Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1971 11 15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL November 15, 1971 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to o~der at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Jan Howard. III. INVOCATION Given by Bill Drenttel. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Absent: Councilmen: None. Others present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke Asst. City Admin.-Comm. Dev. Ken Fleagle City Clerk Ruth Poe INTRODUCTION Mayo~ Coco introduced Bill Drenttel and Jan Howard, "Youth in Government" participants from Tustin High School. Miss Holly Holub, a third participant, arrived later in the meeting. PRESENTATION Mayor Coco presented a City plaque to Mrs. Horace J. Stevens of Tustin, for community pride demonstrated- in renovating an old house at 550 South "C" Street. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PZ 71-126 IRVINE COMPANY AND AMENDMENT TO TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN. On the motion of the Planning Commission, a prezone change and an amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan, from the Orange County A-1 (Agricultural) and A-R (Agricultural-Residential) Districts to the City of Tustin P-C (Planned Community-Residential) District. Subject properties are generally bounded by the Santa Aria Freeway to the northeast; Myford Road to the southeast; and Santa Fe Railroad main line and Moulton Parkway to the southwest; and the Santa Fe Railroad Venta Spurline to the northwest. 2. U. S. MARINE CORPS - IRVINE ANNEXATION NO. 71-A Mr. Gill stated that the Staff recommended continuance of the two above items, in order that the Council, Staff, and members of the audience Would have an opportunity to view a similar development (Roundtree) in San Jose, and to have a "Town Hall" session to discuss this matter further. Suggested dates are November 23 for the San Jose trip and November 29 for the Town Hall meeting. This has been discussed with certain members of the Tustin Meadows group and the Irvine Company. It was the consensus of the Council that discussion -of the matter of continuance be opened to the public. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:41 p.m. Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 2 Mr. Jim Taylor, Director of General Planning Administration for the Irvine Company, requested an answer to "a fundamental question" prior to ._ proceeding further with the annexation and develop- ment in order to save time and expense, that question being the Council's attitude toward the annexation as it now stands as to its viability with the land use proposed. Regarding the San Jose trip, Mr. Taylor said that the Irvine Company is prepared to provide transportation for the Council, Staff and interested homeowners to San Jose or Oakland, the only difficulty being the date proposed, November 23, due to comflicting public hearings in the County which concern the Irvine Planning Department. Mr. Arthur Charlton, 460 West Second Street, Tustin, read a letter from the Tustin Center Homeowners Group recommending popular vote on this annexation; referring to Report #4 and density figures contained therein indicating Tustin's rank among Orange County cities; protesting the amount of figures in the report which he doubted could be substantiated; and suggesting that poor Police and Fire efficiency results from presence of townhouses and condominiums. Mr. Peter Thomas, 14281 Fernbrook, Tustin, asked about development plans around Walnut, with the " lower densities proposed for area south of Walnut and greater density north of it. Mayor Coco replied that the original application i~dicated developments north and south of Walnut; since the last Council meeting, there is a dif- ferent phasing on it, with ~either project "cut and dried". He explained the Irvine Company's position about Council indication of acceptance of the annexation given a reasonable compromise. The Council's decision would be based on a gross plan in which detailed plans would have to be submitted. Mr. Don Saltarelli, 14702 Danberry Circle, Tustin, questioned the "changing facts" of the annexation, citing price ranges in Walnut Village West. He stated that the low figure originally had been $26,000, was at the last meeting stated to be $21,-22,000, and in the November 9 Staff report was indicated to be $19,000. He also objected to the conclusion in the November 9 report which he quoted as follows: "Condominiums or townhouses sold as single family units with a shared common -- green area and facilities should not be considered the same as multi-unit, rental apartments, even though the number of units per acre may be about the same." He said that condominiums are generally known as "own-your-own" apartments. He suggested that density could be further reduced by putting in a golf course with condominiums around it. For clarification, Mr. Taylor stated that the single family detached homes would sell at ~ $26-35,000, with a median price range of $31-33,000. c The Roundtree (townhouse) portion of the development .~ would sell at $17-24,000 with a median price range of $21,000. These price ranges were those quoted to the Planning Commission, Mr. Saltarelli, and the Tustin Meadows Homeowners Association. Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 3 Mr. Ron Allen, 1651 Roanoke, Tustin, asked for the range of square footage in th'ese units. Mr. Taylor had told him that square footage would be similar t~ that in University Park, but ranging up to about 1,800 square feet only. Mr. Taylor had no specific information on this as it has not yet been submitted by the developer. The Company's experience has shown, he said, that price and size of unit are not indicative of what the development will be like~ or the type of persons occupying it. Mr. Allen stated that in his experience as a realtor, depreciation is much greater and resale prices much lower in townhouses than in single family homes He favored the annexation but would require evidence that the Roundtree develop- ment would be superior to other townhouse develop- ments in Tustin before he would favor the land use proposed. Mr. Ken Thompson, 14622 Hyannisport Road, Tustin, stated that while most developments of this type are very attractive the first year, within five or six years they have deteriorated. Mr. Thompson felt that if the Council gives some commitment to the Irvine Company about the annexation, then the Irvine Company should give some commitment to the City about lowering the density. Mayor Coco s~id that Mr. Thompson's comments were well-taken. He asked Mr. Taylor what more was needed in the way of Councilmen's views toward annexation, in.view of their_statements as recorded in the minuteszof the last Council meeting, portions of which the Mayor read aloud. Mr. Taylor stated that he interpreted the Council's comments at the last meeting to mean that they were interested in seeing the Staff explore what would happen to the economic projections with a lower density. Since the Council has the report with that evaluation, the Company is seeking assurance that the Council has not changed its attitude so that it may proceedwith its proposal which showed a 20% density decrease. Assurance that the annexa- tion is still considered a viable one on the part of all parties concerned is "the basic building block with which we can move ahead." MaTor Coco stated that he didn't think that the public was aware that the Irvine Company had offered another plan. He invited the Council to reply to Mr. Taylor's question. Mr. Oster requested clarification of the conclusion reached in the November 9 staff report as to viability. - Mr. Gill stated that the conclusion is that it is a viable annexation as proposed either in the, original proposal of the IrvineCompany or in some reduction of density. He referred to page four, in which a net gain of $149,000 per year would be realized from development to a density matching that of Tustin Meadows. He explained that his report Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 4 included a financial analysis for the plan as submitted, with a density of 6 units per acre except in Area 6, and an overall density of 6 units per acre. Mr. Taylor stated in answer to Councilman C. Miller that the Irvine Company prefers a mixture of densities, and would not favor 490 acres developed at 5 units per acre. Area 6 is the most logical place for a higher-density cluster-type development due to constraints on the land at t~at location, such as its proximity to the freeway, a mobilehome park, and an elementary school; the railroad situation; and limited access from Jamboree. The alternative plan proposed provides for a density of 5 units per acre in all areas but Area 6. Councilman C. Miller stated that of concern among those in Tustin Meadows whose property abuts Area 6 is the quality of the development. He inquired about the possibility of putting some of the high density in another location. Mr. Taylor stated that the Irvine Company would be willing to discuss this. In response to Mayor Coco's question, Mr. Taylor stated that the Roundtree project in San Jose is relatively new, but part of the presentation will include a project that is eight years old, properly maintained, whose value had appreciated over the years. Mr. Fred Anderson, 1892 Brookshire, Tustin, cited what he considered to be an example of "incredibly poor planning" on the part of the Irvine Company in the s~tuation of railroad switching adjacent to. Tustin Meadows. He asked what benefit Walnut Village West would offer Tustin financially, what reason for high density, and for a density mixture.- He suggested the profit motive as the basis for the Irvine Company's opposition to R-1 throughout the area. Mr. Anderson opposed any density greater than that of Tustin Meadows, and suggested a golf course for the area. Mr. Allen stated that the character of the community is more important than tax gains anticipated from higher density development. He suggested a com- promise in which the higher density development be placed in areas adjacent to ultimate Irvine city boundaries east of Myford Road. Replying to questioning by Mr. Saltarelli, Mayor Coco stated that at the time development was planned for Tustin Meadows, 6 d.u./acre was pro- posed, although it actually built out to approxi- mately 5 d.u./acre. Building out to a density somewhat lower than what is proposed is typical of Irvine Company developments. Mr. Gill added that lot size in Walnut Village West ~11'5'C5,000 square feet, identical to lot sizes in Tustin Meadows. Mr. Saltarelli quoted City Manager Ralph Snyder of Walnut Creek, commenting on the Roundtree Development in that city: "Everything about this development is good with the possible exception of the density". Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 5 Councilman C. Mil~er explained't~at the Irvine Company did not seek this annexation, that the City instituted this as part of a much larger plan which had included the Marine Corps Air Station (Helicopter), and that "wrath" directed toward the Irvine Company should more appropriately be directed toward the Council. Mr. Gill pointed out that the $19,000 price figure quoted by Mr. Saltarelli applied to the Roundtree development in Walnut Creek;.regarding the Walnut Creek City Manager's comment about density, the development in that city is 18-20 d.u./acre, which is much greater than the density proposed for the area under discussion. In reply to Councilman Oster, Mr. Rourke stated that there is no way that the Council could submit this matter to the voters. There are referendum procedures that are available to tax- payers or voters in any situation, but that's not within the province of the Council. Mr. Oster stated that he had no objection to continuing to the next regular meeting (December 6) and directing the Staff'to arrange a Town Hall meeting, of which he would like a transcript as he would be unable to attend on the date proposed. He favored the annexation if it is viable. Moved by Oster,- seconded by Marsters that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting of December 6, 1971, and that in the interim the Staff be directed to arrange a Town Hall meeting, that Mr. Taylor be advised that there Ks no Council objection to a trip to view the Roundtree development as proposed. Mayor Coco expressed the hope that some compromise will be reached. Councilman C. Miller stated that the limitations of the irvine Company are known, and that the "full gamut of opinion" has been received from the public, and suggested a show of hands at this meeting rather than holding a Town Hall meeting. Ma~or Coco disagreed, stating that alternatives should first be determined before a show of hands would have any meaning. He was not sure that members of the audience were fully aware of the ramifications of their votes. The public has expressed diverse opinions, and he would like to know what the people of Tustin Meadows and of central Tustin specifically think, and what various alternatives--and their consequences-- exist that could form the basis of negotiation. A workshop-type meeting would be more conducive to compromise than the formality of a public Council hearing. Mr. George Petty, 14602 Hyannisport Road, Tustin, -asked what fin ancial impact the annexation of Tustin Meadows has had on the City, and what gains could be realized by annexing the Irvine property at the density proposed. Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 6 Mayor Coco stated that this question has been answered in four Staff reports, and that these have indicated that the annexation would not be a drain on the City, except in the original proposal, which was lacking commercial acreage. The Mayor asked Mr. Petty whether he h~d read the reports. Mr. Petty replied that he had not. Mayor Coco stated that this Was the problem with taking a show of hands this evening, and announced that the reports are available at City Hall. Mr. Petty askedwhether any thought had'been given to any industrial use of the land around freeway areas. Mayor Coco stated that the Council had thought about it, but it had not been proposed by the Irvine Company. The importance of industrial land in Tustin's future is the basis for the City's interest in the Marine Corps Air Station (Helicopter). He invited Mr. Taylor to reply. Mr. TaTlor explained that the amount of industrial land proposed in the central basin is best provided around the major airports in order to provide a buffering use. MCAS (H) is an intermediary use which is incompatible with the high quality homes over which most of the helicopters'fly, and to add industrial uses would add pressures to per- petuate some type of air facility once it has been vacated by the military, as has been discussed in various studies on the Airport. He stated that he found it difficult to understand why people would want industry adjacent to residential. Councilman L. Miller added that industrial use at this location would increase the railroad switching problem. He also suggested that the Tustin News and the Tustin Meadows "Nitty Gritty" fully publicize the City Staff reports prior to the Town Hall hearing. Mayor Coco again stressed the availability of the reports. Mr. Saltarelli suggested that the Council meeting be suspended in favor of a Town Hall meeting at this time. Following discussion, it was moved by L. Miller that the meeting be suspended for 50 minutes to allow a 45-minute Town Hall meeting following a 5-minute recess. Mayor Coco stated that this would be a substitute motion as it negates the original motion'to continue the hearing to December 6. Motion. died for lack of a second. Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 7 Moved by Oster, s~conded by L. Miller that a 5-minute recess be called to be followed by,a 30-minute informal question and answer session which wuld be continued to a Town Hall meeting if necessary. Mr. Charlton stated that members of the Tustin Center Homeowners Group favored a Town Hall meeting as originally planned with the date and time announced in advance. Mr. Prank Greinke, 1011 Laguna Road, Tustin, agreed, on the basis that the audience needs more time to study what the Irvine Company has in mind. He suggested mailing of reports to organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Business Association, and that the Tustin News publish the reports. Councilman L. Miller withdrew his second to the above motion. Mr. Taylor stated that the Irvine Company would be available to meet with any citizen groups to present their plans and answer any questions. