Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1971 06 21 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL June 21, 1971 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Councilman Marsters. III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman Oster. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Coco, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Absent: Councilman: C. Miller Others Present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke Assistant Planning Director Pat Brown Recording Secretary Kathy Morrison V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP-71-263 - APPEAL Appeal of the Hester Development Company on the decision of the Planning Commission deny- ing Use Permit AppLication No. 71-362 to construct a 198 unit apartment complex on the 9.83 acre parcel located on the east side of Yorba Street approximately 737 feet south- erly of Seventeenth Street, extending easter- ly approximately 1161 feet. Mr. Brown summarized the background of this appeal as reflected in Staff reports. Ma~or Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Leonard Hampel, Attorney, of the law firm of Rutan and Tucker, 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, represented Hester Development. He asked the Council to judge this development on its own merits; the Planning Commission denial was based on the lack of a development plan for the entire 42 acres. The property is no longer under the control of one individual. This plan is con- sistent with the only development plan which has ever been presented to and approved by the Council, and meets all requirements of the PC-R-3 zoning. It is basically an unfair and invalid condition to require one property owner to postpone develop- ment until the adjacent property owners (of the Doty and Jones properties) ag.ree to develop with him as a unit; that imposes a condition that Hester Development Co., on the Harriet Enderle parcel, cannot meet. He called for an opinion from the City Attorney concerning the Issue of whether or not the development can be denied simply because it is not being developed along with the other 32 acres. Councilmen Oster and Marsters advised Mr. Rourke that they would not require an opinion at this time, although it may be called for later. Mr. Hampel repeated his request that t~is plan be considered on its own merits. He stated that the other property owners had been con- sulted and felt no need for access to their parcels from the parcel in question. He was told by Mr. Mike Fizzolio of the M. J. Brock Co. .-- in Los Angeles, a contractor dealing with the -. Doty parcel, that they would not require access across the Enderle property from Yorba to their future commercial.development on Seventeenth. Mr. Fizzolio was unable to attend this meeting, but had agreed to write a letter confirming this; this letter had not yet been received. Mr. Fizzolio had offeredno timetable for development and did not represent that hetwas in control of the other prop- erties. Mr. Jim Gianulias, 2711 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, of Hester Development Co., introduced Mr. Emil Benes, Architect, of the firm of Morris and Lohrbach, 18121 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, who designed the project. Through the use of slides, Mr. Benes displayed several elevations and pointed out various features of the project as he spoke'. He explained that, in keeping with restrictions of the PC-R-3 zoning, an "inward-oriented" (i.e., not looking out on adjacent properties) design has been accomplished'by a perimeter circulation system planned as a "street" rather than a series of car- ports. The landscaped drive will create front yards for units facing it, and the five-foot distance from the back of the carports to a 6'8" concrete wall is to be screen-planted with trees, etc. This concept will be carried through on the northerly boundary, as well as on the!critical--to adjacent property owners--southerly ,boundary. The maximum 100-foot distance from the southerly boundaries to the one- story structures has been maintained through a combination one- and two-story building with the one-story portion ~t the 100-foot line. This was felt to provide a ]"happy blending" of the one- and two-story concept,~ and a means of retaining the residential character of the area. He pointed out that the view from Yorba is meant to be "non- apartment-looking'! to play down the appearance of a large apartment complex in that area, and the project therefore is compatible with its neighbors. In response to Councilmen's questions, Mr. Benes explained that the one-story roofline is a little higher than that Of the typical one-story structure in order to blend the one- and two-story buildings satisfactorily, an~ that separate buildings would be less desirable ~architecturally, inasmuch as too ,.. many buildings degrade the cohesive quality of the complex. Mr. Ralph Yeaman,'14242 Acacia Drive, Tustin, stated that Enderle Gardens people don't want a 198-unit apartment complex with accompanying high density, especially two-story apartments. This project would result in a~ influx of about 400 people and 300 cars, compounding problems of traffic congestion at Yorba and Severfceenth Streets. They had approved French's development plans only because he met the criteria of putting only one-story structures 100 feet from the property line. As this zoning was originally condit~nal PC~R-3, based on the French Council Minutes 6/21/71 Page 3 plan, it could revert to previous zoning since the conditions have not been met. He said that the