1312.
Following further discussionr it was moved My Woodruff,
seconded by Langley that the administrative determina-
tion of the Community Development Director be affirmed.
Carried unanimously.
City C~/t ..... i .......
2/20/73 Page 12
XIII.
OTHER
BUSINESS 1. ARMY RESERVE--CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh that the City
Administrator's currently scheduled Army tours of
~ut~ be approved in lieu of additional vacation,
as requested in his January 23, 1973, memo to the
City Council. Carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC WORKS YARD
Moved by Miller, seconded by Langley that Public
Works be authorized to perform the necessary work
~nd be relocated to the former Smith property on
Prospect at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Bill Moses protested moving the corporation yard
to an interim site rather than using the permanent
site on Red Hill which was purchased at taxpayers'
expense. He also felt that the Smith property loca-
tion is too crowded and situated too near a school
for a fleet of City trucks to safely operate.
C~uncilman Langley stated that the City Administrator's
aim from the outset has been.tosave the City money,
and has explored numerous possibilities for so doing,
including the possibility of building a corporation.
yard in conjunction with another agency. He stated'
that this is explained in Mr. Gill's report, and
referred Mr. Moses to that report.
Councilman Saltarelli stated that he was satisfied
that this would be a wise move temporarily. Moving
to the permanent site at this time would involve
a certain amount of grading and location of some
small buildings; even a relatively low cost of
$30,000-40,000 would be unjustified at ~his time.
The Smith property offers a situation similar to the
present one; vehicles will be screened from view.
Mr. Milton Curtis, 13362 Cromwell Drive, Tustin,
questioned putting the yard on a designated park
site, and the City Administrator's figure of
$200,000 for the future permanent public works yard,
and suggested leaving the yard at the present site
by delaying civic center landscaping. Also, the
cost of this temporary move is unbudgeted, and
City vehicles in a residential area will create
an eyesore.
Councilman Woodruff replied to this by stating that
civic center construction costs will ~ncrease con-
siderably if the contractor is faced with having
working area and access hampered by the Maintenance
yard, and this would necessitate removal of orange
trees f~r access. The $200,000 is a "ball park
figure", as there are no plans yet as to the extent
of facilities required within a permanent public
works yard. He felt that at the end of eighteen
months, the park will be ready for development,
Maintenance will be moving out, and the civic
center completed.
Councilman Saltarelli added that if the Council decides
to proceed with library construction at the civic
center site, this will have to be done in conjunction
with civic center development.
Above motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
2/20/73 Page 13
3. "B" STREET REALIGNMENT
Mrs. Lois Carr, Member of the Parks and Recreation
Commission, asked whether the Consent Calendar item
dealing with right-of-way deeds at First and "B"
Streets (Peppertree Park) to allow realignment of
"B" Street in conjunction with the First Street AHFP
project, would affect the two large pepper trees
at that corner of the park.
Mr. Blankenship stated that the approval of deeds
only designates that as part of the street right-
of-way, but has no effect on the design of the
street or authorizes any removal of trees. That
would have to come back to the Council with the
design of any proposed realignment.
In reply to questioning, Mr. Rourke stated that
public utilities cannot cut through that'-corner and
take out trees without the City's approval.
Mayor Miller requested, with Council consent, that
the staff provide the Council and the Parks and
Recreation Commission a rep6rt and a more detailed
plan on the disposition of the trees and the "B"
Street realignment. He further requested that the
City Clerk and the Parks and Recreation Director
screen Council agenda items and forward to the
Chairman of the Commission any items that may be
of interest or concern to that Commission.
4. PACIFIC/YORBA REALIGNMENT
Council briefly discussed the Traffic Engineer's
February 18, 1973, memo on signalization of Pacific
at First and Yorba at First as separate intersections°
Councilman Woodruff suggested that people in the
area, or their spokesmen, be advised that cost analy-
sis and feasibility studies on separate signalization
systems have-been completed with negative results,
and the Council's decision of the previous meetingt
approving realignment of Pacific and Yorba at First~
still stands.
Mr. David E. King, 314 S. Pacific, Tustin, requested
reconsideration of the matter and added that pro-
posed stop signs at Third and Pacific would create
as much conflict as the T-intersection at First and
Pacific, and that the angular intersection formed
by realignment of Pacific and Yorba would be 30%
more dangerous than the normal 90-degree intersection°
Councilman Saltarelli stated that the Traffic
Engineer's report specifically stated that a good
signalization system of both intersections could not
be accomplished, irrespective of cost. He stated
that the problem on Pacific is not volume, but speed,
and speed can be controlled by a four-way stop at
Third and Pacific.
5. SCHEDULE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
The Community Development Director was commended for
his "very realistic" schedule for such Community
Development activities as Zoning and Sign Ordinance
revisions, development standards, Land Use Element,
etc. The Council briefly discussed the timing of
these items.
City Col],~cjl Minutes
2/20/73 Page 14
6. POLICEMANPOWER REQUESTS
Council commented on the February 13, 1973, report
by the Chief of Police concerning positions needed
immediately, and including a backup report by Lt.