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that the original motion be amended to include a 5-minute recess at this time, and circulation of pertinent information by.any feasible means. Carried unanimously. Mayor Coco declared a 10-minute recess at 9:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:48 p.m. 3. COST HEARING - CHAPTER 27 PROJECT 71-1 - CONSTRUCTION OF S.I.P. #68 STORM DRAIN Mayor Coco announced that the hour having arrived, this was the time and place fixed for the hearing of appeals or objections to the report filed by the Superintendent of Streets in the matter of the construction of certain improvements pursuant to Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911" and a asked the .Clerk if due notice of the hearing had been given. The Clerk announced that notices of filing of the Report and of the time and place of hearing thereon were duly and regularly posted and mailed or delivered by the Superintendent of Streets, all as prescribed by law, and that affidavits showing such compliance were on file in the City-Clerk's office. Mayor coco inquired whether any written protests or objections had been received. The Clerk replied that there had been no protests received. There being no one present wishing to make a protest, Mayor Coco declared the public porti6n of the hearing closed at 9:50 p.m. Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 8 In reply to Councilman C. Miller's question, Mr. qrville Myers, City Engineer, stated that the cost listed, $555.25, is the final cost assessed against each lot, with no additional costs anticipated. The matter of relocation of privately owned fences is left to the property owners. At the Mayor's request, the Clerk read Resolution No. 71-76 by title. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that further reading be waived, and that Resolution No. 71-76, DETERMINING THAT PAYMENT OF CERTAIN ASSESSMENTS FOR WORK PERFORMED PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 27 OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911, MAY BE MADE IN 10 ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS AND DETERMINING THAT NO INTEREST SHALL BE PAID TO THE CITY ON ANY UNPAID BALANCE, AND DIRECTING THE CITY TREASURER TO BILL AND COLLECT SUCH PAYMENTS (Ch. 27, Project 71-1), be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: none. At the Mayor's request, the Clerk read the title of Resolution No. 71-77. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that further reading be waived and that Resolution No. 7ii~ CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS OF WORK PERFORMED IN PURSUANCE OF CHAPTER 27 OF THE "IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911",. AND ASSESSING THE COSTS OF SAID WORK, AND DIRECTING THE RECORDING AND MANNER OF COLLECTION OF LIENS (Ch. 27, 71-1), be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C..Miller, Marsters, L. Mi~, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: none. Moved.by C. Miller, seconded by Oster, that work completed by Credence Construction Company be accepted, and that payment up to 90% of the total contract amount be authorized, with payment of final 10% to be made in 35 days, assuming no liens or other claims are filed. Carried unanimously. Mr. Gary Schaumberg, 14412 Silverbrook, Tustin, complimented the City Staff, particularly Orville Myers, for their cooperation in completing this project. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 1, 1971 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $88,409.79 3. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ZORRO INVESTMENT CO. - Prezone 69-117 - Irvine Blvd. and Yorba Acceptance of street improvements, release of pertinent bond (#887382) and termination of agreement all as recommended by the City Engineer. 4. STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR MAIN STREET FROM 250 FEET WEST OF PREBLE DRIVE TO CENTENNIAL WAY (See next page.) Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 9 Acceptance of work and authorization of payment of $18,157.82 ~nd assuming no liens or other claims are filed within the next 35 days, the final payment of $2,346".44 at that time all as recommended by the City Engineer. Councilman L. Miller announced that he would -- abstain from voting on Consent Calendar Item #3. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Items 1 through 4 of the Con~ent Calendar be approved. Carried, Councilman L. Miller abstaining on Item #3. VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 529 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING THE ANNEXA- TION OF "NISSON-RED HILL-MITCHELL ANNEXATION NO. 72" TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA. Annexation consists of approximately 7.8 acres located on the east side of Red Hill Avenue between Nisson Road and Mitchell Avenue. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 530 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, NO. 328, AS AMENDED. Mr. Gill requested continuance of Ordinance No. 529 because of discussions with Humble Oil Company relative to their assumption of indebtedness and liabilities as a property owner in this annexation. Moved by C.Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 529 be continued to the December 6 City Council meeting. Carried unanimously. At the Mayor's request, the Clerk read the title of Ordinance No. 530. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by C. Miller that further reading be waived and Ordinance No. 530 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Mini Oster. Noes: none. Absent: none. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 531 ' An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, PREZONING PROPERTY PURSUANT TO APPLICATION NO. PZ 71-128 (READVERTISED) OF FIRST WESTERN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Prezoning of property from the County E-4 (Residential Estate) District to the City of Tustin PC (Planned Comm'unity-Single Family Residential) District, to develop a 29-1ot single f~il~ subaiv~slon. Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 10 Site is located on the east side of Prospect Avenue approximately 18'2 feet south of Theodora Drive. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 532 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, PREZONING PROPERTY PURSUANT TO APPLICATION NO. PZ 71-131, INITIATED BYTHE PLANNING COMMISSION. Prezoning from County R1 District to the City Pr District to permit development of a medical/ dental building. Site fronts approximately 297 feet on the northwest side of Red Hill Avenue, and approximately 300 feet on the northeast side of Irvine Boulevard. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 533 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 3, MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER CORPORATION PROPERTIES. The establishment of a specific plan for a 34 acre parcel with lots and street layout to create and serve an industrial park. Said plan provides for 15 interior cul-de-sacs serving interior lots, and rail spur lines. Subject property is located on the westerly --- side of Red Hill Avenue bounded by Valencia Avenue to the north, Bell Avenue to the South, and the railroad line to the west. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 534 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED, RELATIVE TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR ZONE BOUNDARY WALLS. An amendment to Section 5.11(c), ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157, as amended, by the addition of a section that would authorize waiver or modification of perimeter zone wall require- ments. At-the request of the Mayor, the Clerk read the titles of Ordinances 531,532, 533, and 534. IX. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 71-72 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ESTABLISHING FEES FOR ~.. NON-CRIMINAL FINGERPRINTING. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 71-73 .A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 71-70 AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CITY PARK AT FIRST STREET BETWEEN "B" AND "C" STREETS. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 71-74 [See next page.) Council Minutes 11/15/71 ..P~ge 11 3. RESOLUTION NO. 71-74 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, PETITIONING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATION FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF A CIVIC CENTER AND COUNTY LIBRARY. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 71-75 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, MAKING FINDINGS ON PETITION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS AND INSTRUCTING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS TO PROCEED WITH THE STEPS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN STREET IMPROVE- MENTS. At the request of the Mayor, the Clerk read the titles of Resolutions 71-72, 71-73, 71-74, and 71-75. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that further reading be waived and Rasotutions 71-72, 71-73, 71-74, and 71-75 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, O~ter. Noes: none. Absent: none. OLD BUSINESS 1. CHAPTER 27 PROJECT 71-2 CONSTRUCTION OF ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS FROM NEWPORT AVENUE TO ORANGE AVENUE BETWEEN LAGUNA ROAD AND BONITA STREET - Continued closed from 11/1/71. Mr. Frank Greinke stated that the alley is serving its function now and that improvement would make it a speed trap and parking problem, which could not be alleviated by posting signs in the area. Councilman L. Miller agreed, stating that he had looked at the alley and concluded that safety hazards would offset any possible benefits to the City. Mayor Coco said he hoped that the Staff would take care of correcting any speed problems that might result from this alley improvement. Moved by Marsters, seconded by C. Miller that the Superintendent of Streets proceed under provisions of Chapter 27. Carried hy 4-1 vote, Councilman L. Miller voting no. At the Mayor's request, the Clerk read the title to Resolution No. 71-68. Moved by Marsters, seconded by C. Miller that further reading be waived and Resolution No. 71-68, ORDERING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF MISSION IMPROVE- MENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 27 OF THE "IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911" (PROJECT 71-2), be passed and adopted. 