Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1971 07 19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL July 19, 1971 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by o Mayor pro tem C. Miller. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor pro tem C. Miller III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman Marsters. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Absent: Councilmen: Coco. Others present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe Asst. Planning Director Pat Brown Mayor pro tem c. Miller announced that two items would be taken out of order. The first c0~cerns the Walnut Avenue drain, the second will be the matter of Tiller Days, which is scheduled as Old Business No. 2. 1. WALNUT AVENUE DRAIN Mr. Gill explained that there had been brought to the City's attention a condition of great concern to residents of Tract 6484 north of Walnut Avenue, that being a six-foot wide open drainage channel abutting the tract and flowing from an apartment area to the north (in County area) to Walnut Avenue. The matter has been before the Planning Commission and the Development Preview Commission, with no way apparent that the drain could be boxed under- ground under the new development coming in, or the development by Standard Pacific two or three years ago. After Staff-contact with the apartment owner, the property owners in Tract 6484, and the County, it appears that the best solution would be to create an easement rather than a separate parcel, to give the property to existing homeowners in the area, and adopt Chapter 27 action, which would re- sult in participation by the property owners. The apartment owner has agreed to contribute $2500. Discussions are still underway with the County as to whether they would participate. The situation was caused by the County permitting open drainage and would not have been permitted in the City of Tustin. Mosquito Abatement District has been in- volved in this, but their activity has been limited to contacts pertinent to mosquito control, and not to abatement of an eyesore or a hazard to children, etc. Mr. Gill said that he and the City Engineer have spoken with Mr. Schaumberg and feel that the only solution has'been reached, With the exception' ~hat the homes are under contract sale rather than fee title, and this would necessitate the signature of the petition for Chapter 27 by Standard Pacific. Mr. Gill went on to explain that cost estimates are $8000 to build the drain, resulting in about a $700 cost per property owner which could be Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 2 spread over a ten-year period. The Staff has as- sured the property owners that if the'cost should be excessive, the Council would reject the ~ids and not impose Chapter 27 action. They would be willing to participate only with that assurance. Mr. Gary Schaumberg, 14412 Silverbrook Drive, Tustin, offered a brief historical sketch of the situatio~ from the homeowners' point of view. Approximately three years ago, home buyers were assured that the!drain would be put underground. They have since faced problems of mosquitoes, odor, children playing in it, and having to clean it themselves. The petition was inaugura- ted because it appeared to be the only solution. He was told by City Staff that there is no legal way that they can do anything about it. There has been no response from the County about their participation. The 14-acre complex is owned by a Beverly Hills attorney, and the homeowners are not in a position to contend with him on this. They feel that spending their own money is the only way to solve the problem and he and his neighbors are willing to pay $70 per year for the next ten years, thereby assuming 69% of the financial cost --for a drain which does not serve them in any way. His neighbors have requested that he not turn over the petition to the City Council without assurance that the cost will not exceed $70 per year per owner. If it appears that this amount will be exceeded, they will seek another solution. Mr. Rourke said that alternatives could be that the City Council could commit itself to advising the homeowners that their cost would not exceed $70 per year, and that would mean that if the bids came in for an amount in excess of that, the City would either be obliged to pay for the excess cost, or could elect not to proceed with the project. Mr. Ronald Foell~of Standard Pacific, 1565 West MacArthur, Costa .Mesa, said they had developed Tract 6484 and were the fee owners of many of the lots in the development, since the homes were sold on contracts of ~ale. He agreed with Mr. Gill that the problem was created by the County. The drain was there m~any years before Standard Pacific came on the scene, and there was no way to put it underground because there weren't any subsurface drains in the arena, Standard Pacific put in $54,000 in subsurface drains on Walnut and Browning. This cost was