Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1971 05 03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL May 3, 1971 ~. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to orde~ at 7:44 p.m. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF '"~ ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco. III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman Oster. ~ ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, ~ Oster. ~ Absent: Councilmen: None. ~ Others present: City Administrator Harry Gill ~ City Attorney James RoUrke City Clerk Ruth Poe Asst. City Admin. - Comm. Dev. Ken Fleagle V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ZC 71-224 - SANTIAGO BANK(Cont. from 4/19/71) Application for rezoning'a 4.8-acre parcel of land from the Pr (Professional) District to the C-1 (Retail Commercial) District. Site fronts approximately 970' on the north side ~ of Irvine Blvd., approximately 217 ' on the east ~-m side of "B" Street, and approximately 217' on the west side of Prospect Avenue, and is further de- scribed as Lot No. 33, Tract No. 7332. Councilman Oster announced that he would abstain from voting in this matter. Councilman L. Miller said that he would also be ab- staining. Mr. Fleagle stated that correspondence had been received from Andrews Development requesting withdrawal of the westerly 670 feet from this application, leaving only the easterly 300 feet of the subject property in the zone change request, and that a petition urging denial had been submitted by neighboring property owners. Mr. Fteagle related briefly the background of this applica- tion as reflected in staff reports. He said Santiago Bank had been notified of tonight's hearing. ~ayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:4~ p.m. Mr. John McOwen, 352 Prospect Park, Tustin, stated that there are only two "access ways" for the use of Prospect " Park condominium residents, and since their location is only abou~ 100 feet from the corner of Prospect and Irvina, there would be no way for- residents to get in and out of the driveway. He further stated that none of the residents had been advised of this hearing, al- though they had received n0~i~es of the Planning Com- mission hearing. At Mayor 'Coc0's request~ he pointed out the location of his residence on the map. Council Minutes 5/3/71 Page 2 Mr. FieaBle suggested that the problem may lie in the fact that the original request heard by the Planning Commission comprised more territory than is now under consideration, and that since the reduction in area, these residents may no longer fall within the 300 foot radius . He also pointed out that notices go out to all property owners in this 300 foot radius as indiCa- ' ted on the assessment rolls. Mr. Gordon Hill, 14702 Brookshire, Tustin, stated that the development of Irvine Boulevard from the Newport Freeway easterly has been excellent, with the exception of the service station, and that this zone change would be an invitation to further commercial development on Irvine Boulevard. He said that at the Planning Commis- sion hearing, the comment was made that C-1 land in Tustin is "too exp~nsive" and that this land is more reasonable because of the "Pr" zoning. He also op- posed the rezoning based on the fact that previous verbal commitments relative to trees, etc., have not been fulfilled. Grace Temple, 17572 Westbury Lane, Tustin, stated that there are two schools in the area, and that there are normally many children walking near the corner of Pros- pect and Irvine+ She felt that there is enough traffic at that intersection now, without adding a commercial banking facility. Betty Sellers, 292 Prospect Park North, Tustin, expressed her agreement with previous speakers, adding that this area should not be zoned Commercial for mere monetary reasons. There being no further comments or objections, Mayor Coco closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:01 p.m. Councilman Marsters stated that Commercial would be an obviously poor zoning at this location and that he was in agreement with the Planning Commission in this matter. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by C. Miller that Zone Chan~e 71-224 be denied. Mayor Coco commented that there had been too much work invested in making Irvine Boulevard the way it is, and that he saw no reason for this zone change. Above motion carried unanimously. Councilmen L. Miller and Oster abstaining. 2. AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE V, SECTION 4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 483, THE SIGN ORDINANCE Article V, Section 4, subparagraph (a) is amended to read as follows: (a) Any sign erected for the purpose of advertising a product, event, person or subject not related to the premises upon which said sign is located, except directional signs, is prohibited, including any sign maintained or affixed to any vehicle which is used primarily to support or display such sign while parked on public or private proper~y, other than for the purposes of lawfully making deliveries or sale of mer- chandise or rendering services from such ve]~icle. Council Minutes 5/3/71 Page 3 Article V, Section 4 is further amended by the addition thereto of subparagl~aph (i), to read as follows: (1) Business signs on or affixed to trucks, auto- mobileS, trailers or other vehicles, used pri- --- maf4,1y to ~upport or display such signs while pa~ on public or private property, other than for the purpose of lawfully making deliveries or sales of merchandise or rendering services from such vehicles. Mr. Flea,~le explained the background of this amendment and pre~ented a videotape showing examples of the type of problem the amendment is designed to eliminate. He said that while there my be some difficulty in enforcing this. there should be equality of all business advertising in the City. .Mayor CoCo opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:10 p.m. Marlone Wtlliams of the Tustin News referred to a vehicle displaying advertising shown on the videotape (a truck owned by Mr. Miyamoto of Miyamoto Nursery) and asked why it would be illegal for a men to park such a vehicle in front of his residence. Mayor Coco ,replied that if this were to ~pply in that regard, it would not be precedent-setting. He said that there are neighborhood nuisances that are at the present time prohibited by ordinance; there are side yard re- quirements and large vans that may be owned by the owner of the residence in private streets, but still create an unsightly condition. These are provided for by ord- inance. There being no further co.w.onts or objections, Mayor Coco closed the public portion Of the hearing at 8:12 p.m. Councilman C. Miller questioned the language of this amend- merit--its ability to accomplish what is intended. How could it actually be determined whether the vehicle is used pr{marily for display of signs or for other purposes. Mr. Kourke related the difficulty in drawing an ordinance broad enough to render assistance where necessary and out- law signs on vehicles. He said that considerable effort ~s put forth by him, the Staff and the Planning Commission and that other s~ch ordinances were reviewed on this point. There my be some problel~ in its enforcement, but the