Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1971 04 05 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL April 5, 1971 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Councilman C. Miller. III. INVOCATION Given by Mayor Coco. 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 City Clerk Ruth Poe Asst. City Admin. - Cornre. Dev. R. K. Fleagle V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE - WALNUT STREET (Newport Avenue to Orange Avenue). Mayor Coco referred briefly to the background and reports and opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Nobuo Miyamoto, 1031 Walnut Street, Tustin, stated his opposition to the change, citing a petition containing 56 signatures representing the majority of residents on the street. He referred to a list of other street name dupli- cations and similarities in this area and the problems that trying to change some of these names would engender. He suggested that the addition of the word "street" to the signing would eliminate the problem. Mr. James E. Wilmoth, 18872 Fowler, Santa Aria, spoke on be- half of his parents who are Walnut Street residents. He presented to the Council a copy of a telegram from Congress- man John Schmitz dated April 3, 1971, stating: "Original support of street name change was based on constituent request for help and on common sense idea of but one street of given name to a city. If majority of residents of street feel inconvenience of two streets of same name is less than inconvenience of changing name, I will not oppose them. Matter of course must be decided at local level." Mr. Wilmoth then related that Mr. William ttuntley recalls Walnut Street being so named in 1890, while Walnut Avenue appeared in the 1930's or 1940's. Applying the principle that "age has its privileges", he felt that the "younger" of the two streets should undergo the name change. He said that the simplest solution would be im- proving street signing to include the word "street" or "avenue". Considering that only about twenty feet of Walnut Street is in Tustin, he said, the residents feel that renaming that portion is all right, provided the other 500 feet or so (in the County) is left as is. There being no further conunents or objections, the public portion of the hearing was declared closed at 7:46 p.m. Council Minutes 4-5-71 Page 2 Mayor Coc~, addressing Mr. Wilmoth, emphasized that the only section under consideration now is that lying within the City of Tustin. He suggested attendance by those concerned at the County's public hearing to consider the matter. Councilman Marsters stated tha m after reviewing the material on this matter, he could see no real problem except to Fire and Police on occasion, but this is a County-wide situation. Since so many people would be affected, he felt the will of the majority must prevail. fie personally had never been approached by anyone complaining of confusion arising from this situation. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by L. Miller that this matter be referred to the County with the y s recommendation · Cit ' not to impose a street name change. Councilman L. Miller asked about the street numbering systems of the City and County. Mr. Gill stated that Orange County has 5-digit street numbers, while the City's old system has ~ digits. The City presently has a 5-digit system. Councilman Oster commented that the addresses on the petition had 4-digit numbers. Councilman L. Miller suggested that the Police and Fire Departments determine by the number of digits in the sEreet address which street is involved. Mayor Coco opposed the above motion, stating that two streets in the City having the same name is untenable, and the "will the majority should include at least residents of both streets. It must be determined whether changing the street name would be more inconvenient than not changing it and dealing with the inevitable confusion. In supporting the name change, be felt it must be assured that the new name won't conflict with others and that the residents will be able to choose the new name themselves. Logically~ the name of the shorter of the two streets ~n question should be changed. In reply to Councilman Marsters, he said that the Police and Fire Depart- ments' views favoring a street name change are stated in the City Engineer's report. Above motion carried~ Mayor Coco voting no. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 15, 1791 meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $i09~523.20. 3. APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF IM- PROVEMENT AGREEMENT #111 FOR ZORRO INVESTMENT CO., CONCERNING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF YORBA STREET AND IRVINE BOULEVARD, as recommended by the City Engineer· 4. APPROVAL AND ANTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT #112 FOR THE ARBORETUM, INC., CONCERNING 1052 EDINGER STREET, TUSTIN. As recommended by the City Engineer. 5. DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DRAVO ROBERT ANSOM, as recom- mended by the City Attorney and Chubb/Pacific Indemnity Group. Council Minutes 4/5/71 Page 3 Councilman Marsters requested that Consent Calendar Item ~3 be removed for separate discussion. Moved by Oster~ seconded by L. Miller that Consent Calendar Items #l~ 2~ 4 and 5 be approved. Carried unanimously. Councilman L. Miller announced that he would abstain from voting on Item ~3. ' Councilman Marsters questioned the matter of underground utilities, referring mo that segment of the City Engineer's report which stared that condition (g), requiring street lighting and underground utilities, had been relaxed and that an additional overhead pole was permitted on the property to save costs for the developer. Mr. Rourke stated that the portion that is not under- ground is a line which goes in from the street and is actually on the property to the north Utilities are underground on the Argyros property. He did not agree that the condition had been relaxed or waived. Mr. Gill said that the Edison Company, under P, U. C. regulations, could not install terminals to underground from the pole serving building "A". An additional pole had to he see to serve