absorbedZby homeowners who paid approxi- mately $375 per lot. He felt that the burden was being unfairly imposed on the eight homeowners i~- volved because the eight lots comprise about two acres~ while the ~partment project creating the runoff is about 1z~ acres; this means owners of 1/7 of the property will bear 2/3 of the cost, even though they have already paid a large portion for the underground d,~ainage system on Walnut Avenue. Additionally, he Raid, the assessed valuation of the apartments i~ at least $900,000 and that of the homes is not ~n excess of $60,000-- a 15-1 differential. Mr. Foell s~id t~at these lands were annexed to Tustin against t~e wishes of the landowners and homeowners, and ~e City therefore should "give Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 3 something in return". He suggested that the homeowners' assessment be limited to ~ nominal amount and the City either collect fr6m the apart- ment owner or pay a more generous portion. The position of Standard Pacific as fee owners is that they will go along with whatever the home- owners want to do. In response to questioning, Mr. Rourke said that -- if a majority of the owners according to the as- sessed valuation protest it, the City cannot pro- ceed. The petition can be submitted to owners of the other tract, or to the apartment house owner, or both, but if there is a majority that will not go along with it, there is no way to proceed. There is no other way that he is aware of to force the apartment house owner to pay for it. The County could have required a different arrangement when they approved the development, but he did not think that eveh the County could do anything about it now. Mr. Gill explained that the drain abuts fencing of the existing development, and part of. the cond- ition of the new tract development six feet away would be construction of a six-foot block wall. The result would be to allow the property which would be the surface of the drain to revert to those ownerships that would be participating Under Chapter 27; and this would resolve the wall problem, so that there would be only one concrete block wall between the rear yards of the two tracts. In response to Mr. Foell's remarks, Mr. Gill said that the Walnut Annexation had majority approval, but he did not know whether or not these people were residing there at that time. Mayor pro tem c. Miller said that about two years ago, one of the people living on Silverbrook told him about this problem, and he had followed up on it with the MosqUito Abatement District and found that their legal powers and mechanisms are such that they can require an apartment house owner, after publishing for hearing and holding a hearing, to come out and abate the nuisance (clean out the drain) once, and when the situation recurs, the whole hearing process must be repeated. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Chapter 27 action be initiated, with the provision that assessment for any one homeowner will not exceed $700 over a ten-year period, or a m~.ximum of S70 per year. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Resolution__ No. 71-39, (to include provision stated in above motion), MAKING FINDINGS ON PETITION AND RECOMMEND- ATIONS OF SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS AND INSTRUCTING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS TO PROCEED WITH THE STEPS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES, be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Mayor Coco absent. Resolution title read by clerk. Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 4 Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by Oster, that Resolution No. 71-39 be passed and adqpte~. Mr. Gill, in response to a question by Councilman Marsters, said that the first step would be- adoption of this Resolution, that the City cannot proceed without the signature of Standard Pacific, and that the Staff has made a commitment; unless the deposit is received from the apartment owner, the City could not proceed. Neither the City nor the County has control over the apartment owner, who would be deeding property through the City to the property owners plus the $2500 contribution. Mr. Gill felt that this would be about all the cooperation that-~could be expected from the apart- ment owner. Above motion to adopt ResolutiOn 71-39 carriea by roll call vote. Ayes: C.. