Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1972 08 07 August 7, 1972 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor C. Miller. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor C. Miller. III. INVOCATION Giv~nby Councilman L. Miller. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: C. Miller, Saltarelli, L. Miller, Langley, Welsh. Absent: Councilmen: None. Others present: Asst. City Admin. Dan Blankenship Asst. City Admin. -Community Dev. Ken Fleagle City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PRO- POSED AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 72-379 (JONES) Appeal of Daniel M. Jones to Planning Commission Resolution No. 1273, denying a proposed amend- ment to UP-72-379. Location: Southwesterly corner of 17th Street and Prospect. Mr. Fleagle summarized background of this request from staff reports, and showed slides of the site. He stated that a petition had been received signed by 18 property owners on Arbolada Way, an E-4 m development in the County. adjacent to the Jones parcel, opposing construction of a through street at the rear of their properties. Mayor C. Miller opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Paul Calhoun, 17631 Arbolada, Tustin, represented Arbolada residents who are "violently opposed" to a through street behind their homes as there would be no buffer from street noise and would increase con- gestion on Prospect. He said that he thought, person- ally, that the Planning Commission has caused undue hardship to those seeking to develop their property on 17th, and that development should be allowed which would permit a buffer and the least possible incon- venience to adjacent dwellings. He did not feel that a 60-foot buffer behind the market would be enough, but preferred that to a through street behind his house. Mr. Don Thamer, Attorney, 1666 N. Main, Suite 300, Santa Ana, representing Mr. Dan Jones and his two sisters, owners of the property, stated that if the proposed plan would result in a deficiency of 25 parking spaces, as stated by the Planning Commission, then a.street would eliminate 30,000 square feeE from the property, further decreasing parking area. Elim- inating the street would in no way adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of adjoining residents, but the street would. Consideration of the Jones proposa! entirely on its own merits would facili- tatedevelopment of the property and benefit th~ City of Tustin by added revenue. The applicants .are willing to construct an eight-footwall along the rear property line, if necessary- ~e also felt that a determination would be reasonable that it is not necessary that any one parcel being developed make street improvements on other properties, inas- mUCh as one owner has no control over another's dedication of street .right-of-way; control over dedication and improvement of streets could be i° held for each parcel of property by the Development · Preview Commission and by conditions of the building permit.~ Ms. Naomi Hardin, 17651 Arbolada, Tustin, objected to a road at the rear of her residence terminating at Prospect due to increased noise and traffic hazards. Ms. Ruby Remme, 17581 Arbolada, Tustin, was concerned that people would be using the road at all hours of the night to get to the apartments being constructed on the Vandenberg property. There being no further comments or objections, Mayor C. Miller closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:02 p.m. Mayor C. Miller stated that deletion of th~ street is not the main issue; maintaining the Council's original goal to create a high-quality development compatible with its surroundings and an enhancement to even the residential area is the primary concern. He said the Planning Commission minutes indicate rejection of the new plan on the basis of problems other than the street. Mr. Fleagle stated that modification of Planning Commission"'Resolution No. 1256 would be required to change the existing requirement for dedication and improvement of the total street system prior to occupancy of any structure on any portion of the area, and suggested amending Section 2-b of that Resolution to make the dedication and improvement of streets on any parcel the subject of the building permit.- Councilman Saltarelli stated that he was not in favor of changing the original master plan, but felt that the matter of the road could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, possibly at a workshop. He was in favor of easing the restriction imposed in Resolution No. 1256, as suggested by Mr. Fleagle. Mr. Fleagle suggested that wording of Section 2-b of Resolution No. 1256 be a/nended to read: "The dedication and improvement of the necessary streets in accordance with an approved master plan of parcels the subject of a building permit." In this way neither parcel could be developed unless they 'put in the street system for that particular parcel. Moved by Welsh, seconded by L. Miller that Resolu- tion No. 1256, Section 2-b be amended to read: "The dedication amd improvement of the necessary streets in accordance with an approved master plan of parcels the subject of a.building permit". Carried unanimously- Councilman Saltarelli stated that with regard to the appeal, the Council would have to uphold the Planning Commission's findings because they affirm the master plan--regardless Of what is determined about the street. He asked whether an amended street plan for~the original master plan had been submitted to the City Engineer. Mr. Fleagle replied that no acceptable alternative had been presented. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Langley that the findings of the Planning Commission as contained in Resolution No.- 1273 be upheld. Carried unanimously. Following further discussion, Mr. Thmner was advised that if his client desired to submit an alternative proposal for traffic circulation, leaving the master plan essentially intact, a new application for amend- ment of the Use Permit would have to be submitted for staff review and Planning Commission consideration. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 17, 1972 meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in amount of $166,780.56. Councilman Welsh requested change in part I of the Minutes to read: "The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. by Mayor C. Miller". Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by L. Miller that the Minutes of the July 17,1972, Council meeting be approved as corrected. Carried unanimously. Moved b~ Saltarelli, seconded b~ Welsh that demands in the amount of $166,780.56 be approved. ~. Carried unanimously. VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 545 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE CREATING AND ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER, AND DEFINING THE DUTIES AND POWERS THEREOF. Moved by Welsh, seconded by C. Miller that the third paragraph of Section 2-30 of Ordinance No. 545 be amended to read as follows: "Upon termination of the employment of the City Manager by reason of involuntary removal from service other than for illegal misconduct in office, the City Manager may receive severance pay in a lump sum equal to not more than six months pay, at the discretion of the City Council, such pay to be computed at the highest salary he has received as City Manager or City Admin- istrator during his service with the City." Carried unanimously. 8/7/72 Page 4 Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Welsh that Section 2-35 be amended to read as follows: "The removal of theI ~ity Manaqer shall be effected only by a MajOrity vote of th~ whole City Council, convened at a regular Council meeting. "Notwithstanding the provisions hereinabove set forth, the City Manager shall not be removed from office, other than for illegal misconduct in of- fice, within a period of ninety (90) days next succeeding any municipal election held in the City at which election a member of the City Council is elected, or within ninety (90) days next succeed- ing the appointment of a City Councilman. The purpose of this provision is to allow a newly elected or appointed member of the City Council or a reorganized City Council time to observe the actions and abilities of the City Manager in the performance of the powers and duties of his office. After the expiration of the aforesaid ninety (90) day period, the provisions for removal set forth hereinabove shall apply and be effective" Carried unanimously. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 545, as amended, have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. The secretary read Ordinance No. 545 by title. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION NONE. IX. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 72-48 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ADOPTING A PLAN OF EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION- Councilman Langley was concerned that all classifi- cations in the Budget be listed in the Classification Plan, particularly with regard to Police Department positions. He stated as his two basic concerns the absence of Policewoman position in the Plan and the absence of criteria for Policewoman qualifying as an Investigator, Mr. Blankenship explained that "Policeman" is a generic term including both male and female officers. If a female officer is promoted to Investigator, she should be subject to the same requirements and respon- sibilities as a male officer in that position. A new class would have to be established if the Department desired to create a different type of position which, for example, a female officer would not be required to undergo complete police t~aining or in some other manner not meet the requirements for policeman; the new classification Would have to be submitted to the City Council and the employees given an opportunity to comment, etc. In response to further questioning, Mr. Blankenship stated that suggestions from the Police Employees Association had been reviewed, resulting in several modifications in education and experience require- ments for most police positions, except for Police Chief which will require further review. He didn't know the number of persons in the Police Department who would not qualify under the present standards, but stated that there is an effort to encourage people in the Department to upgrade themselves. The Council approved last year the employment of two Policemen to serve as substitutes while other Policemen were taking P.O-S.T.