development's occupants will be "transients" lacking civic pride and a concern for maintenance of the property. He cited problems of "garbage disposal" --the possible location of dumpsters in open spaces between garages; the vacancy rate in Orange County and Tustin at present, although apartments of the type and quality of Tree Haven are desirable based on the lack of transient tenancy. Mayor Coco asked Mr. Yeaman to clarify the Enderle Gardens' residents' objections to two-story. Mr. Yeaman stated that they object to apartments generally, and the accompanying high density. Residents adjacent to the boundary object to two- story near the wall, regardless of whether there are windows facing on their property; they object to the height and the appearance of two-story apartments. He contended that apartments built in Tustin in past years are not adequate reflections of the renderings submitted and approved prior to construction. Mr. Yeaman also objected to the fivesfoot space between garage and wall, which is more likely to become littered with refuse and provides a narrower noise buffer than that provided by a ten-foot space. Mr. Sol Shapiro, 14222 Mimosa Lane, Tustin, agreed with Mr. Yeaman, stating that he had moved to this area for health reasons, and was therefore concerned about the noise factor; a 30-feet wide street would bring the homes closer than 100 feet, and a five-foot buffer would be inadequate. He also objected to his privacy being jeopardized by the presence of two-story apartments. In response to a question by Mr. Harry Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, Mr. Gianulias stated that the "old house" adjacent to the southerly boundary of the proposed development would remain and that Mrs. Enderle in- tended to occupy that house at some date in the future. Mr. Jack de Vries, 17351 Jacaranda, Tustin, stated that that parcel had.been included in French's plans for total development, and both sides of Yorba were to be widened north of Enderle Gardens. He was concerned abOUt the future of this property if not developed with the rest. He agreed with previous speakers' objections to the five-foot distance between garage and wall. In response to Mayor Coco's question, Mr. Brown stated that this parcel south of the development area is zoned R-3 as part of zoning action approved by the Council--part of the original French plans. Mr. Jim Mathias, 14321 Wisteria Lane, Tustin, stated that he was in agreement with previous speakers. Mrs. Harry Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, Tustin, stated that Enderle Gardens is one of the few nice areas left in the City and that it won't remain that way if these apartments, and related high density, are approved. Council Minutes 6/21/71 Page 4 Mr. Gianulias stated that in his meetin~g with Enderle Gardens people at Mr. Yeaman's home, the two-story question did not come up; the four areas of dis- cussion were: the distance from garage to wall at southerly border;~upgrading the block wall to some- thing more decorative, such as slumpstone; bringing the back of carports down so that Enderle Gardens residents could not see into them; and "bumpers" in driveway to prevent speeding. The strong objections to two- story were not voiced at the meeting. Mr. A1 Enderle, 3662 Carmel, Santa Ana, said that at the meeting discussed above, several people told him that they thought this plan to be superior to French's. He sta~ed that a portion of his property had been annexed to the City along with Mr. Vanden- berg's property in order to develop it, and it was felt that the PC zoning would give the Council the control desired, but not to the extent of raising their tax basis without being able to build. The Development Preview Commission had called the plan "excellent". This plan has not only met, but has surpassed, the conditions of the ordinahce. He is seeking assurance that the City will allow some form of development, because if not allowed to build, they would request de-annexation, as that was the basis on. which they came in to the City. He said that "if you satisfy one commission, you come in front of another and they have different ideas. It's almost as if~'one doesn't know what the other is doing." Hester Development is, in his opinion, the best in Orange County and plans to own and operate this complex; French had planned to sell the apartments. He asked that the Council realize the damage this is doing to the Enderles, and back them up. Mr. Shapiro said that he regretted the "five-year haggle" that has gone on. But he had been led to believe at the meeting at Yeaman's house that the height limitation would be 18 feet; now it appears to be 25 feet andswill probably increase. There being no fuZther comments or objections, MaTor Coco closed~the public portion of the hearing at 8:35 p.m., and ~t Councilman Oster's request, declared a ten-minute recess. The meeting recon~ened at 8:50 p.m. Councilman Oster stated that one of the conditions imposed previously by the Council had been coordi- nation and approval of a street system to serve the entire project and provide emergency vehicle access. The Council had been concerned about access to the rear to prevent aI1 the traffic from flowing out onto Yorba, and also about shifting densities. His impressions of th~ present pro]ect were as follows: The project is unimaginative, and the Council's representation to ~French had been that there would be only one-story ~structures, with no peaks along the southerly border. Regarding access and noise, this project would create a 30-feet wide street behind Enderle Gazdens without any