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: Mayor Coco. OLD BUSINESS 2. TUSTIN TILLER DAYS (Taken out of order) Mayor pro tem C. Miller announced that communi- cations had been received from the Tustin jaycees and from Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., and invited comments from the Council. Councilman Oster asked for clarification of the situation leading to the emergence again of Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., as a possible promoter of Tiller Days. Mr. Steve Hubbent, 14132 Lambeth Way, Tustin, stated that when TTD, Inc., first approached the City Council in ~une, they were informed that a prior commitment zhad been made to the Jaycees. In a letter dated June 28, TTD, Inc., expressed recognition of the Jaycees as promoter in view of the Council's verbal commitment. They were subsequently told that this was not the case. Mayor Coco, in two conversations with him, urged TTD, Inc. to contvinue with the project, until a commitment was ma~e, and present the Council with an account of their progress. He said that they have just learned from the Jay- cees that they now plan to extend the Tiller Days activities, which~was favored and initially pro- posed by TTD, Inc~. Mr. Andrew Callanan, 1610 Mabury, Santa Ana, of TuStin Tiller Dayb, Inc., explained that TTD, Inc., go~ back into the~running for the purpose of ex- panding the Tiller Days activities. He said that his organization,cwhen handling the parade, had sent out applicatk0ns xn March; the Jaycees have not yet sent out any applications. Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., would~still like to organize the celebration. ~ Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 5 Mr. Mike Mahoney of the Tustin Jaycees stated that their program has been revised, and asked that $2000 be funded to them, which may not be ~ntirely used. Any proceeds from Tiller Days will be applied to reimbursement of the City for the $2000. Proceeds of the gate of the carnival would also be given to the City with any amount in excess of $2000 to be put in a trust fund for next year. Mr. Mahoney contended that some statements contained in Mayor Coco's July 13 memo were assumptions based, under- standably, on a lack of communication from the -Jay~ees concerning their progress. Contacts had been made prior to school vacations. Councilman Marsters inquired as to what was pre- venting the two groups from working together on this. Mr. Hubbert stated that Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., had approached the Jaycees twice and were turned down, for unexplained reasons. He was happy to see that Tiller Day activities were to be expanded. TTD, Inc., would still be willing to work. with the Jaycees. Mr. Jim Kocos, 14203 Heatherfield, Tustin, presi- dent of the Jaycees, explained that it was impos- sible to work out the financial arrangements, which eliminates the possibility of any co-sponsor- ship this year. The Jaycees had never told the TTD, Inc., people that they could not participate in the activities, however. There is room for their involvement in weekly activities. Moved by Oster, seconded by Marsters that the City appropriate funds not to exceed $2000 to the Jaycees for the purpose of the Tiller Day parade; that all payments be by means of City voucher, and where necessary, bids be obtained; that the City Council make no commitment for Tiller Days next year or create any trust fund on behalf of the Jaycees for Tiller Days next year; that accounting be made to the City for the the pur- pose of obtaining reimbursement of the amount expended by the City to the Jaycees; that we urge the cooperation of Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., and the Tustin Jaycees; and that next year the proposals come in to us some time in January from Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., the Tustin Jaycees, or from anyone else who may want to do it; that no commitment should be made by the Jaycees for next year's Tiller Days based on the City's appropria- tion to them this year. Carried unanimously. Mayor Coco absent.~ Mmy~or p_~o tem C. Miller said he was encouraged the s~fr'~of cooperation which apparently has developed 5etween the two groups, and hoped that thejaycees would avail themselves of help from Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., and that Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., will help where needed. ~ ~-~ Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PZ-71-127 PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED (FORD-KVIDT) Request for a prezone change from the Orange County ~-A (Professional Administrative) Dis- 35 trict to the City of Tustin Pr (ProfessiOnal) District. Site fronts approximately 100 feet on the southeast side of Red Hill Avenue and. ap- proximately 140 feet on the northeast side of Mitchell. Mr. Brown briefly described the location and the nature of the prezone request. Mayor pro tem C. Miller opened the public portion of the hearinga~!8:15 p.m. ~here being no comments or objections, he" closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilman Oster asked about the size of'this piece of property, expr'essing concern that a parking variance may be necessitated on such a small parcel. Mr. Brown stated that the site encompasses about 14,000 sq. ft., of which about 1,600 sq. ft. is occupied by the existing structure which Mr, Kvidt intends to convert to a real estate office. Under Pr zoning, the required parking ratio is one car/ 300 