Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1971 03 15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETINGH TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 15, 1971 CALL TO ORDER McctLnZ called ~o order aE 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco. III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman L. Miller. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, ester. Absent: Councilmen: None. Others present: City Administrator IIarry Gill City Attorney james Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe Asst. City Admin. - Comm, Dev. R. K. Fleagte Mayor Coco welcomed members of Girl Scout Troop No. 1110 from Columbus Tustin and St. Cecilia Schools. For th~ir interest, he suggested that New Business No. 1, the Park Bond Election, be discussed first. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. PARK BOND ELECTION (Taken out of Order) Mayor Coco explained that it wonld be necessary to approve the t~.;o matters of the Park Bond Election Calendar a~d the wording of the Bond Proposition. Mr. Gill stated that Council action would be subject to the approval of O'Melveny and Myers. In ans~.:er to questioning by Councilman ester, Mr. Rourke stated that what is being considered at this time is pro- preliminary to any formal action, which would be taken up at the next meeting. He thought it would be appropriate to defer approval of the calendar, or to approve these items in general form, deferring final approval until specifics are presented at the next Council meeting. Moved bv Oster~ secon~]ed bv Marsters that the Park Bond Election Calendar and wording of the Bond Proposition be approved in general form, subject to approval of the bond consultants. Carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ZC 71-222 -PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED ON BEHALF OF ALEXANDER E. SANDORF. A Planning Con~nission initiated zone change from Central Commercial District (100-C-2-10,000) to Multiple Family Residential District (R-3). Subject property is located on the sentbeast side of Nexgport Avenue, approyimat~,]y. 990 feet southx~est of the centerline of Irvinc B[v<l., with Nex.yport Avenue fronta!,lc of 185 ft,et: aml depth ~>f 1,240 feet. C :i I v C 1 I I ,, i Mr. Flca~3{~_!! briefly outlined tllc~ back~round of this zone change, statinf~ that ghe P]atminz Co~gt~ission, by Resolutjen 1212, had recommended Conncil approval of the zone change jR order that the uses and structures existing on the property would be reflected on the zoning map. ~or Coco epencd the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 p.m. There being no continents or objections, the meeting was declared closed. Moved by Osger; seconded by L. Miller that ZC 71-222 be approved. Cartled ~nanimously. 2. ZC 71-223 - PLANNlNG COMMISSION INITIATED ON BEHALF OF ORANGE COUNTY, GRISET, MUIER, ET AL. A Planning Cogission initiated zone change from Central Cog~ercial District (t00-C-2-10,000) to Planned Community District (PC-Cogercial). Subject property is located on the southeast side of Newport Avenue, approximately 530 feet southves~ of the centerline of Irv~e Blvd. with Newport Avenue frontage of 460 feet and depth of 1,270 feet. Mr. Fleaale stated that the Planning Comission initiated this zone change to PC in recognition of the fact that the packing house at that location is to be demolished, and they wished no assure the compatibility of this parcel with all others in the area, and to assure that the property will be developed to the highest possible standards. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:42 p.m. Mr. Richard Griset, 109 Burm Road, Fallbrook, spoke on behalf of hls mother, Blanche Griset, part owner of subjec~ property. He stated that they were neither opposing nor proposing this action, and that he hoped the Council would give their best efforts on their behalf. Under present zoning, they had been unable to develop or sell the property, which, in light of the presen~ tax sit~tion, could be devastating; he asked the Council to take this into consider- ation. There being no further cogents or objections, the public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. In answer to questions by Councilman Marsters, Mr. Gill stated that the subject parcel includes the Orange County Fire Station, and that permits had already been issued for demolition of the packing house. Movcd by Len Miller~ seconded by Oster that ZC 71-223 be approved. Carried unanimously. 3. PZ 71-125 OF EDDY MEREDITH Application of Eddy Meredith for prezoning a 9-acre parcel of land from the Oran~ County E-4 (Residential Estate) District' to the Clt~ of Tnstin Planned Co~ntmity ( PC-Bus~ hess Park) Dis trict. The site fron~s approxin~H:cly 638 feet on the sout-l~ side of SevenLtenLh S.l.rc~t and approx~n~aLoly 608 feet City Cou~,~ i~ 3/15/71 l'~l~;l' 3 Mr. F]ca~le, in sutnmarjzin}% tllc by. eke,r >uric of this applica- tion, stuted that the [roposcd zoni~5 would authorize a business park development', including a banking facility. Following a public hearing before the Planning Corrnni~;sion on February 22, 1971, Resolution No. 1205 was adopted re- com~mending denial or this application, based on the opposi- tion expressed during the hearing and the absence of any specific plans. He scaled further that subscqu~nt to that meeting date, the