Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1971 01 04 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL January 4, 1971 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Coco. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco. III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman Len Miller. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller. Absent: Councilman: Oster Others Present: Asst. City Admin. Dan Blankenship City Attorney James G. Rourke Asst. City Admin.-Conm. Dev. K. Fleagle Acting Secretary Kathleen Morrison V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PZ-70-123 - TREE HAVEN ASSOCIATES Application of Tree Haven Associates for prezonix~g of an approximate 9.4 acre parcel of land from Orange County R-1 (Single-Family Residence District - Developed as a Condominium by Use Variance) to the City of Tusti~ (PD) Planned Development as recommended by the Planning Commission. Site fronts approximately 677 feet on the east side of Yorba Street, approximately 250 feet north of the centerline of 17th Street. The property was the subject of a LAFC0 annexation hearing (Tree Haven No. 67) in conjunction with the 17th Street frontage property on December 23, 1970. LAFCO approved the annexation, subject to an amend- ment to the map, without notice and public hearing. Mr. Fleagle explained that following a public hearing on December 14, 1970, the Planning Commission unanimously ap- proved Resolution No. 1195, recommending approval of PZ- 70-123 to the Planned Development District, effective on annexation to the City of Tustin. Hearing opened at 7:32 p.m. There being no comments, the public portion of the hearing was declared closed. In answer to questioning by Councilman C. Miller, Mr. Ftea~!e further stated that the prezone application involves only that property which is developed as an apartment complex. The annexation application is total and includes not only the developed property, but also the vacant property on 17th Street. The property easterly of the developed pro- perty is not included. Moved by C. Miller~ seconded hy Marsters that Ordinance No. 496, prezon~ng property of Tree llaven Associates on Application No~ PZ-70-123, have first readinR by title only. Carried unanimously. Councilman Oster absent. Council Minutes 1-4-71 Page 2 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 21, 1970 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS - In amount of $54,713.99. 3. TERMINATION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR GEORGE "' ARGYROS PKEZONING AT IRVINE AND YORBA (PZ-69-117). Councilman L. Miller requested that Item No. 3 be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by C. Miller that Items 1 and 2 of the Consent Calendar be approved. Carried unanimously. Councilman Oster absent, Moved by C. Miller~ seconded by Marsters that Item No. 3 of the Consent Calendar be approved. Carried. Councilman L. Miller abstained. Councilman Oster absent. VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 495 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO MEDICAL- DENTAL ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 495, amending the Zoning Ordinance relative to Medical- Dental On-Site Parking Requirements, be read by title __ Carried unanimously. Councilman Oster absent. Moved by Marsters, seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 495, amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Tustin relative to Medical-Dental On-Site Parking Requirements, be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. Councilman Oster absent. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 497 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO ANIMAL CONTROL. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 497, amending the Tustin City Code relative to Animal Control, have first readinM by title only. Carried unani- mously. Councilman Oster absent. IX. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 70-60 A Resolution o.f the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN CERTAIN TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND DESIGNATED "TREE HAVEN ANNEXATION NO. 67". Moved by Marsters~ seconded by C. Miller that Resolution 70-60 be read by titl.e only. Carried unanimou'sly. Council Minutes 1-4-71 Page 3 Moved by Marsters~ seconded by L. Miller that Resolution 70-60 be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. Councilman Oster absent. X. OLD BUSINESS None. XI. NEW BUSINESS None. XII. OTHER BUSINESS I. Mr. Blankens~ipannounced that the "1970 Report of the Orange County Grand Jury" and "Report of Contract Aud- itors for the Orange County Grand Jury" had been re- ceived and are available for review lat the City Hall. 2. LETTER FROM MARCH OF DIMES Mr. Blankenship stated that a letter had been received from the March of Dimes requesting a roadblock and booth on E1 Camino Real between Third and Main Streets, on January 30, for the purpose of distributing information and soliciting contributions. Staff will report and make recormnendations at next regular Council meeting. 3. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AT RED HILL AND WALNUT AVENUES-- CITY ENGINEER. Councilman C. Miller stated that one aspect which has not been considered is the potential hazard created in requiring pedestrians to cross Red Hill twice to avoid walking on the east side at that point. Crossing the street is usually a bigger concern to parents and child- ren, and there may be a worse problem in requiring two crossings than in doing something on the east side of the street. Councilman L. Miller agreed, and pointed out that the crossing guard would not always be available, for example, at times when children stay later at school for activities, etc. Referring to alternative #1 on page 3 of the City Engineer's report, Mayor Coco stated that if children were educated to walk through the Sun=nerfield tract, and if the proposed signing and striping were implemented, the only danger would be to a relatively small number of children; whereas the original proposal to construct an elevated asphalt walkway would have involved use by a greater number of children. Mayor Coco felt that. the purpose now should be to dis- courage pedestrian traffic from the area pending ultimate improvements. He pointed out that there have been no pedestrian accidents at this location even prior to signalization. In response to Councilmen's questions, Mr. B]ankensbip stated that a copy of Mr. Myers' report was mailed to the Tustin Meadows Homeowners Association on December 31st, and that no comment has yet been received from the Association. Council MinuL'cs 1-4-71 Page Councilman L. Miller suggested that the City Administrator be directed to contact the president of the Homeowners Association to determine whether alternative ~1 is a workable solution at present, and that this item be de- ferred co the next Council meeting. Mayor Coco suggested that temporary signing and striping be implemented inmediately. Councilman C. Miller agreed that steps relative to signing should be taken immediately, but reiterated his feeling that a greater problem would be engendered in barring pedestrian traffic from the area, thereby forcing pedestrians into two crossings of Red Hill Avenue. He preferred to defer action on a "No Pedestrian" sign pending some answer to the question of the relative safe- ty to pedestrian~ of avoiding that portion by crossing to the west side of Red Hill and back again, versus con- structing a walkway and barrier on the east side. In answer to questioning by Councilman Marsters, Mr. Blankenship stated tlmt the signing and striping could be accomplished within two weeks' time, assuming the signs are in supply. The S~aff was directed to initiate action immediately on installation of signs ("Slow to 35 MPH", "Road Narrows", 'Watch for Pedestrians", etc.} and striping, and to offer opLnions at the next meeting relative to the practicality of other recommendations contained in the City Engineer's report. ~-~ 4. POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIORITIES Mr. Blankenship commented that the reports had been re- ceived too late to be reviewed by the City Administrator. Councilman Marsters stated he would like to have Mro Gill's input, but was very concerned with the first priority dicated by the Police Chief's report--the request for an additional narcotics investigator. He felt that, for reasons stated in the report, there was a substantial need to safeguard the health and safety of the present invest- igator. Councilman C. Miller agreed that the necessity exists, but was reluctant to make a commitment without some type of budgetary projections° Councilman L. Miller felt that the City Administrator should be consulted prior to adding any new staff, since there is a possibility that the position could be filled by transferring some individual already in the Department to that position. Councilman Marsters said he would go along with that, but wished to go on record strongly urging that some action be taken to support the Police Chief in this, as it is a matter of very great concern to the Police Department. Mayor Cocq suggested the~matter be taken up as an urgency measure at the next meeting. In response to questioning by Councilman Marsters, Mayor Coco stated that this was not an unsolicited report, and it did not come to the Council as a matter of urgency; Council Minutes 1-4-71 Page 5 he suggested that in view of the fact that there would be another Council meeting in 14 days, that it could be taken up an that time. In the event that the City Administrator agreed in its urgency, an emergency meeting could be called in the interim. It was agreed that Councilman Marsters contact the City Administrator on his return for his opinion as to the urgency of the Police recommendations. 5. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT OF ACTIVITIES~ October - December~ 1970. 6. DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMISSION EVALUATION - INTERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE. Mr. Fleagle requested that the Councilmen review the questionnaire and submit comments to his office. 