sq. ft., or approximately five parking spaces on this parcel. He added that under County zoning, the parking requirements would be stricter, one car/250 sq. ft., Or about six parking spaces. In response to Councilman Marsters, Mr. Brown added that the Tustin Area General Plan calls for com- mercial uses along Red Hill Avenue, and a real estate office would fall into this category. Mr. Gill explained that this is a prezoning action, and the annexation, which has not yet gone before LAFCO, was held up due to some concern by one property owner in the area that would be part of the proposed annexation. The City will be proceed- ing with the annexation, which potentially will involve property ~11 along Red Hill Avenue from Nisson to Mitchell, including three other single- family residences. Unless this could be accomplished it would not make-sense to the City to annex this particular parcel itself. In response to Councilman Marsters, Mr. Brown stated that the P~anning Commission had been made aware of the annexation situation at the time of their deliberation on this prezone. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by L. Miller that PZ-71-127 be appr~ved and the City Attorney directed to draft the necesjsary Ordinance. Carried unanimously. May~r Coco absent. 2. PZ-71-129 PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED (ORANGE COAST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) Request to p~ezone subject property, located on the northqasterly side of San Juan Street, Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 7 from the County R-4 (Suburban Residential) District to the City of Tustin P~-R-3 2000 (Planned Community, Multiple-Family, 2000 square feet of l~nd area per unit) District. Mr. Brown summarized background of this prezone request as reflected in staff reports. Mayor pro tem C. M~ller opened the public portion ' of the hearing at 8:23 p.m. Mr..Nelson Baker, 1252 Andrews, Tustin, stated that he lives north of the area in question. in a tract called Tustin Terrace, and would informally represent the Tustin Terrace residents in voicing objections at this meeting. They oppose any in- crease in density for the following reasons: a. It would exceed densities. of all areas which are adjacent to Tustin Terrace. b. A precedent had been set by the denial by the Orange County Planning Commission of a request in 1968 by the owners of the Smoke Tree Apartments on San Juan for a density increase, following recommendations by the Tustin Planning Department and Planning Commission that the request be denied. c. Approval would encourage owner of Smoke Tree Apartments to apply for reconsideration of the above noted request. __ d. Construction of forty two-bedroom apartments and ten three-bedroom apartments, as proposed, would have a detrimental effect on Tustin Terrace property values. e. Increased density would result in increased pollution from the numberof people and autos, noise, and the influx of school-age children. f. Increased density would create a situation intolerable from the standpoint of traffic safety and noise. The residents also object to two-story construction, for esthetic reasons primarily. At this time, Mr. Baker presented to the Council letters from several Tustin Terrace homeowners, and three photos of the proposed construction area as viewed from Andrews Street. Approximately twenty to thirty people from the audience responded to Mr. Bake~'s request for a show of hands by those from the area who were opposed to the prezoning. __ Mr. Robert Hall, 17452 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, represented the landowner and the developer, to whom he had recommended the ~rezone and annexa- tion route for this project. He submitted to members of the Council copies of County zoning maps to illustrate that development along San Juan has been more dense than what is being proposed now. He said that the high school football field across the street and the elementary school to the east have heavy impact on the property. He cited examples of higher densities in the San Juan area, Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 8 and said that only five or six homes direfully abut this project, which adjoins them only from the rear property line. The buildinqs will be set back some distance from the homes, with no windows in the walls facing Tustin Terrace. Mr. Joh~ Siegel,.515 East First Street, Tustin, read his July 15, 1971,'letter stating that the project and the location were ideally suited and that the Orange Coast Contruction Company's con- cept differed from his in the distance from the living units to ~he rear property line, and that the density was essentially the same; in view of this, the real q~estion to be considered is what would be the better'final product. Should the development proceed under the City's controls, or under County standards--either way,-the prop- erty will-be developed. He felt that development within