-reimbursed training classes; there is a two-year period of intensive training underway under the P.O.S.T. program to bring personnel up to recognized standards. Sgt. Jerry Smith, Acting President of the Tustin Police Employees Association, stated that the require- ment in the new'Plan for a P.O.S.T. Middle Management Certificate for the position of Operations/Services Manager-Police was not appropriate because P.O.S.T. requires Lieutenant status, or Sergeant acting as Lieutenant, before enrollment in that program. This would be too restrictive for a Sergeant on the Tustin Police force to compete in an examination for a Lieutenant position. He suggested that it would be more advantageous to require a P.O.S.T. Supervisory Certificate for that position. The Association is also concerned with minimum qualifications being in- cluded for all positions. Mr. Blankenship stated that the Police Chief probably would not object to deleting the P.O.S.T. Middle Management Certificate requirement, leaving the Experience and Education requirements a P.O.S.T. Supervisory Certificate plus any one of the three experience/education combinations listed. Mayor C. Miller and Councilman Langley agreed that some differentiation should be made between desirable and minimum qualifications. Mr. Langley felt lack of specifics in this area had resulted in the formation. of employee organizations. Mayor c. Miller suggested accepting this Plan as an interim plan, and that the City Administrator be directed to submit a schedule for revision of the Classification Plan.to provide for minimum qualifi- cations and desirable qualifications, starting with public safety departments. Mr. Rourke stated that this approach would require modificatron of Resolution No. 72-48 and suggested the following wording of Section 2: "That all of the provisions of said Plan of Classification of Employees are hereby adopted as an interim plan as amended and made a part of this Resolution as though fully set forth herein." Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Saltarel/~ that -Resolution No. 72-48, as amended, be read by title 9nly. Carried unanimously. The secretary read Resolution No. 72-48 by title. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded b7 Welsh that Resolution No. 72-48, as amended, be passed and adopted. Carrie~. Ayes: C. M~i~'~ ~'S~arel~i, L. Miller, Langley, " Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: none. 8/7/72 Page 6 RECESS Mayor'C. Miller catled a recess at 9:30 p.m. The me~ting reconvened at 9:48 p.m. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, DESIGNATING PLACEMENT OF CERTAIN STOP SIGNS. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Langley that Resolution No.-72-51 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. The secretary read Resolution No. 72-51 by title. Moved by Welsh, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution No. 72-51 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: C. Miller, Saltarelli, L. Miller, Langley, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: none. (Resolution No. 72-51 was amended later in the meeting. See page 7,'Old Business No. 2.). 3. RESOLUTION NO. 72-52 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, COMMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT FOR ITS EFFORTS TO SECURE HIGHER QUALITY WATER FOR ORANGE COUNTY. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Welsh that Resolution No~ 72-52 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. The secretary read Resolution No. 72-52 by title'. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Welsh that Resolution No. 72-52 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: C. Miller, Saltarelli, L. Miller, Langley, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: none. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 72-53 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE CITY OF TUSTIN PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS. Mr. Blankenship stated that the Police and Fire Associations had requested a continuance of this item to the next regular meeting to allow additional time for study. Moved by Langley, seconded by Welsh that Resolution No, 72-53 be continued to the next regular meeting. Carried unanimously. X. OLD BUSINESS 1. WEST RELIEF TRUNK SEWER - TRANSFER OF FUNDS Continued from 7/17/72. Mayor C. Miller made several changes in the draft of a letter to the Orange. County Sanitation Dis- tricts concerning use of City Sewer Trunk Funds to repair compaction deficiencies caused by earlier sewer projects. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by Saltarelli that funds be authorized to be paid from the City's Sewer Main Trunk Fund to Sanitation District No. 7 to finance 46% of the construction cost of the West Relief Trunk Sewer, but not to exceed $276,000, being contract #7-5-1R, subject to the District's authorization of City use of funds from this same source to repair compaction deficiencies caused by earlier sewer projects; and that the Mayor is hereby authorized to so notify the District~ Carried unanimously. Ms. Mary Hernandez, Chairman of the Parks and Recrea- tion Commission, spoke in support of continued center island development in the City. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 72-38 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE LOCAL AGENCY- STATE AGREEMENT NO. 49 AND APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 FOR THE TOPICS PROGRAM. Mr. Sal Delgado, 13351 White Sands Drive, Tustin, read a letter from the Committee for a Safe Resi- dential Tustin and a petition signed by 86 persons residing in the vicinity of First Street, express- ing their concern about traffic-generated safety and noise problems along First Street. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by L. Miller, that Resolution No. 27-38 be continued to the next regular meeting (August 21) to allow time for com- pletion of Auto Club study. Carried unanimously. Councilman Saltarelli suggested a speed limit change from 30 to 25 m.p.h. on First between Newport and Red Hill, and placement of stop signs on First Street at White Sands and at Charloma. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh that Resolution No. 72-51 be amended to provide for stop signs at ~ First Street and White Sands and at First Street a~ Charloma. Carried unanimously. The staff was directed to report at the next meeting on a possible stop sign on First at Yorba, and the matter of proposed speed limit change on First Street. Mr. Blankenship stated that State law requires an engineering study prior to any change in speed limits; the staff will prepare that study and report to the Council as soon as possible. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT DEEDS AND AGREEMENTS, FIRST STREET AHFP PROJECT NO. 604 PHASE I. Moved by Saltarell~, seconded by Welsh that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute necessary agreementsl accept deeds, and that payments be auth- orized for Parcels 4, 5, 6, 8, and 15 for First Street AHFP Project No. 604~ Phase I. Carried unanimously. XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1 CITIZEN REQUEST Mr. B]ankenship described request of Mr. John M. Steverding, 1732 Lance Drive, Tustin, involving 8/7/72 Page 8 the deteriorated condition of a grapestake fence constructed on a 10-foot wide easement used as a ~ walkway~to-San Juan Schools; the fence is a maint- ! '~ enance ~d ~afety probi~m, and its current state of disrepair has resulted in interruption of the resident's privacy by school children. Mr. Steverding requested construction of a block wall along the westerly side of ~le easement adjacent to his prop- erty. Following brief discussion, it was moved by L.Miller, seconded by C. Miller that the City replace the grapestake fence in subject~ocation with a block L. wall, and install a pipe barricade at Lance Drive, for bicycle safety purposes, at the end of the walk- way. Carried unanimously. The Couneil then responded to Mr. Steverding's concerns about the appearance of the barricade. 2. LEAGUE MEETING Mayor C. Miller announced that he would attend the August 10 Executive Meeting of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities. 3. FEDERAL AID URBAN HIGHWAY SYSTEM Mr. Blankenship explained that streets in ~e Tustin area which would qualify for projects under the Federal Aid Urban Highway System--a program intended to provide aid in the improvement of transportation in urbanized areas--are t7th Street, Newport Avenue from Irvine Boulevard north, Irvine Boulevard from the Newport Freeway to Red Hill, First Street from Newport Avenue west, Edinger from the Newport Free- way to Red Hill, Red Hill from Barranca to Irvine, and the Newport Freeway. The Council selected as.the most critical project the extension of Newport Avenue to Edinger; second- ary choices were the Newport Freeway off-ramps at Irvine Boulevard and at 17th Street. 4. LETTER FROM JOHN. A. SIEGEL Mr. Blankenship commented that the right-of-way agent would be contacting Mr. John A. Siegel the following week concerning acquisition of right-of- way for widening of First Street. No other response was felt to be necessary to his July 27, 1972, letter concerning the First Street widening. 