curve in it. The "speed bumps" are ~ot effective in discouraging speeding; he would require a curved street similar Also, he would , v i - i Council Minutes 6/21/71 Page 5 a few trees planted, providing a place for refuse and spare auto parts to be deDosited. :Mr. French had promised the City Council an imaginative project that Tustin could be proud of. He said that he could not vote to approve this project standing on its own. He felt that the Hester people could produce a much more imaginative PC-R-3 development than this one. Moved by'Oster, seconded by Marsters that the decision of the Planning Commission to deny UP-71-362 be upheld. Councilman Marsters commented that the area in- volved is unsuitable for this project. The problems experienced in other complexes, such as traffic and speeding, etc., would be experienced here. He was originally against any intrusion of R-3 into this area and was swayed only by the total development concept; he could not approve this as an ~solated project. He cited problems of traffic congestion, high density, vacancy factors, over-crowded schools and police problems. Mayor Coco explained, in answer to several prior references to the Development Preview Commission, that the DPC has to consider whatever comes before them on its own merits, without the background on some of the use permit conditions. They judge something only on the basis of what is before them and not what has gone previously. It is not a matter of one Commission going against another Com- mission. He referred to Mr. Fleagle's letter to the applicant stating that the Development Preview Commission states that "the proposed development as an independent integral of the total area" is satisfactory, making it clear that this was judged only in its own context but that Mr. Fleagle knew it as a part of the total area. Above motion carried unanimously. C. Miller absent. 2. AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED RELATIVE TO "DAY NURSERIES", "NURSERY SCHOOLS", AND "DAY CARE HOMES CHILDREN". Mr. Brown read the background of these proposed amendments, stating that the Planning Commission had unanimously approved the amendments at their May 24, 1971!, meeting. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:05 p.m. Mrs. Eileen March, 1351 Mitchell, Tustinw expressed the desire for conformity of State and City laws relating to day care of children. The main problem involves school-age children of working parentsr who are unsupervised after school hours due to the lack of day care facilities. This condition arises as a .result of Tustin's restriction of "day care mothers" to r~gular care of three children only. This is unduly restrictive in view of the licensing and supervisio~ imposed by the Orange County Department of Social Welfare. Council Minutes 6/21/71 Page 6 Mrs. Evelyn O'Brien of the Orange County Depart- ment of Social Welfare stated that the County has licensed. few day care homes in Tustin due to the City Code limitations; she confirmed that'the Depar.tment strongly controls and su.pervises those engaged in child $are. There being no further comments or objections, Mayor Coco closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:07 p.m. Moved by Marsters; seconded by Oster that the City Attorney be directed to draft the necessary ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 157 relative to Day Nurseries,'Nursery Schools and Day Care Homes Children.. Carried unanimously. C. Miller absent. 3. 1971-72 BUDGET FOR CITY OF TUSTIN Mayor Coco explained that at the workshop of June 14th, the Staff presented to the,City Council a balanced preliminary budge~ for the upcomin~ fiscal year. The Council at that time made deletions and additions, but took no formal action. At Councilman Co Miller's request, no action on the budget will be taken at this meeting, and the public portion of the hearing will be extended to the next Council meeting. The Mayor opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:12 p.m. Mrs. Eileen Gillman, 14082 Charloma, Tustin, inquired about the proposed monthly charge of $2.00 for trash collection which she understood was to be used for employee pay raises. She felt that although pay increases may, be deserved, present economic conditions must be considered. With passage of the park and school bonds, this new charge would be too much. Mayor Coco statedgthat the trash pickup charge would not directly fundsCity salary increases; there is a "wash" inasmuch,as the collection fees would go into the General Fund and salaries come out of the General Fund. Single family residences have not been charged in the past. He stated that revenues must be found, whether by raising the tax' rate or by other means, o~e of which may be a charge for trash pickup. Councilman Oster ~aid that the Council restored to the budget certain prior deletions from Police and Fire Departments amounting to approximately $550000--in the i~terest of adequate Police and Fire Protection. Mrs. Lucille Fiane, 14102 Charloma Drive, Tustin, agreed with Mrs. ~illman that such a charge is not feasible at this ~ime, and could work a hardship on some residentsj Council Minutes 6/21/71 Page 7 Mr. Bill Moses of the Tustin News, 649 .South "B" Street, Tustin, stated his agreement w~th the two previous speakers and recommended that the Council proceed cautiously, citing the prevailing economic situation and the Council's responsibility to tax- payers. He commented favorably on the City Admin- istrator's conservative approach to the budget and consideration of tax receipt expectancies. -- Mr. Steve Hubbert, 14132 Lambeth