the City of Tustin was preferable,and requested that the City Council approve the project. Mr. William F. R~ed, Architect, 160 Centennial Way, Tustin, sta%ed.that adequate landscaping and ~uffering would be provided, and that the pool in the center of the development would be 150 feet from the rear property line. He said that a variance could'easily be obtained through the County for 2000 sq. ft./unit, that the design was a good one, With a good deal of consideration given to the property owners along the rear prop- erty line. In response to Councilman Oster, Mr. Reed stated that~'the initial groundwork was made with the County, but it was since decided that it would be best to.tgo with the City. Mr. Baker denied it would be simple to obtain a variance 'from the County without input from the property owners, and again protested higher density as source of transient residency which would de- grade the area. He resented the inplication that the project would proceed one way or the other, regardless of residents' concern. Mr. Greg Kimberl~, 1272 Andrews, Tustin, stated that the request to the County of Orange of the Smoke Tree Apartreents for an increase to 2570 sq. ft./unit had ~een turned down, and therefore it might not be so easy for Orange Coast Construc- tion to succeed through the County. Mr. Siegel stated that the property will be developed; he would like to continue farming on the land, but it ~s impractical to do so. Mrs. Marguerite Chastain, 13631 Charloma, Tustin, denied that there is any demand in this area for family units, and: that there is an overcrowding problem in the schools now. She favored an "adults only" and/or one-story apartment develop- ment. Mr. Hall contende'd that 2000 sq. ft./unit is not unreasonable adjacent to a residential area. There being no f~rther comments or objections, Mayor _pro tem C. IMiller closed the public portion of the hearing a~ 8:55 p.m. Council Minutcs 7/19/71 Page 9 Councilman Oster stated that the City Council should go along with the residents opposing in- creased density in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, although denial by the - Council would result in development under County standards without the City's architec tural~on- trols. If, however, the residents primarily object to the two-story concept, rather than density, perhaps something could be worked out with the developer. He did feel, though, that the increase in density is incompatible with the surrounding area. Moved by Oster, seconded by Marsters that the decision of the Planning COmmission to deny PZ-71-129 be upheld. Councilman Marsters suggested that perhaps the developer and residents could work together on this and arrive at a mutuall~ agreeable solution on density, etc. Councilman L. Miller agreed, and said that this will definitely go to multiple density and also two-story. In response to a question by Councilman L. Miller, Mr. Earl E. Clayton, 2909 South Halladay, Santa Ana, representing Orange Coast Construction Com- pany, stated that continuance of the hearing would be agreeable to them. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that the public hearing be continued to an open session at the next regular CounCil meeting.. In response to the Mayor pro tem, Mr. Baker said that he felt assured that the residents would be in sympathy with the idea of seeking a compromise, and would be willing to meet with the architect or builder on it. Mayor pro tem C. Miller explained that as the situation stands, the developer can build apart- ments two stories high wherever he may want to on the property, with a density of one unit for 3000 sq. ft. of land. The Council's options are to bring this into the City and exchange higher density for an element of control over where the two-story units, if any, would go; or the develop- er may choose to seek a zone change through the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. If density is of primary concern, he would agree with the Tustin Planning Commission's denial. If two-story is the main area of concern, he would be in favor of approving the prezone in order to im- pose some control over where the two-story will go. He favored a continuance of the hearing onl.y if it would result in a better understanding of what the c~ucial issue is. Councilman L. Miller asked that copies of this agenda material be supplied to both groups. Mr. Kin~e~ly stated that he was more opposed to two-story than to increased density, and felt that continuing the hearing weuld be worthwhile if a compromise could be reached. Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 10 Above motion to continue hearing carried unanimously. Mayor Coco absent. : Councilman Marsters requested that the Council be provided copies of any correspondence from the Council and P~anning Commission to the County of Orange relative to zone changes or increasing ..-- density in the San Juan area.. Mayor pro tem C. Miller declared a brief recess at 9:15 p.m. The meeting reconVened at 9:20 p.m. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 6, 1971 meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in~amoun~ Of $87,719.11 3. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Project I - Red Hill Avenue Project II - Centennial Way Project III- Prospect Avenue AcceptanCe of work and authorization of pay- ment of $14,622.04 (90% of contract), assuming no liens or claims remaining, 10% to be paid in 35 days - as recommended by the City Engineer. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Consent Calendar items l, 2 and 3 be approved. ._ Carried unanimously. VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 511 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, Calif- ornia, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED, RELATIVE TO DEFINITION OF DAY NURSERIES, NURSERY SCHOOLS AND DAY CARE HOMES CHILDREN. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 512 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY, DESIGNATED "MEREDITH ANNEXATION NO. 69" TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA. Ordinance titles read by clerk. Moved by Marsters,~ seconded by L. Miller that --- Ordinances 511 and 512 be adopted. Carried. Ayes: C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. NOes: none. Abspnt: Mayor Coco. VIII. ORDINANCES ~ FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO, 513 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, Calif- ornia, REZONING PROPERTY ON APPLCIATION.NO. Z.C. 71-225 OF ALPINE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP- MENT COMPANY. Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page ll Rezoning property on the south side of Irvine Boulevard, between "B" S~reet and Prospect Avenue, from the E-4 to the Er District. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 514 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, Calif- ornia, AMENDING SECTION 2-28 OF THE TUSTIN ' CITY CODE RELATIVE TO RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT FOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR. Ordinance titles read by clerk at the request of the Mayor pro tem. IX. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 71-38 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, COMMENDING DONALD B. CHRISTESON. Moved by Marsters, seconded by ester that Resolution No. 71-38 be read by title obey.. Carried unanimously. Mayor Coco absent. Resolution title read by clerk. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution No. 71-38 be passed ann adopted. Carried. Ayes: ~?~iller, Marsters, L. Miller, ~ster. Noes: none. Absent: Mayor Coco. The Council requested that this Resolution, and future resolutions of this type, bear the sig- natures of all the Councilmen. The Staff was directed to determine the type of vacancy ("developer" or "at large") formed by Christeson's resignation, and relay this informa- tion to the newspapers in 6rder~that they might publicize the vacancy on the Development Preview Commission and invite applications to fill it. X~ OLD BUSINESS 1. ALLEY NORTH OF LAGUNA ROAD BETWEEN NEWPORT AVENUE AND ORANGE AVENUE - CHAPTER 27 ACTION. Moved by Oster, seconded by Marsters that the Superintendent of Streets be instructed to pro- ceed with the steps necessary to have asphalt pavement constructed pursuant to the provisions of Section 5876, Chapter 27, Part 3, Division 7 of the California Streets and Highways Code (to include engineering and overhead costs) at the following location: That certain public alley 20-foot in width running from Newport Avenue to Orange Street and located between Laguna Road and Bonita Street. Above motion carried unanimously. Mayor Coco absent. 2. TUSTIN TILLER DAYS This item discussed out of order. See page 4. Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 12 XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. CONFIRMATION OF-WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES Moved by L. Mil. ler, s~conded by Os~e~ that all weed abatement charges for the fiscal year 1970-71, as specifiedF be confirmed. PARCEL AMOUNT 14-301-13 $152.95 432-073-02 60.38 62-100-09 67.28 62-263-05 44.85 Tract 4974, Lot 32 22.71 Tract' 4237, Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, and No. Sec. of 9 310.50 Carried unanimously. Mayor Coco absent. 