Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1970 10 19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING. TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL October 19, 1970 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Coco IIo -. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman L. Miller ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Coco, Councilmen C. Miller, Marsters L. Miller, Oster Absent: None Others Present: City Administrator, Harry E. Gill City Attorney, James Rourke Ass't City Administrator, Dan Blankenship Ass't City Administrator - Community Development, Ken Fleagle City Clerk Ruth Poe PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. ZC-70-216- THE COVINGTON BROTHERS ON BEHALF OF MARVIN L. AND WANDA L. BOSE. Application for zone change from the PC-R-3(1750) (Planned Community Multiple-Family Residential, 1750 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit) Distri to the PC-R-3 (1350) District (Planned Community Multiple-Family Residential, 1350 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit). Site fronts approximately 214 feet on the west sid~ of Williams Street, and is located approximately 774 feet north of the centerline of McFadden Stree' Mr. Fleagle stated Covington Brothers on behalf of Marvin and Wanda Bose submitted an application for a zone change. for the area located on Williams St. to the Planning Commission on July 13th, continued August 10, August 31st and September 14th and was asked for continuance at the request of the developer because there. had not been a plan submitted which could get the endorsement of the staffor the Deve!o~' ment Preview Commission. The recommendations of the Planning COmmission is that the City Council deny the application aS submitted for a density'of .1350 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, but if it is the Council's pleasure the commission would welcome the submission of new plans which might provide for lesser density. and a more compatible development on that property° The applicant is more than willinq to have the ' matter returned tO the Planning Commission to review the plans. .Mayor ¢oco opened the public portion of the hearing ~t 7:35 p,.m. OctOber 19, 1970 Page 2 Mr. ~orin Covington, Coving~On. Brothers, requested that the City Coun6il delay their actions to enable Covington Brothers to submit new plans as they feel they are in a more advantageous position financially, to submit better plans. Marvin Bose, owner of the property, stated'that he agreed with Mr. Covington's proposal to revise the plans. Ma~o~ Coco closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:40 p.m. as there Were no objections or further__ comments. Mr. Fleagle, u~on being questioned by the Council, stated that the main concern is.the density, however, coupled with thatare the parking ratio, access points, safety hazards, entrance ways, emergency access, land coverage, all of which if corrected would add to the quality of the development. Moved'by Councilman 0ster, seconded by Councilman Marsters that the matter be returned to the planning Commission and tha~ the applicant be advised of the sequence of Council actions on the Zink properties- 2. ZC-70-219.- R. T. FRENCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF HARRIET O. ENDERLE. Application for rezoning (ZC-70-219) of an approximate 10 acre parcel of land from the C-2 (Commercial) and R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Districts to the pC-C-2-(Planned Community Central Commercial) District. Site fronts approximately 585 feet on the east side of Yorba Street, approximately 214 feet south oJ centerline of 17th Street. Mr. Fleagle stated that there were three related issues on Zone Change 70-219, 70-220 and application for pre-zoning 70-122. Since the properties are tied together in common ownership and in common development it was suggested that the matters be considered and testimony be taken on all three items at one time, however, the items could be voted on separately. 3. ZC-70-220 R.T. FRENCH DEVELOPMENT CO., ON BEHAL~ OF HARRIET O. ENDERLE Application for rezoning (ZC-70-220) of an approxim 10.5 acre parcel from the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District to the PC-R-3 (Planned Commun Multiple-FamilY) District. Site fronts approximately 355 fe~t on the east side of Yorba Street, approximately 735 feet south of th centerline of 17th Street- 4. PZ-70-122 R. T. FRENCH DEVELOPMENT CO., ON BEHALF OF HARRIET O. ENDERLE Application for prezoning (PZ-70-122) of an approximate 27.6 acre parcel of 'land from Orange County AC-PA (Architectural Supervision profession~ and Administrative Office) and AC-CN (Architectura Supervision Commercial Neighborhood) Districts to t City of Tustin P-C (Planned Community) District. Site fronts approximately 1731 feet on the south side of 17th Street and approximately 506 feet on t west side of Prospect Avenue. Page 3 had been filed for the zone change to PC-C-2 and PC-R-3 and a public hearing held. Th'~=~]COmmission recommended approval of the zone change and suggested that development be by Use Permit subject to criteria specifically spelled out so that there would be a public hearing before any building permit is issued on e Use Permit basis. The Council would reserve unto itself final approval of any development plans that are submitted. The applicant could then draw up his plans $n accordance with this criteria and be subject to Use Permit approval. Ma~,or Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:50. Mr. Ralph