Way, Tustin, spoke on behalf of Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., a non-profit corporation which in 1966 and 1967 was responsible for the planning and promotion of the Tiller Days events. Mr. Hubbert, Assistant General Chairman of the organization, stated that it has been reorganized and that approval is now being sought for them to direct the 1971 Tiller Days activities, at no cost to the taxpayers. (He presented a list of proposed activities to the Council and ~nterested persons in the audience.) In response to questions, he said that Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., will elect officers in the near future; that there are presently six members and that they intend to recruit from other clubs in the interest of greater community involve- ment; the tentative theme is "Salute to the Motion Picture Industry" and the Motion Picture Producers Association has volunteered ideas, personnel and equipment; sponsors have been arranged for some of the proposed events. Mayor Coco stated that the experience of the Jaycees in planning this for the last two years is valuable, while this proposal is appealing in requiring no City contribution. In the interest of equity and economy, a joint effort by the Jaycees and Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., may be the best solution. Councilman Marsters concurred. Mr. Jim Kocos, Tustin Jaycees President, 14302 Heatherfield Drive, Tustin, cited the Jaycees' experience and their intention of raising funds to help finance this. He felt that the help of Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., would be welcome, but could not make a decision on this without consulting the Jaycees Board of Directors. Mr. Mike Mountain, 13658 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin, a member of the Jaycees, asked whether Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., would be willing to put up a bond to ensure their ability to follow through. He said that the Jaycees have already contacted potential partic- ipants. Councilman Marsters reiterated the idea of both groups working together, and suggested a meeting between the two groups. Mrs. Lee Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, Tustin, stated that Tiller Days had been conducted in the past with the help of a few downtown people, including Stan Radomski and Don Allison. Councilman Oster pointed out that a commitment had already been made to the Jaycees, with an advance of $500 to get things started; but he would like to see Tustin Tiller Days, Inc., involved also. He suggested that a joint proposal, or one from each group, be submitted by Monday, June 28. Council Minutes 6/21/71. Page 8 Mr. Hubbert expressed a willingness to Meet with the Jaycees and denied any intention of excluding them. The committee was motivated by the realiza- tion that the Jaycees' budget request would not be entirely forthcoming due to City budgetary problems, and the desire to see Tiller Days successfully planned in spite Of this. · Mr. Mountain stated that there were hopes that another organization such,as the Moose Lodge would take over the'Mayors Luncheon, for example, and other.organiza- tions could be approached in time to raise money to run other projects, rather than have any projects forfeited due to lack of funds. Mayor Coco cautiohed against competition between the two groups for the help of various service clubs; a spirit of cooperation could be most productive. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that the open hearing on the Budget be continued to the next regular Council meeting. Carried unanimously. C. Miller absent.· ~ayor Coco announced that there will be a Budget Workshop on June 28 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room at City Hall. There will be a Workshop between the Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation Com- mission at 6:00 p,m., immediately preceding the Budget Workshop, to be held in the Council Chambers. ..~ VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 7, 1971 meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $64,170.01 3. AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES Authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreement with the County of Orange for Animal COntrol Services. Moved by L. Mille~, seconded by Oster that items l, 2 and 3 of theI~onsent Calendar be approved~ Carried unanimously. C. Miller absent. VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION None. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR __.INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 510 An Ordinance.of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED, ADOPTING THE EL CAMINO REAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1). Councilman Oster stated that in discussion of this at the previous meeting, it was not intended to en- tirely eliminate $panish motif. He asked that sub- section (g), paragraph 4, be amended to include "and compatible Spanish motif". Council Minutes 6/21/71 Page 9 Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster ~hat O~dinance No. 510 have first re~'ding by title only. Carried unanimously. C. Miller absent. Ordinance title read by clerk. IX. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 71-27 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, Californiar ENDORSING AND URGING COMPLETION OF TRANSFER OF CAMP PENDLETON PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC RECREATION PURPOSES. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 71-29 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, PETITIONING THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO FINANCE THE ADDITIONAL FIRST YEAR COSTS OF SENATE BILL 249 FROM THE CITY'S ESTABLISHED RESERVE FOR PRIOR YEARS SERVICE. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 71-30 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, INFORMING THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE STATUS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 71-31 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE 1970-71 CITY BUDGET. Resolution titles read by clerk. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution No~ 71-27 be continued to the next regular meeting. Carried unanimously. C. Miller absent. Moved by Oster, seconded by Marsters that further reading be waived and that Resolutions 71-29, 71-30 and 71-31 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, Marsters, L. M~ller, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: C. Miller. X. OLD BUSINESS None. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. PROPOSAL FOR SALE OF 1971 PARK BONDS Mr. Gill explained that it would be necessary to engage a financial consultant to aid in the issue of the bonds, and that a proposal had been submitted by Bartle Wells Associates, Municipal Financing Consultants. He said that Mr. Edwin Wells was present in the audience to answer any questions the Council may wish to pose~ Council Minutes .. :"'.~. 6/21/71 Page 10 Councilman Oster stated that he would ~ike to hear from Mr. Wells at this time, and that the matter should then be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Councilman Marsters concurred, Mr. Wells distributed brochures describing the services and qualifications of Bartle Wells -Associates and it~ personnel. He then outlined the backgroundof the firm and went on to describe the proposal submitted to assist in the marketing of Tustin's park bonds, which is based on progress payments, that is, the amount of work completed at certain stages~ This is a practical arrange- ment in the presently uncertain market: performing the work in stages where a deferral of the program is possible if the market should materially worsen. In response to Codncilman L. Mlller, Mr. Wells explained that, upon acceptance of the proposal by the Council, it would be n~ne to ten weeks from the time of notification to the sale date. During this time, the bond maturity schedule will be prepared and the City staff and bonding attorney consulted to set UP the technical aspects of the sale. Possible bidding syndicates are then noti- fiedof the tentative sale date, tentative maturity schedule and principal amount, so that they can prepare their bidding groups. The official statement is then written; this takes at least six weeks. At Councilman Oster's request, Mr. Wells explained the fee schedule, stating that the total fee would be $7,700; the per diem rates are meant to measure the amount of progress payment due for partial com- pletion of the work. X~I. OTHER BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 71-28 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC, INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE, AND ORDERING, THE ACQUISITION BY CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. Mr. Rourke read a.lmemorandum setting forth the following points: a. if financial consultant is employed at 6/21/71 meeting, the ~nticipa~ed date of sale of bonds will be 9/14/71. b. The City should obtain evaluation data on which to base~purchase negotiations. c. On receipt of~this data, purchase negotiations should be iniJ:iated, and escrows entered into where possible contingent on the bond sale. If negotiations are unsuccessful within a reasonable time, the Council should consider either inStitdtion of eminent domain proceed- ings or acquisition of alternate sites. Council Minutes 6/21/71 Page ll d. It is recommended that eminent domain pro- ceedings be initiated on the Bryan and Red Hill parcel designated as a park site, as the subdivider is pushing for a tentative tract map approval for residential lots on the site. Resolution No. 71-28 has been drafted for this purpose. e. The above situation demonstrates the desira- bility of expediting acquisition of park sites before developments occur which increase land values. Mr. Rourke said, however, that continuation of the matter of engaging a financial consultant would delay the bond sale date and thereby affect purchase negotiations by way of an indefinite bond sale date in an uncertain. market and the prospect of ~ncreasing land values. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Coco that Bartle Wells Associates be retained i~ediately on the basis of t~eir proposal. Councilman Oster requested a few days to research the subject of municipal financing prior to making a decision. Mr. Gill suggested adjourning this meeting to Monday, June 28, and t~king action on the pro- posal at that time. It was the consensus of the Council that Bartle Wells Associates' proposal be acted upon at an adjourned meeting on June 28, but that Resolution No. 71-28 be acted upon ~mmediately. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Resolution 71-28 have'first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. C. Miller absent. Resolution title read by ~lerk. Moved by Marstersr seconded by Oster that further reading be waived and that Resolution No. 71-28 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: C. Miller. 2. START AND ACE GRANTS Mr. Gill announced that the budget will be adjusted to reflect these grants. Dan Blankenship, Assistant City Administrator, was commended for his efforts, with cooperation of the Police and Traffic Engineering Departments, to obtain these grants, which will increase the effectiveness of the Police Department. 