Jon Schorle. Mayor Miller coImmented that the new
positions could only be considered in the context
of a budget session. Councilman Saltarelli felt
that, in looking at specific areas, some clerical
and narcotics enforcement personnel are justified,
and these positions should be approved at least
through budget time, particularly to cut overtime
costs; he was very concerned with efficient use of
manpower. Councilman Langley felt that there is
an urgent need for every position named, citing
the need for increased juvenile work,
p~trol.of apartments, service to newly developed
areas in the near future, etc.; he agreed with Mr.
Saltarelli that perhaps vacation checks on homes
should be terminated because of .the cost involved.
Councilman Woodruff inquired as to how the six
requested positions would fit into the current
budget. Councilman Welsh stated that the question
Is one of level of service to the taxpayers, parti-
cularly with regard to narcotics and juvenile problems.
Mr. Blankenship estimated that the positions would
involve a cost of about $55,000 per year, excluding
the cost of fringe benefits; if positions are filled
on April 1, the cost would be one-fourth of the cost
for the first year. He stated that it is difficult
to obtain funds through the Law Enforcement Assistance
Act, although this avenue could be explored.
Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh that the
following requested positions be authorized:
one Typist, one Narcotics-Intelligence Officer,
one Juvenile Investigator, one Officer to assist
in Traffic, and one Patrolman.
Councilman Woodruff stated that he was not con-
~inced that the Council has received an adequate
report from the Chief of Police on organizational
efficiency, although he did acknowledge that a need
exists to increase the force because of imminent
population mncreases.
Councilman Saltarelli agreed that there is no way
at this point for the Council to know or control all
the organizational changes needed in the Department,
and studies should be made. But increases in crime,
traffic violations, etc., require more personnel
immediately and training should be gotten underway.
Moved by Langley, that the following positionsbe
authorized: one Typist, one Investigator for the
Juvenile Unit, one Officer to assist in Traffic,
and two Patrolmen. (Mr. Langley explained that
the requested Investigator for the Juvenile Unit
would assume some of the caseload of the Narcotics
Division, thereby lessening the need for a Narcotics
Intelligence Officer.
Motion died for lack of second.
Replying to Councilmen, Lt. Schorle stated that the
Chief is seeking approval of these positions to get
the hiring process started, and lateral movement within
the Department can be resolved later. Four Patrolmen
City Council Minutes
2/20/73 Page 15
could be hired with other requested positions filled
by promotions within the Department.
Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Miller that one Typist
position and four entry-level Patrolman positions
be authorized, subject to the Council receiving a
report from the Chief of Police as to how the personY
nel will be assigned. Carried unanimously.
7. FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS
The Council agreed to continue this item due to lack
of sufficient information.
8. REPLACEMENT OF TREES
Council continued to th~ next regular meeting the
matter of replacement of trees on Amherst Street
in Tustin Meadows, pending a recommendation from
the City Administrator.
9. POLICE PROMOTION
Mr. Blankenship stated that the Police Chief
has requested promotion of a Senior Patrolman
(Salary Range: 23X-E, $1,084) to Sergeant (25Y-C,
$1,102); salary increase would be about 2%, rather
than the customary promotional ~dvancement of 5%,
as 5% increase would put him a step higher than the
other Sergeants. The City Administrator has con-'
curred in this recommendation.
Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Woodruff that
promotion of Senior Patrolman to Sergeant (at Salary
Range 25Y-C, S1,102) be approved.
Mayor Miller stated that he opposed this move with-
out some indication of the organizational changes
involved.
Above motion carried by 3-2 vote, Miller and Welsh
voting no.
10. CONDEMNATIONS
Mr. Rourke briefed the Council as to right-of-way
acquisition status of Sutliff and Kidd properties
on First Street, and presented two Resolutions for
consideration by the Council
RESOLUTION NO. 73-13 (Sutliff Property)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE, AND
ORDERING, THE ACQUISITION BY CONDEMNATION
OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.
RESOLUTION NO. 73-14 (Kidd Property)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE, AND
ORDERING, THE ACQUISITION BY CONDEMNATION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.
y ~ {,. ~• 1. ~/ ~l l ~ L. l l 1' l .L I ~ l! L. (.~ J
2/20/73 Page 16
Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Miller that Resolu-
. tion No. 73-13 be read by title only. Carried
unanimously.
The secretary read the title of Resolution 73-13.
_ Moved by Woodruff, seconded by Saltarelli that
Resolution No. 73-13 be assed and ado ted. Carried
rol call. Ayes: Miller, Saltarelli, Langley,
• We s , Woodruff. Noes: none. Absent: none.
Moved b Saltarelli, seconded b Welsh that Resolu-
tion No. 3-1 a rea y title only. Carried
unanimously.
The secretary read the title of Resolution 73-14.
Moved b Woodruff, seconded b Welsh that Resolution
No. - e asse and a o to Carried. Ayes:
Sa tarelli, Langley, Welsh, Woodruff. Noes: Miller.
• ~ Absent: none.
Mayor Miller stated that he would contact Mr. Ridd
concerning his change of position on solution of the
right-of-way acquisition problem with his property.
Mr. Rourke agreed to have the City's right-of-way
agent contact Mr. Miller.
11. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, RIVERFORD ROAD
Councilman Saltarelli requested that the staff
~ ec the progress of formation of an assessment
district for a decorative entryway at Riverford
_~ Road.
XIV.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved
Saltarelli that the
cutive Session.
C~%~...~~~v C .
MAYOR
J
C CLERK
~~