7. AWARD PLACQUES. Councilman Marsters suggested presenting placques retroactively to those to whom special Resolutions had been given over the last 3 or 4 years. Staff was instructed to provide each Councilman, on indiv- idual request, a list of those who had received special Resolutions, such as Supervisors, retired Councilmen and Commissioners, and citizens who had distinguished them- selves in service to the City. Each Councilman would then suggest one or more names from this list for consideration of a retroactive award if he feels it appropriate, Moved by L. Miller, Seconded by C. Miller that a purchase order be issued for 100 placques in design ~3, as illustrated. Carried unanimously. Councilman Oster absent. Mayor Coco confirmed the recommendation that a policy for the awarding of placques be considered during the interim six weeks delivery time. 8. TREE REMOVAL BY ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT ON IRVINE BOULEVARD. Mr. FieaBle stated that, following communication with Andrews Development, the staff feels that there has been a breach of good faith with the adjacent property owners by removal of trees prior to the submission of a plot plan showing the precise locations of the trees to re- main. He has been told by Mr. Andrews that no more trees would be cut before a specific plot plan is con- sidered by the Development Preview Commission at its January 6th meeting, and that trees removed so far were either dead or in public right-of-way. Mr. Fleagle stated that residents in the area had been notified about the January 6th D.P.C. meeting. Councilman C. Miller stated t~t he had driven by the area and it did not appear that the trees were all in public right-of-way. Mr. Walter Wands, 17692 Westbury Lane, Tustin, related some of the history of the mecter and his conversations with the developers, covering the following points: A. The developers representatives had told him that no specific plot plan bad been submitted pending approval of the general plans by the Planning Commission and the Development Preview Commission. Council Minutes 1-4-71 Page O B. He had expressed to the developers the residents' concern ~bont landscaping. C. Mr. Andrews had commented to him that any specific plans would be discussed with him (Mr. Wands) prier to submission of those plans to the Development Preview Con~nission. D. Mr. Andrews had been informed of the residents' willingness to work with him and make concessions should any problems arise with grading, etc. Mr. Wands described his two main areas of concern as (1) how the developers can go ahead without approval of a specific plan by the Development Preview Commis- sion, and (2) why Mr. Andrews told Mr. Fleagle that only dead tre~s or those in public right-of-way were cut, and subsequently told Mrs. Wands that trees were cut because of grading problems. Mr. Rourke, in answer to questioning by Councilman Marsters. stated that in the absence of any existing Ordinance prohib- iting removal of trees, probably nothing could be done from a legal standpoint should Mr. Andrews continue cutting trees prior to the January 6th Development Preview Commission meeting. But it could prejudice the developer in the eyes cf appropriate City bodies when he later applies for permits approvals prior to development. Mr. Fleaale stated that there was a documented agree- merit that the eucalyptus trees would be retained. If Mr. Andrews violates the good faith in which the Use Permit was granted, action could be initiated to revoke his Use Permit. ,-~ Ray Matthewson, 17712 Westbury Lane, Tustin, stated that the developer had apparently contracted for the removal of the trees, as nearly every tree on the acreage has been chopped, including approximately 100 good per- simmon trees which only appear to be dead due to seasonal dormancy. He cited the developer's apparent disregard for agreements he may have made with the Planning Com- mission and residents. Mayor Coco suggested that t~is may be a matter of a mis- understanding about Mr. Andrews' agreement to submit a plot plan to the residents, and if he does intend to do so, there may be some confusion as to which trees are involved. He encouraged Mr. Wands and Mr. Matthew- son or their representatives to attend the January 6th Development Preview Commission meeting to ensure that these assertions are brought up. Mr. Fleagle was asked to convey to the Commission the Councit's concern that the development be to the highest possible standards. 9. Councilman L. Miller requested a report from the City Engineer on the intersections of 17th and Carroll Way and First Street at Newport Avenue, and the means re- quired to minimize accidents at these locations. 10. Councilman C. Miller requested more information con- ce=ning the Orange County Grand Jury's report recom- mending consolidation of the $~eriff's Office and the Marshal's office. 11. Mayor Coco acknowledged that Supervisor Hirstein, at the December 22, 1970, meeting of the Board of Supervisors, bad introduced the City's resolution requesting joint City/County construction of a library in Tustin. Council Minu[ 1-4-71 Page XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Coco declared the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. MAYOR ACTING SECRETARY