building "B", but it is on ease- ment whicb is on private properties to the rear. All on-site improvements on Argyros' development are under- ground. The matter of the sidewalk has not yet been re- solved; this is the purpose of the surety bond. Mr. Gill said that in connection with this development, there is a request from Argyros and Associates, the second item under Reports, for an exception to condition 2(b) of Ordinance 435, calling for a block wall 6'8" in height along the northerly property line. In answer to questioning by Councilmen, Mr. Rourke stated that Mr. Argyros would have to file for an amendment through the Planning Commission, etc.; the Staff may want to get an informal expression of the people first. The condition could not be eliminated by Council action. Councilman Oster said that screening had been of great concern to him when this was before the Planning Commission, and he favored the developer making formal application and going through the proper procedures. The homeowners, on receiving notice of the hearing, can express their feelings at that time. Moved by Oster~ seconded by Marsters that Improvement Agreement #111 for Zorro Investment be approved and authorized for execution, and that Mr. Argyros be ad- vised of formal procedures to waive condition 2(b) of Ordinance No. 435. Carried, Councilman L. Miller abstaining. Mayor Coco felt that there should be a mechanism for interpreting the existing ordinance, and asked the Staff to review the Ordinance ~n light of existing conditions, and make recommendations to the Ck y Council. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 503 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE FIRE ZONES OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Council Minutes 4/5/71 Page ~ 2. ORDINANCE NO. 504 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO REGULATIONS OF LARGE GATHERINGS OF PEOPLE. Ordinance titles read by secretary. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by Oster that further reading be waived and that Ordinances 503 and 504 be passed and adopted. Councilman C. Miller stated that at the annual meeting of the League of California Cities in San Diego, a man from Monterey had discussed problems of this type of ordinance. Our City Attorney, in drafting this Ordinance, appears to have followed his recommendations closely. Mr. Gill commented that Monterey city officials have invited city attorneys and chiefs of police to observe their annual rock festival and see how it is handled. Mr. Rourke stated that the Ordinance is just the starting point; the most important thing is how the Staff handles it. ~bove motion carried unanimously. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1, ORDINANCE NO. 505 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, --- REZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. Z.C. 71-222 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. A Planning Commission initiated zone change from Central Commercial District (100-C2-10,000) to Multiple Family Residential District (R-3). Subject property is located on the southeast side of Newport Avenue, approximately 990 ft. southwest of the centerline of Irvine Blvd., with Newport Avenue frontage of 185 ft. and depth of 1240 ft. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 506 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, REZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. Z.C. 71-223 OF THE PLANNING COMMIISSION. A Planning Commission initiated zone change from Central Commercial District (100-C2-10,000) to Planned Con~aunity District (PC-Commercial). Subject property is located on the southeas~ side of Newport Avenue, approximately 530 ft, southwest of ,--. the centerline of Irvine Blvd. with Newport Avenue frontage of 460 ft, and depth of 1270 ft. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 507 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, PREZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. P.Z. 71-125 OF EDDY MEREDITH. Prezoning a 9-acre parcel of land from the Orange County E-4 (Residential Estate) District to the City of Tustin Planhe'd Community (PC-Business Park) District. Site fronts approximately 638 feet on the south side of Seventeenth Strec~ and approximately 608 feet nn the eas~ side of Prospec~ Avenue. Conncil Minutes 4/5/71 Page 5 4. ORDINANCE NO. 508 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON MAY 25, 1971, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID CITY A PROPOSITION TO __ INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS BY SAID CITY FOR A CERTAIN MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT. Moved by Oster~ seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 505 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Ordinance title read by secretary. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance Nos. 506~ 507 and 508 have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Ordinance titles read by secretary. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 71-15 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY DEMAND THE AC- QUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A CERTAIN MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAKING FINDINGS THERETO. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 71-16 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR A CITY MEASURE. Moved by Oster~ seconded by C. Miller that Resolution No. 71-15 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Resolution title read by secretary. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by Oster that Resolution No. 71-15 be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by C. Miller that Resolution No. 71-16 be read by title only, with the understanding that the names of the five Councilmen are included in Section 1. Carried unanimously. Resolution title read by secretary. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by C. Miller that Resolution No. 71-16 be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. X, OLD BUSNESS 1. APPOINTMENT OF A CONSUMER REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL. Moved by C. Miller~ seconded by Oster that action be deferred on this matter until there is some indication of the way this Council will be formed. Councilman C. Miller~ to clarify his motion, explained that he had read in the paper and heard conversations to the effect that this proposal by the Board of Supervisors Council Minutes 4/5/71 Page 6 is unacceptable to the health care vendors, and the Board of Supervisors has taken their criticism under advisement. He would like to wait until the Board of Supervisors has reconsidered the matter, and the constitution of the organization is definite. Above motion carried unanimously. XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. FIRST STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. Mr. Gill announced that according to John Siegel's letter, the First Street Improvement Committee was not successful in obtaining commitments, and recommended that the City undertake a formal process of right-of-way acquisition. In answer to Councilman Oster, Mr, Gill stated that on Tuesday, April 6, the Board of Supervisors will consider the 1971A. H. F. P. program; we will know at that time whether or not the Tustin project was approved. Moved by Oster~ seconded by Marsters that the Staff be directed to advise the Council of the cost of engaging a right-of-wsy agent and the source of funds for em- ployment of same. Carried unanimously. 2. GEORGE L. ARGYROS' REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION TO CONDITION 2(b) OF ORDINANCE 435. This item was discussed in conjunction with Improvement ... Agreement ~111 for Zorro Investment Co., item #3 of the Consent Calendar. See page 3 of minutes. 3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON NARCOTICS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS. Mr. Gill announced ~eceipt of notification of a Conference of the National Institute on Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, to be held in Las Vegas, April 25-29. Chief Sissel has suggested his attendance along with Sgt. Brent Bixler, The cost, approximately $400.00, is unbudgeted; however it would be valuable to the City. Two principals and the Superintendent of the High School District will also be attending. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by L. Miller that Chief Sissel and Sat. Bixler be authorized to attend this Conference. Carried, Councilman C. Miller voting no. 4. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES EXECUTIVE MEETING. Mr. Gill stated that it has been requested by the League that each city be prepared to act on two matters to be considered at the April 8 Executive Meeting: (1) vote on the 12 recommendations contained in the Special Districzs Study Report, and (2) statement of views of the future of the Orange County t~rbor District. Counzilman C. Miller questioned whether there is enough information on the 12 recommendations in the report to take a position on them as yet. This seems to be a concern of councilmen from other cities as well; one had character- ized the report as a "triumphant arrangement of inadequate fact," Regarding :the l~rbor District, Mr. Miller felt that it should either be reorganized with City representation or dissolved, as the benefit of taxation is not evenly distributed. Council Mect~ng 4/5/71 Page 7 Mr. Gill suggested that a copy of a letter to Derek McWhinney of about two months ago, stating the Gouncil's views at that time, m~ght be helpful to Len Miller: who will be Tustin's representative at the April 8 meeting. Councilman L. Miller said that he felt that the Special Districts recommendations would probably go to a vote at that meeting. 1te agreed with Mr. McWhinney that there are too many special districts, consolidation is vital; he would like to see complete progress made on this report. Regarding the Harbor District, he said, he has mixed feelings. He would like to see a preservation of the New- port area and not have it turn into another Long Beach Marine--Dana Point and other locations offer opportunities for marinas. There is the question of development of the Back Bay, and Mr. Miller would like to maintain the District's present status until this is further resolved. Councilman C. Miller stated that some special districts are really doing a job for cities and some are doing a job against cities--working at cross-purposes. That would be a good point to ask the League: to identify which districts fall into which category. Once that is deter- mined, we'd know which way to go. We would probably feel better about the Harbor District if the League could appoint some members to its Board, such as with LAFCO and the Transit District. Mayor Coco agreed that districts should be scrutinized for their value to cities versus antagonism to cities. In some cases, it's favorable to set up a district to assure that County area residents are paying their fair share for what they're getting. It was the consensus of the Council that the Harbor District be looked at as the other districts are-- for its benefit to all the cities in the County, and that possibly city membership would make it more acceptable to those who feel it should be reorganized or eliminated. 6. MARY T. MILLER LETTER RE: JULY 4TH CELEBRATION Mrs. Miller was not present to speak on the matter, and Mayor Coco suggested that she contact the Parks and Recrea- tion Department to follow through on this matter. 7. C.H. MARTINEZ LETTER RE: ODORS AND SMOKE Mr. Gill to reply to Mr. Martinez' letter, giving him information on City ordinances, etc. 8. MAYOR'S AND COUNCILMEN'S LEGISLATIVE INSTITUTE. Councilman C. Miller will attend this conference in Sacramento, May 10-12, 1971, sponsored by the League of California Cities. 9. ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT ON IRVINE BOULEVARD. Mr. Gill reported that the pit apparently does not cause a water hazard, there are no prohibitions against grading in advance of development. This appears to be a situation common to all new developmenus or new subdivision areas, and does not immediately present any real hazard. No action was taken relative to rclocating the old house on this property, pending Board of Supervisors decision on disposition of excess Flood Control District properties.