2. REQUEST FOR ACCESS FROM TUSTIN MEADOWS TO RED HILL AVENUE ACROSS FLOOD CONTROL PROPERTY. Councilman L. Miller announced that he would abstain from voting in this matter. mayor pro tem C. Miller announced that Mrs. Peter Skintek had submitted to the Council this evening letters from four of their neighbors in support of the Skinteks' request, and some photos of the area in question. Mr. Gill briefly outlined the circumstances in- volved. In response to Councilman Oster, Mr. Rourke said he thought that the City had approved the declara- tion of covenantS, conditions, and restrictions, and that it would be improper to approve anything contrary to those. Mr. Oster noted that in the "Nitty Gritty", Vol. 5, 1970, a copy of which had been presented to him by Mr. Skintek, "it, was unanimously approved that approval will begiven to Mr. Peter Skintek for the storage of his backhoe unit in his yard, given that he remove such unit from his truck each night and shield it wi~h large landscaping, and paint out the gates to match the rest of the perimeter fence in color...", apparently an action of the Board of the Tustin Meadows Homeowners Association. He assumed that this would have to be approved by the required number ~f persons under the CC & R's. Mr. Rourke agree~. Mr. Gill stated That this would also require ap- proval by the Board of Supervisors upon recommenda- tion by the Orange County Flood COntrol District, and that the R-1;zoning ~mposes restrictions on storage of vehioles. Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 13 In response ~o questioning, Mr, Peter Skintek, 14941 Braeburn Road, Tustin, said tha~ they were told by the salesman for the Grant Company there would be no restrictions by the Tustin Meadows or by the City on his use of this means of access to Red Hill Avenue or construction of a gate in the perimeter wall. He denied that there was any hazard posed by backing out onto Red Hill Avenue. Mr. Brown, referring to Mr. Gill~s remarks, stated that Tustin Mead6ws came into the City under PC single-family residential, and only accessory uses normal to a single-family structure were permitted; storage of heavy equipment is not. Under PC con- cept, when the precise plans are approved, all uses within that particular area should be. specified on that plan, and this was not. As a part of the PC zoning action, the block wall was required and it was nowhere indicated that a gate could replace any portion of the block wall. A variance or an amendment to the original ordinance establishing zoning on this property may be necessary. - Mr. Rourke stated that storage of equipment like this is not permitted under the zoning of that property. In answer to questioning, Mr. Skintek said that it ,is not practical to store the equipment elsewhere. Mr. Gill pointed out that several City codes have been violated, including demolition of a wall with- out a permit, storage of equipment on residential property, and access without permission~of Flood Control property. Attempts have been made to work it out without any overt action on the part of the City for about a year and a half. Certain City laws must be clarified, and the possibility of setting a precedent must be considered. Councilman Oster suggested that the Staff and City Attorney furnish the Council a legal opinion as to whether the Zoning Ordinance would permit this use and whether the CC & R's set up on the property would permit the use, and opinion as to what steps should be taken and what precedents would be set should the Council wish to approve this. In response to questioning, Mr. Rourke stated that he thought that it would be clearly illegal for the Council to request the Flood Control District to remove the chain link fence temporarily pending final disposition of the matter by the City Council. Mr. Gill suggested that a temporary solution may lie in Mr. Skintek's continuing to park the vehicle on the~Flood Control property. XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. FIRST AND "C" STREET PARK SITE Staff directed to prepare a schedule of park development program to be presented to the Council in graphic form. Council Minutes 7/19/71 Page 14 2.' A. B. 1375 - SUBDIVISION MAP ACT REVISION It was the consensus of the Council that correspond- ence be d~rected'by.the Staff to Assemblyma~ Badham in support of A. B. 1375. 3. JULY 20 SPECIAL LEAGUE MEETING ~ The Council requested that they be furnished copies of correspondence from Edward Just and/or Winston Updegraff relative to setting up and sub- sequently cancelling the July 20 special meeting of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities. 4. VANDALISM IN CITY PARKS City Administrator to contact the Tustin Meadows Homeowners Association to seek their cooperation to discourage acts of vandalism in Centennial Park. 5. CITY PICNIC Councilman Marsters commended the Staff for their efforts in planning the successful City picnic of July 17 at the Marine Corps Air Station (Helicopter). 6. REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY CLERK Moved by Marsters, seconded b~ L. Miller that the City Clerk be reimbursed for attendance at the June 26 Chamber of Commerce Dinner. Carried unanimously. Mayor Coco absent. 7. JULY 28 LAFCO MEETING It was agreed among the Council that all Councilmen who were able would attend the July 28, 1971, meet- ing of the Local Agency Formation Commission. XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no fdrther business, Mayor pro tem C. Miller declared the meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. ~OR PRO TEM