Co~mnissioa members had individually reviewed the pro- posed design concepts and decided that their determination at the February 22rid meeting had been premature, and they would be willing to reconsider it. The Staff recommends ap- proval of this concept of development: in view of its compati- bility with existing residential developments and the general development of the street. Mayer Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:50 p.m. Dr. Marvin Rawitch, 10091 Overhill Drive, Santa Ana, stated that the Board and members of the Foothill Home- owners Association were interested in the status of this area because of their involvemenE in the development of the Tustin Area General Plan, which they feel is being at- tacked. He acknowledged that revisions to the General Plan ~y be needed, but this proposal represents an erosion --a mockery--oE the concept of master planning. He cited the prezoning across the street from tMs site on the south- west corner of Prospecu and 17tb, and stated that they are now facing the same routine of ~rching commrcialism, strip co~ercial, on 17th Street. The owners then did not bring it before the County, which had jurisdiction, because they knew it would be unsuccessful. He said this was an example of going for convenience, for the sales tax dollar, and making the E-4 zone a "fool's paradise" with no re- semblance to what it should be, It would be an exposition of bad faith to consider this application. When the County allowed the zone change (across the street) it didn't go through the Planning Comission and Board of Supervisors in the manner first submitted. This ~tter is predicated on the old line that it will stop right hera We can plead our case, but it's up no you to decide; if you approve this zoning application, it would intensify any negative feeling toward the Council on the park of residents. Tom Lenhart, 13881 Dal. 1 Lane, Tustin, President of the FoothiLl IIomeowners Association, stated that regardless of the architectural renderings of these proposals, they still represent commercial encroachment in an area more valuable as residenlzial. He felt that Tustin Councilmen, in approving this applicationS, would be doing a disservice to the City and its people by establishing comercial on the periphery of Tustin while having difficulty with the core area, which should be the prime shopplng area. He expressed fears that this "spot zoniag" would result in a situation like that of 1Iarbor Blvd. in Garden Grove. Mr. Walter Wands, 17692 Westbury Lane, speaking for the residents on Westbury Lane, stated they concurred in the objections of the two previous speakers, and asked denial of this application. Mr. Nam~p~ l)cI,con, 17gl l Arb~,lada Wuy, Tustin, stated that tl~.~ fact Lllat auothcr hoarit~l% was bciog held on t'tv[s nnttcr, City Council 3/15/71 Page 4 in addition to the February 22nd Planning ~ommission hearing, proves that the~e is some mockery involved. stated that the Council's main responsibility is to people in this area, not to the deVel~er, and that a 515-auto parking lot, for example, woUld~e an additional factor in the depreciation of surrounding property. He denied Meredith's "concern over esthetic value" and sxpressed concern about the gradual increase in problemS' of ecology. Mr. William Meads, 14101 Howland, Tustin, expressed his agreement with previous speakers and asked that the Council give the homeowners and taxpayers a break. Mr, Eddy Meredith, 305 East Main Street, Tustin! owner of the subject property, referred to a mail-out to 31 interested persons (including neighbors, Councilmen, Commissioners~ and Forest Dickason of the County), which answered many questions regarding this prezone. In response to previous comments, he stated that this was not a "quick buck" situtation, as he had owned the property since 1958; he didn~t intend to build houses. Me stated that the fumes from 30~000 cars passing the area daily emit more fumes than the caps occupying the proposed parking lot. He further stated that there are practically no open areas from Prospect to Newport except for the large parcel on Newport. Regarding protests that development should stop at Prospect Avenue, he stated that in 1969 he had objected to apartments at the easterly end of the Jones property , and that his own property would rest on its own merits. In 1961, he had had no objection to the church diagonally across the street. He denied the possibility of "creeping commercialism" becoming involved. Mr. William Johnson, 17861 Arbolada Way, Tustin, stated that his property backs up to the Meredith property. He felt that the E-4 zoning could not be improved upon; this proposal would be degrading the area, by reducing his property values while raising Mr. Meredith's. He was concerned that the development would facilitate burglarizing of homes behind the property, that excess water runoff, caused by a large asphalt area, would be a problem, and that offices and a bank are simply not needed. Jacqueline Valle, 17632 Arbolada, Tustin, agreed with the previous speakers and added that it is already difficult to make a left turn out of her street. Mr. Alfred Theurich, 17882 Arbolada Way, Tustin, cited the Ralph's shopping center at 17th and Carroll Way as an example of creeping commercialism. There had been assurances that it '~ould be fine" but look at the