5. STIRTON LETTER Council directeu that staff reply to Mr. George Stirton advising him that his property is within Tustin City limits, that posting of Notice to Clean Premises onhis property at 17792 Santa Clara was a routine action consistent with City policies, and that there was no intent to harass. 6. MITCHELL/UTT PARK SITE Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Saltaretli that Attorney Robert Waldron be associated in Mitchell/ Utt property litigation, and that appraiser John Donahue be employed in the same matter to such ex- tent as may be required. Carried unanimously. .... 7. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0.'7794 (TUSTIN COUNTRY GARDENS) Councilman Saltarelli expressed concern about density of this development deviating from the six dwelling units per acre agreed upon by two principals of South Coast Development Company; his figures indicated an actual density of 6.79 units/acre. He also objected to the lack of curved streets with interspersed green areas, and insufficient number of entrances to the tract. Mr. Frank Fehse of South Coast Development Company stated that Ordinance No. 528, establishing Planned Community zoning on the property, permits 10.5 units/ acre for 72 acres. A map submitted in March was later amended at the request of the new Council to allow for 6 units/acre at the front end of the property, and 10.5 units/acre for the remaining acreage. They understood the zoning on the detached houses to be 6 units/gross acre because the Planned Community zone as approved by ordinance included the park and the streets. A new tentative map submitted several weeks ago indicated 248 units, or 6 units/gross acre, which considers about half o~ .... the park area. He believed that the Company had accommodated the interim agreement, and density is lower than what the property is zoned for. Mr. Fleagle stated that the normal definition of gross acreage is all within the perimeter of the tract; net acreage is all except that which is dedicated for public purposes. The Irvine Company in preparing their criteria, showed 72 acres in medium-high density and 24 acres in parks; they did not include the parks in their gross acreage figure, however. The ordinance provides for 10.5 units/ acre and does not take into account any agreements or commitments between th~ Council and the developer for 6 units/acre. He pointed out that the Planning Commission, in approv~ng the tract map, was not aware of the terms and conditions the Council had expected. Mr. Rourke stated that if the Council does not want the property to be developed with the map that has been approved by the Planning Commission, the appropriate step would be to rezone the property on an emergency basis; that would put the City in the strongest position. Such action would not affect the annexation. Mr. Warren James of the Irvine Company explained that the market research on this parcel has shown that the size of lot and dwelling unit and price range is adequate to fill the market demand. In deter- mining the density the irvine Company deducted from the total acreage tha~ for the street (Walnut) and 2.1 acres for the park, resulting in a density of 6.26. Mayor C. Miller favored establishing a policy of no more multiple or palnned developments ~n the City. Councilmen Langley and Welsh concurred, and agreed that there is probably no~ng that can be done about this tract at this point, and that the develop- ment would have to proceed as is. 8/7/72 Page I0 Mr. Fehse stated that he would be satisfied to go ahead with this portion and resolve nay problems or ilssue~'~con~r~ing the townhouse section with the staff, Planning Commission, and Council. 8. CONVERSION TO CONDOMINIUMS Councilman Saltarelli stated that he opposed the conversion of apartments to condominiums and felt ' that the Council should take a position on the matter. He understood that wikhout Planned Develop- ment zoning, an apartment could not be converted to a condominium. Mr. Rourke stated that City ordinances do not specifically say that condominiums may be permitted only in a PD zone. The process has been initiated to amend our ordinance to provide that condominiums may be permitted in a PD zone only; however, he felt thaE a statute enacted by the Legislature was ints~ed to permit Such ~onversion regardless of zone. The amendment will come to the Council follOWing Planning Commission recommendation. 9. RESOLUTION REQUESTED The Council directed that the staff prepare a Resolution similar to those of the Cities~of Brea and Yorba Linda opposing a proposed airport in Chino Hills. 10. REPORT REQUESTED The Council requested that the staff look into the background of resolutions of the Costa Mesa City Council relating to the criminal justice system and court trial delays, and report at the next Council meeting. XIII. ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 11:58 p.m. to a Regular Adjourned Meeting to be held on Monday, August 14, 1972, at 7:00 p.m., in the Civic CenEer Community Building, for the purpose of selecting a civic center architect. MAYOR ~ITY CLERK '