City will be able to prohibit the outstanding examples--suchas ~ehicles just parked with signs on them like the one shown in front of the barber shop on videotape. However, if a delivery truck is painted in a gaudy fashion and is parked a tot of the time, and yet is used for delivery, enforce- merit would be difficult. tie said that this amendment was the best of the alternatives they could coma up with. In answer to Mayor Coco, he explained that "affixing" is the act o/f putting up the sign and that "maintaining" is allow- ing, it ~o=~remainaffi~Ml. aouncilmn L. Miller, Mr. Rourke said that o~her similar to this, but he did not know~w~e~her they are enforced. Council Minutes 5/3/71 Page 4 Mr. Flea5le stated that they had seen numerous sample ordinances from other cities, and that enforcement depends on the attitude of the city. Some written in language more ambiguous than this are enforced. Mayor Coco said that some infractions are more serious than others and that pettiness may result in some cases if the Ordinance is selectively enforced. Councilman Marsters stated that due to the proliferation of signs everywhere, he would like to see this amendment effectuated. He said that while it may be hard to deal with some situations, a start must be made somewhere, and SOOn. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by C. Miller that the proposed amendment to Section 4 of the Sign Ordinance, Ordinance No. 438, relative to signs affixed to vehicles, be approved. Councilman C. Miller asked whether this is the best way to approach the problem. He used as an example Miyamoto's truck, which is sometimes parked on Red Hill and yet is used often for deliveries. Perhaps some control can be exercised using length of time parked as a criterion. He was very concerned about the factors of equitability, equal enforceability, and ability of the amendment to be understood. Councilman Oster felt that more time was needed on this, as the wording is a problem. Use of the word "primarily" may be a cure, but also presents the problem of selective enforcement. -- Mayor Coco stated that this is one way to approach the problem--just to see what happens. This may solve 90% of the problem of vehicles used for advertising purposes, and the other 10% may be eliminated by a later amendment. After further discussion Of the wording of the amendment, Councilman L. Miller proposed leaving the wording as is and called for a vote on the previous motion for approval. Above motion carried unanimously. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR i. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 9, 1971 meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $66,718.40. 3. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT #112 - THE ARBORETUM, INC., located at 1052 Edinger Street. Council termination of agreement and authorization for return of developer's $500 cash bond. As recom- mended by the City Engineer. 4. STATEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTIONS CODE SECTIONS 5300-5304. Approval of aed order to submit to electors the proposed tax statement. As required by law and prepared by O'Melveny and Myers. Council Minutes 5/3/71 Page 5 Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Consent Calendar Items 1 through 4 be approved. Carried unanimously. VII. ORDINANCES - FOR ADOPTION None. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE N0. 503-A An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE FIRE ZONES OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Moved by Oster~ seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance 503-A have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Ordinance title read by secretary. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 71-19 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS: PROJECT I - RED HILL AVENUE; PROJECT II - CENTENNIAL WAY; PROJECT III - PROSPECT AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by ester that Resolution No. 71-19 be read by title. Carried unanimously. Resolution title read by secretary. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by ester that further readinn be waived and that Resolution No. 71-19 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, ester. Noes: none. Absent: none. X. OLD BUSINESS None. XI. NEW BUSINESS None. XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. PAVEMENT OF ALLEY NORTH OF LAGUNA BETWEEN NEWPORT AND ORANGE AVENUES. Mr. Gill stated that a report had been submitted by the City Engineer relative to pavement of the alley north of Laguna Road between Newport and Orange Avenues. The condition of the alley has been a matter of concern for a number of years. Property owners' responses to correspond- ence from the City Engineer relative to paving at their ex- pense were mixed. The alternatives offered in the report were to abandon the project or to try to obtain a petition of the owners of 607° of the front footage of the block and proceed with improvements under Chapter 27 of the 1911 Act. In response to Councilmen's questions, Mr. Gill said he didn't know the estimated cost to the individual property owner, and that it would probably take several months to complete the project under the 1911 Act. He stated that it is a public alley and that the City is responsibl~: for maintenance of it. Council Minutes 5/3/71 Page 6 Councilman Oster stated that the alley has been dedicated if it is a public alley, and asked if there were any reason for this to be handled differently than in paving a street. Mr. Gill answered that it is the adopted policy of the City Council. Mayor Coco mentioned that since it is a "street" there would be ~ liability problem. He asked that the City Engineer research this and reporc to the Council on the City's chances of success in obtaining the 60% petition. 2. DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMISSION MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE. Mayor Coco commented that the questionnaire was not as clear as it could be and that there could be some con- fusion as to whether our DPC or another review board were being discussed~ Mr. Gill suggested that Councilmen could have a couple of weeks to think about it and then bring it up at the next Council meeting. 3. CLOSURE OF MOULTON PARKWAY (NAVY WAY). Moved by Marsters~ seconded by Oster that temporary closure of Moulton Parkway (Navy Way) east of Red Hill Avenue be authorized in accordance with the City Engineer's recommendations. Carried unanimously. 4. AUTO CLUB LETTER RE: IRVINE BLVD. SPEED SURVEY. The Council authorized cooperative speed zone survey i of Irvine Boulevard by the Automobile Club of Southern California and the City Engineering Department. 5. PROGRESS REPORT ON PARK BOND ISSUE--TOM WOODRUFF. Mr. Woodruff reported chat there was good response to the issue, and that no organized opposition had yet appeared. He said that the Chamber of Commerce has endorsed it; the Jaycees are sponsoring a poster contest to arouse interest; 4,000 flyers are going out to schools; a system of contacting people in residential neighborhoods was being developed. XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Coco declared the meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. MAYOR C~,_CLERK