result. Mr. DeLeon addressed Mr. Meredith, saying that if his concern was not money~ why not donate the lot to the City as a park site and declare it as a tax deduction. Mr. Meredith stated that he preferred not to do so. There being no further comments or objections, the public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Coco corrected Mr. Meredith's version of Dr. Rawitch's re~rks" by statin~ that Dr. Rawitch had not claimed many rezone approaches the County, but rather n__olapproaches by the owner, indicating he felt the owner was pessimistic about his chances. Dr. Rawitch concurred with this correction. Mayor Coco then challenged Dr. ~witch's inplica[~on that no specific conditions were being ~ppl~.d.by stating t~n~ under Planned Conmum[ty concept. the City's control is as~;ured, as c ise plans must be submitted to the Coundil and (~onmfi~:sion and Dr. Rawitch stated that ht! did not mcae to imply thaL the City does not impose conditions. Mayor Coco, answering a previous comment by Mr. DeI,eon, stated that a second hearing does not constitute a "mockery"; it is mandatory that a Council hearing be held regardless of the action of the Planning Commission. Councilman L. Miller asked Mr. Meredith whether he intended a height limit of two stories. Mr. Meredith replied affirmatively. In answer to questioning, Mr. Fleagle stated that the concepts are on file with the Planning Department. These are not precise plans. (He presented a copy of these plans showing the typical elevation and detached buildings for ~he interest of the Council.) He stated that a specific plan would be presented as a condition of the use permit, showing the precise locations of the buildings and their proposed uses. He stated that the only commercial use would be the bank. Councilman L. Miller asked how may residential units would be allowed under E-4 zoning. It was determined that there could be approximately 28-30 family units on the eight acres, with 10,000 sqo ft. per unit, with a height limitation of 35 feet. Under the proposed zoning, PC, the height limitation would be 20 feet. In answer to questioning by Mayor Coco, Mr. Fleagle stated that if the property was developed as E-4 in the County, there would be no control in any design, even street layout° If developed as E-4 in the City, control would be exercised only through the subdivision map, which pertains only to the lot lines. There would be no submission of plans to any public body; they would be submitted for building check only. Single family residential development is subject only to compliance with the Building Code and the general criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. Under the Planned Community concept, however, the City has complete and exclusive jurisdiction in applying controls deemed necessary to assure compatibility of the development, in- cluding esthetic design, approval of elevation, height, use and setback from the property line. Mr. Fleagle also stated that under E-4 zoning, there are no criteria for site development, landscaping, or perimeter walls. However the Council does have the prerogative of requiring a buffer area. Replying to Dr. Rawitch, Mayor Coco said that the Council has seen over a period of time the need for controls, al- though as Dr. Rawitch mentioned, the absence of controls does not necessarily mean a bad development. He felt that the only way that the amenities desired by the homeowners can be assured is through the necessary controls. He further emphasized the fact that this proposal is a prezone, not a fezone, committing the Council and the City of Tustin to a zone providing that the land is annexed one day. This action itself does not rezone the land. Councilman L. Miller stated that he had received many phone calls expressing appr'oval of this project, and that he himself favored it for the following reasons: 1. Nine buildings of this nature would provide more green area than thirty or more dwellings. 2. The!re will he less blacktop once the D.P.C. has had City Coux~cj l 3/15/71 l'agc 6 3. ~ere wi]] less traffic Saturdays, Sundays and nights ~an thcT c. uld be with a residential development. 4. The office buildings on Irvine Blvd. have proven com- patible with dwellings. 5. Mr. Meredith has held the proper~y for 13 years, and ~ if the prezoning is not approved there is the possibility ~ that future Councils might approve something much less compatible with the area. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by Marstars, that PZ 71-125 of Eddy Meredith be approved subject ~o annexation to the City of Tustin and submission of a use permit with specific plan for any future development on the property. Councilman Marsters asked whether the Council had at present any more information, etc., than the Planning Commission had at the time that it denied ~he application. Mr. Fleagle stated that the Planning Commission did not have the benefit of the concept rendering mnd elevation. After the heaZ~g the Planning Commissioners reviewed these indiv- idually, then cotlectiyety decided to reconsider on the basis that they did not have full information. He further stated that the plan could be precisely deter- mined by the City and not in accordance with the concept as currently presented. The City would determine whether or not a bank was appropriate as part of the development; like- wise, its