11/15/71 Page 12 Mr. Greinke thanked the Council for fully con- sidering this matter, but felt that if the City desires to improve the alley, it should also light it. Mayor Coco stated that the City would work with ~itizens on this. Above motion carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. 2. SLIDE PRESENTATION - ON/SITE PARKING ACCOMMODATIONS Mr. Fleagle introduced Mr. Gared Smith of Costa Mesa, after explaining that Mr. Smith's' presentation was a determining factor in the Planning Commission's recommendation to table without further hearing an ordinance requiring enclosed garages in multi-family developments. Mr. Smith showed slides of various developments illustrating the use of carports and garages, and the desirability of carports in these developments for purposes of aesthetics, fire safety, and utilization for purposes of off- street parking, rather than storage. XI. NEW BUSINESS None. XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. PARK SITES a. First and "C" Street Site It was the consensus of the Council that the City should not pay the $1,500 cost of the Elementary School District's re-appraisal of this site, as had been requested by the School District staff. b. Fourth and Prospect Site City Attorney to negotiate with McCalla attorneys concerning acquisition of the McCalla property for use as a park site. The matter of purchase of the Smith property deferred pending outcome of City Attorney's discussions with McCalla attorneys. 2. TUSTIN TILLER DAYS The Tustin Jaycees and Tustin Tiller Days, Inc. to be notified to appear at the January 17, 1972, Council meeting for the purpose of submitting proposals for 1972 Tiller Days. 3. CHAPEL OPEN HOUSE Councilman C. Miller invited Council and Staff to tour the new Latter Day Saints Chapel on San Juan between Red Hill and Browning on Saturday, November 20, from 3:00 to6:00 p.m. Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 13 4. RESOLUTION NO. 71~78 Councilman C. Miller proposed adoption of a resolution requesting postponement of establish- ment of new open ocean discharge requirements until completion in October, 1972, of the Southern California Coastal Research Project study, as recommended by the County Sanitation Districts Joint Boards of Directors. Proposed requirements would involve major capital and operational expenditures which would result in substantial increases in the cost of service provided by the Orange County Sanitation Districts. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution No. 71-78, REQUESTING THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD TO POSTPONE DECISIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED STATE POLICY FOR DISCHARGE TO OPEN OCEAN WATERS UNTIL THE CON- CLUSION OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WATER RESEARCH PROJECT STUDIES, be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Title of Resolution No. 71-78 read by the Clerk. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution No. 71-78 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: . none. Absent: none. 5. UP 71-369 - HESTER DEVELOPMENT CounCilman L. Miller expressed concern about the Enderle/Hester 134-unit condominium recently approved by the Planning Commission (UP 71-369), stating that the zoning for multiple was originally contingent on plans for a high quality shopping center. He-opposed permits to build without an overall plan, and sought the Council's support of this position. Mr. Fleagle explained that the Planning Commission did approve a 134-unit condominium at 13.6 d.u./ ~acre, which. is a reduction from the Council-approved 21 d.u./acre, with the same criteria that the Council set when the matter was last appealed, involving essentially approval of a circulation plan to serve the commercial prior to development of the R-3 portion. At this point in time, the optionee of the commercial property has said that the road system was acceptable and development could occur within its framework, that tenants have been lined up for the center, and submittal of the joint development plan showing the circulation system should be forthcoming. Mr. Rourke, replying to questions, stated that the Council has the right to appeal the conditional use permit granted by the Planning Commission. Councilman L. Miller stated that he was more concerned With the quality of the commercial development than with the circulation plant and that since the matter would not automatically come before the Council for approval, he favored a "strong suggestion"to the Planning Commission that no circulation plan be approved until ultimate plans for the entire plot are submitted to the Planning Commission as wellas Council Minutes 11/15/71 Page 14 to the Council. He felt that the project has been downgraded since its inception. Mr. Rourke stated that a use=permit subject to conditions has been granted, and that the Council cannot now inject itself into this to try to divest the Planning Commission of its jurisdiction in so doing. Moved b~ Oster, seconded by C. Miller that this matter be brought befOre the Council on appeal. Carried unanimously. Mayor Coco, in lcommenting onMr. Miller's remarks, noted2also that progress has~b~en made in such areas as lowering the density of the multiple, achieving a more rational alignment of Yorba Street, and reaching some sort of accord with residents of Enderle Gardens. XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Council, Mayor Coco declared the meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.