3. SALES TAX REVENUE--CITY ADMINISTRATOR No action required. Council Minutes 6/21/71 Page 12 4. CHANGE IN. POLICE UNIFORMS Mr. Gill stated that the change to navy blue Police uniforms, effective July 1, 1971, will distinguish the City's officers from those of the California Highway Patrol and the Orange County Sheriff's Department. 5. CARPORTS Councilman Marsters asked that the staff review the Zoning Ordinance relative to carports in apartment developments, and report to the Council. 6. EUCALYPTUS TREES Staff directed to study means of conveying to home buyers in t~e Andrews development the City's position relative to retentioh of eucalyptus trees. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 71-32 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, RECOGNIZING AND COMMENDING DAVID C. LEESTMA. Mayor Coco announced that David Leestma of Tustin had distinguished himself in scholastic achieve- ments, conduct, and overall attitude during his four years at Annapolis and asked the Council to consider a Resolution commending him, which the Mayor would present to him at a Navy League meeting On Friday, June 25. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that a Resolution be drawn and presented to David Leestma. Carried unanimously. C. Miller absent. Mr. Rourke immediately drafted Resolution No. 71-32. Resolution title read by clerk. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that further reading be waivedi and Resolution No. 71-32 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster.~ Noes: none. Absent: C. Miller. 8. COMMENTS CONtERNING ENDERLE PROPERTY Mr. A1 Enderle asked for a status report on a small strip of property on the west side of Yorba south of Seventeenth Street, which he contends should have reverted to the Enderles many years ago after the realignment of Yorba was accomplished, on the basislthat it is an easement to Enderle property to the south. According to Mr. Enderle, he was led to understand during the realignment negotiations tha~ abandonment of this property to him was a matter~of "natural progression of non- use". He stated that about seven years ago, while a member of the ~lanning Commission, he had asked James R6Urke to atart action on this, and apparently all paperwork on'~it was lost. The City has yet to give him a satisfactory answer on this situation, and he didn't feel that he should be penalized any further due td a~lack of "adeptness" on the part of the City. ~ · Council Minutes 6/21/71 Page 13 Mayor Coco agreed that a rendering shou~ld be made one way or another, and that the Staff would see to this as soon as possible. Mr. Enderle then asked the Council for some direction as to the development of his property (see Public Hearing No. 1), stating that there has been a lack of any definite statement from the Council about -what he can do, that they will have to sell the property due to high taxes and the absence of any income on the property. Mayor Coco stated that the Council has been led to a position that is unacceptable to Mr. Enderle, that is, a rezoning of a property for denser use than the Council had wanted, on condition of an integrated 43-acre development. The Council this evening acted on the basis of his plot only, as requested, and had denied the use permit because they were not satisfied with that development. There were specific suggestions made about the development which Mr. Enderle may incorporate in a later plan. Regarding sequence of deveIo~ment he said that starting with the R-3 first is per- fectly acceptable to the Council, but this particular development plan is not. Mr. Enderle stated that he would like to build under the R-3 zoning or de-annex; he felt that the City is preventing him from building under that zoning. Ma~or Coco asked that the Staff report at the next meeting on the abandonment of Yorba. Mr. Rourke stated that he had not heard about any records on this being lost, and that when the State acquired property, it would be assumed that they paid for it. A determination is needed of whether there was some basis on which the property owner was given right to have the land back. In response to Mayor Coco, Mr. Gill stated that as far as present records would indicate, the property is City-owned. The Staff ~s working with the State to.research whether ~here was some agreement between the State and Enderle. Mr. Enderle stated that all of Yorba was an easement. Mr. Ranald A. Fairbairn, Realtor, 850 East Chapman, Orange, stated that he had charge of Enderle property development, and that they would like to maintain commercial in front and that they may be able to work with the Dotys on this. He asked whether they should work through the Staff. Mayor Coco answered that the Staff has been reflecting Council attitude on this. Higher den- sities are losing favor with the Council and the Staff is aware of this. Mr. Eairbairn commented that a second realignment of Yorba would impose a burden on this property. Council Minutes 6/21/71 Page 14 Councilman Oster stated that there had not been any definite plans to realign Yorba, an~ that French's plan didn't show any realignment plans. ~a~or Coco confirmed that further realignment of Yorba is a rumorat this stage. -,,, XIII. .ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, Mayor Coco at 11:25 p.m. adjourned this meeting to a regular adjourned meeting on June 28, 1971, at 7:30.p.m. in the City Hall~Conference Room. REC6~ING SECRETARY