location would be specified by the City as to where it would go in relation to the traffic flow. Councilman Marstars stated that he has been a strong advocate of the E-4 zoning, and has opposed everything on 17th Street. The County put the City in the position of having to accept the commercialism on 17th Street; they initiated the zoning on that parcel, and we felt that bringing it into the City would afford more control over the development. He felt that s~rip conmercialism could be a danger without some strong guidelines and policies. While he feels confident that Mr. Meredith's integrity would be reflected in the development, he said he would take the position that this has got to he the end on 17th Street. In response to questions by Councilman C. Miller, Mr. Rourke stated that should an individual Councilman, or the Council collectively, wish to challenge or appeal an~ approval given by the Plan~ing Commissi6~, it would require ~ouncil approval to waive the $50 fee. Th~$would require a 3/5 majority~ 'The prozone ordinance cou~' not properly carry the condition that the use permit antom~itically come to the Council approval. Above motion to approve PZ 71-125 carried by roll call vote. Ayes,: Coco, C. MiI~er, Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: None. Ab.stained:- Oster. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March I, 1971 meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS - in the amount of $71,953.04. CiL¥ Ct,,nu'il 3/15/71 P,n~!~ 7 3, NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION FORUM Autborizat'ion for payment of rcgEsnration fee for Mrs. M. llernanaez to attend the National Forum, National Recreation & Park Association and Council expressiou of appreciation ~o Mrs. Hernandez for continuing co commit her personal time and finances in representing the City at significant snatexqide and national recreation gatherings. 4. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT Approval of tuition fees for two Planning Commission members to attend UCI Course, U~BAN PLA~ING: P~SIC~ ENVIROh~h~. Total cost to the City of 5. U. S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS Authorization for Mayor Coco ~o attend the 1971 Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C., 3/19/71. 6. 1971 POPULATION ESTIMATE Authorization f6r the Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreement with the State Department of Finance for the 1971 population estimate. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by Oster that items i through 6 on tile Consent Calendar be apprOved. Councilman Narsters, referring to Item ~P3, suggested that Mrs. Hernandez be allotted $25 to help cover her expenses. He comended l~er dedication. Councilman L. Mi].ler said that he would accept an amendment ~o his motion to the effect that Mrs. Hernandez be allotted an additior 1 S25. Above motion as amended carried nnanimously. VII. ORDINANCE S FOR ADOPTION None. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 503 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE FIRE ZONES OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 504 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO REGULATION OF LARGE GATHERINGS OF PEOPLE. ' The City Clerk read the titles of Ordinances 503 and 504. IX. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 71-11 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLCIATION FORHIGHWAY SAFETY FUNDS WITH THE STATE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY. Ci['y Coring' 'i 1 3/15/71 Page 2. RESOLUTION NO. 71-12 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, URGING ACTION TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM OF LITTER AND WASTE DISPOSAL CREATED BY THE SALE OF BEV- ERAGES IN DISPOSABLE , NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 71-13 A Resolution of the City Conncil of the City of Tustin, California, SETTING THE DATE FOR HEARING FOR CONSIDERA- TION OF CHANGE OF NAME OF THAT PORTION OF WALNUT STREET WHICH IS WITHIN THE CITY OF TUSTIN. The City Clerk read the titles of Resolutions 71-11, 71-12 and 71-13. Moved by C. Miller~ seconded by Marsters that further reading be waived and that Resolutions 71-11, 71-12 and 71-13, as read, be passed and adopted. Responding to questions by Councilman Oster, Dan Blankenship explained that in Project START, $91,901 is the City's por- tion, based on existing salaries of positions doing work in this area; it does not represent any new cost. Like~Tise, in Project ACE, $7,661 is the City's portion, with no new costs involved. (This is in reference to Resolution No. 71-11.) Referring to Resolution No. 71-13, Mayor Coco explained that the resolu.tion merely sets a data for a public hearing on this matter. Mr. Nobuo Miyamoto, a resident on Walnut Street, Tustin, stated that a street name change was not really necessary, and that Mr. Bennett, who initiated this action, was apparently the only one on the street who desired the name change. He further stated that there are many other streets in the Tustin area with identical or similar names. Mayor Coco suggested that Mr. Miyamoto bring these matters up at the public hearing, which was se~ for April 5, 1971. Councilman L. Miller stated that the Police and Fire Chiefs seem to feel that there is considerable confusion between Walnu,~ Street and Walnut Avenue, and since Walnut Str t ~s the shorter of the two, it should undergo the name ch~ge. Above motion to adopn Resolntions 71-11~ 71-12 and 71-13 carried unanimously. X. OLD BUSINESS t. DEMOLITION OF PACKING HOUSE AT 13122 NEWPORT AVENUE, Continued from 12/7/70. The contra=t to demolish this packing house has been awarded to Dean Alderdice Co. All necessary licenses and permits have been issued by the Building Department. No action required on the part of the Council. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. PARK BOND ELECTION This item was discussed out of order. See page l. City Council. 3/15/71 Page 9 2. LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNICATION SYSTEM - CONVERSION TO UHF. In answer to questioning by Councilman Oster, Mr. Gill stated that the cost of this conversion would be borne by the General Fund for Police communications for the first two years. The cost will exceed our normal radio cost, but with the condition of frequencies in Orange County, this conversion is necessary. However, the City "would never get it any cheaper" than now, with an $83,400 federal grant through the Law Enforcement Assistance Act. There was some discussion among the Council regarding the existence of any options mn the matter, and it was determined that in order to communicate with other agencies, to utilize the emergency, mutual-aid and interrogation chan- nels, Tustin would have to be using the same frequency range as the rest of the County. Mr. Gill stated that while the cost appears higher than our normal annual replacement cost, the new equipment would last longer and save personnel costs, with the result that overall cost would be less than with the present system, Moved by Marsters~ seconded by C. Miller that Resolution No. 71-14 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Resolution title read by the City Clerk. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by C. Miller that further reading be waived, and that Resolution No. 71-14, ap- proving Joint Powers Agreement with the County of Orange and authorizing the expenditure of funds relative to law enforcement communications equipment, be passed and adopted. Councilman C. Miller asked whether this system had been put into operation and proven effective. Councilman L. Miller stated that the Coast Guard is requiring a changeover to UHF in six years on the regular channels. Mr. Gill stated that the equipment is operational. The entire system, however, is new, and is considered a majo~ breakthrough by Orange County Communications. He added that the old system will remain operational until the new system is fully inplemented. Above motion to adopt Resolution No. 71-14 carried unanimously. 3. VACANT SERVICE STATION AT FIRST STREET AND EL CAMINO REAL --E. W. Snyder. Report received. 4. PRELIMINARY REPORT ON REFLECTIVE MARKERS FOR CROSWALKS --Orville Myers. Action deferred pending further investigation and reporn by the City Engineer. 5. VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY ON IRVINE BOULEVARD--Police Department. Council requested that Traffic Engineering and the Police Department submit reports relative to the speed limit on Irvinc Boulevard between the Newport Freeway and Prospect. City Council 3/15/71 Page 10 6. ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL. Matter of appointing a consumer representative to this organization deferred to the next Council meeting. 7. LETTER OF CONCERN FROM WALTER WANDS RE ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT. Proposed letter of reply to Mr. Wands to be sent over Mayor Coco's signature. The situation at this development site is to be investi- gated by the Staff and a report submitted at the next Council meeting. 8. SAN CLEMENTE CITY COUNCIL. Acknowledgement by San Clemente City Council of receipt and filing of Tustin's invitation to 'Witness to Fitness Week" activities. Mayor Coco announced that the run to the Western White House on Saturday, March 13, had been successful. The Mayor of San Clemente had suggested making it an annual event. 9. LETTER FROM HOLTHE DISPOSAL SERVICE. Letter received. No action taken at this time . ,--- 10. COMMENDATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES ASSISTANT, Councilman Marsters complimented Gene Snyder, Public Services Assistant, for effectively enforcing sign and weed abatement regulations. 11. EXTENSION OF SIXTH STEEET TO NEWPORT AVENUE. In answer to questioning by Councilman Marsters, Mr. Gill stated there had been discussions some time ago of extending Sixth Street east to Newport Avenue, as well as extending Prospect southerly to Newport. Since these discussions, there had been nothing specific. There would be a problem until the packing house is demolished and the railway tracks abandoned. Councilman Marsters stated that he had talked to John Prescott, who owns the land in conjunction with Mr. Balmer, and he had said that he would be willing to dedicate it if a right-of- way was granted. t~ stated this before five witnesses. Mr. Marsters stated that he would like the matter looked into. 12, SANTA FE RAILROAD. Staff directed to work with the County to avert any future problems on property adjacent to the Santa Fe Railroad southeast of Tustin Meadows. XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Coco declared the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.