Yeaman,14242 Acacia Drive, Enderle Gardens and Vice President of the Enderie Gardens Property Association stated that by majority '~o~e of the Association there were no overall objections to a commercially zoned property, however, there were some objections to the setback of only 100 feet plus the possibility of two-story apartments and the high density. They felt the General Plan was not being taken into consideration for a lower density. Mrs. Harry Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda,stated there were two things to'which she was definitely opposed: one was the possibility of. two-story apartments (one story was acceptable) and secondly that the City was becoming unbalanced in the number of apartment within the City. Mr. A1 Enderi~, 2333 Catalina Street, Santa Analstated he appreciated the comments that the Association had made, but that he felt the apartments were well-planned and hoped that they would be approved. ~r. Sol Shapiro, 14222 Mimosa Lanesstated he felt that no true analysis had been made or concrete plan submitted that could be, accepted by the Council and Plan~ing Commission. Felt there should be some permanent plans which could~,be voted on. Mrs. Maurice F. Enderie,.14152 South Yorba~stated that for years theyhad held off developers until they had a development which they felt would be a credit to the community. Felt she had paid more than enough in taxes on undeveloped property and that this develop- ment was a good one and that it should be accepted. Mr. Ralph Yeaman stated on behalf of Mr. Shapiro that we should have some precise plans. Mr. Sol Shapiro stated he fully approved of what Mrs. Enderie was doing with her property but still in- sisted on some definite plans. Mr. John Watz, 105 E1 Camino Real,asked if the French Development will lock that portion of the land located in the County into the City. Mayor COco stated that that was correct. It was a legal guarantee that the property would become part ~ of the City. Mr~ Ed~e~ -,14192 YorbaCstated he leased the old Enderle Ranch~house from the Ender]es and that he personally doesn't know whether or not he had-a place to live from month to month. Mayor CocQ closed the public portion of the hearing ons at 8:20 as there were no further comments or objecti · Page 4 Councilman Oster stated he was concerned that the County property might not be annexed assuming that the Council granted a zone change. Mr. Gill stated that the reason the~hearings have been scheduled as they have is for protection. Rezonlng would not take place before the protest hearinq Moved by Councilman L. Miller, seconded by Councilman Oster that the City Attorney be authorized to draft an o'~ance approving the recommendation of the Plan~ing Commission on p~ge three of the Planning Commission Hearing with the inclusion of the words "not less t n one hundred feet" ~n condition one, and.the condition that the Development Preview Commission and the Plannlnq Commission work with the Enderle Gardens citizens in approving the plans and secondly that the Council will have final approval of the development plans. Carried unanimously. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 5, 1970 meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS - in amount o.f $72,122.64 3. EXONERATION OF IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR TRACT NO. 6478 (Model Homes portion of Tustin Meadows) Acceptance of improvements and exoneration of pertinent bonds as recommended by the City Engineer 4. STREET IMPROVEMENTS - LAGUNA RD., NEWPORT AVE., NO BROWNING AVE. Approval of change order Project I (Browning Ave. pavement reconstruction) as recommended by the City Engineer. 5. DENIAL OF APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF LINDA MORGAN FOB LEAVE TO PRESENT A CLAIM. As recommended by the City Attorney. 6. DESIGN REVIEW AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE LAW CENTER OF UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. Approval of agreement as discussed by the City Council and recommended by the City Attorney· Councilman L. Miller stated he would be abstaining on Number three - Exoneration of Improvement Bonds for Tract No. 6478· Moved by Councilman C. Millerr seconded by Councilma~ 0ster that items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 be approved. Carried unamiously- Moved b Councilman Marsters, seconded by Councilman VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION October 19, 1970 Page 5 ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION cont'd ORDINANCE NO. 484 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, ENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO PERMITS FOR CERTAIN ANIMALS. Moved by Councilman L. Millerr seconded by Councilman L. Marsters that Ordinance No. 484 amending the Tustin City Code relative to permits for certain animals be adopted. Carried by roll call vote. AYES: Councilmen: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Coucnilmen: None VIII " ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION ORDINANCES' FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 485 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO TAXING VENDING MACHINES AND WASHERS AND DRYERS. Ordinance read by title only by ~onsent of the Council. RESOLUTIONS ' RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 70-48 A Resolution DECLARING THAT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO ANNEX TO SAID CITY CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN , AND DESIGNATED AS "SEVENTEENTH STREET - PROSPECT AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 61" TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN~, AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION. Moved by Councilman L. Miller, seconded by Councilman Oster that further reading be waived and that Resolutic Number 70-48 declaring that proceedings have been initiated by the City Council of the City of Tustin to annex to said City .certain uninhabited territory described herein, and designated as "Seventeenth Streez Prospect Avenue Annexation No. 61 to the City of Tustin and giving not~ice of the proposed annexation be adopte~ Carried unanimously. ~88~' "" )LD ~USINESS OLD BUSINESS 1. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, initiated by the Planning Commissi6n on its own motion, to establish a Commercial Planned Development (CPD) District. Proposed district would be applicable to commercial property within the town center area and specify criteria for' planned commercial development. Said proposal authorizes consolidated development of property, provides buffers for adjacent residential properties, and authorizes consoliclated off-site parking accommodations. Mr. Fieagle stated that th~ City Council on September 21st had requested additional information on the application of development criteria to properties within the Commercial ·Planned Development overlay zone. Explained that Exhibits one through three -_ and Figures one through four would give an illustrai )n as to what the.proposed ordinance would hopefully encourage in the redevelopment of deteriorating structures within the town center area. Councilman L. Miller stated he felt that perhaps this Ordinance might not be flexible enough to allow the kind of buildings or structures which 4 we envision coming into the Tustin area~ that a .. developer might not want to go to the trouble to have an ordinance changed if he wanted to build ~ · a larger building'~r utilize a higher percentage of land. Councilman Marsters stated he would li~e to leave off the number of stories, the amount of parkfng and the percentage of land used. Felt this would allow a greater latitude for development- Councilman Lo Miller suggested that perhaps the staff might look into what other cities, z.e. Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, etc., are doing. Moved by Councilman L. Miller, seconded by Councilm~ Marsters that this matter be deferred until the staff has had a chance to study the matter more thoroughly and then resubmit a new plan for consideration- Carried unanimously- Councilman Oster excused himself as he had to leave. XI. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. PROPOSED REVISION OF EMPLOYEE INSURANCE BENEFITS- Mr. Blankenship stated that the proposed revisions to the EmplOyee Health and Life Insurance benefits were prepared after a great deal of analysis by Mr. Jerry Mack. He stated that there had been numerous problems with the present carrier, i.e. delay on claims, etc.,,plus the increasingly inadequate coverage which we now have. Mr. Jerry Mack presented to the Council an outline of the steps that were taken in preparing the proposed revisions for the employees. Moved by Councilman Marsters, seconded by Councilma C. Miller that items one and two of the Employee Health and Life Insurance Benefits be accepted as submittedto become effective November 1, 1970. Carried. unanimously. City Council October 19, 1970 Page 7 XII. OTHER ~.-HITCHHIK ING BUSINESS ~' Mr. Gill referred to the letter from the Police Chief regarding hitchhiking and stated that if it was the Council's desire an ordinance regarding hitchhiking could be drafted. In answer to questining Mr. Rourke stated that what Chief Sissel had said in his letter was accurate. There have been opinions in various cities as to hitchhiking ordinances. Some say they feel that the state has pre-empted the field and other cities, including Los Angeles, feel that they have not. Mr. Rourke said he~ b~ieved it would' not be unreasonable to have an ordinanc and to provide that it be covering minors. Minors are adequately defined, and he thought .that the Chief's definition or suggestion of age 21 would be a reasonable line to draw although you could pick out some o~er age such as 18. Councilman Marsters stated ~at he is more concerned with minors under the age of '18, although he would not object if it were increased to 21. As th~ Chief pointed out these are the people who are being ra~ed, robbed, murdered and molested, as well as being able to get quickly away from parental control by hitchhiking. Mr. Marsters thought ~at Tustin should set an example in Orange County. Councilman L. Miller suggested that ~e ordinance just prohibit all hitchhiking across the board. This would eliminate getting involved in identification and proof 'of age. Councilman Marsters concurred. Mayor Coco stated that ~ere was some merit to ~at but ~at he could not help thinking back on his own days when he could not get from one place to another without hitchhiking and ~ere a: emergency situations. He said that he would be against an ~ overall ban on hitchhiking. Mayor Coco said he thought if ~e City is protecting, as ~e Chief says, ~ose under 18, and as Mr. Marsters said ~at 18 is ~e age at which ~ey sould be protected, then ~at is ~e kind of prohibition ~e Council should be discussing. He stated ~at overall hitchhiking would ~e a little ~o broad for him to swallow right now. What of people who get to work every day by hitchhiking, and the children ~at get to school ~at way, university children. To so~e 18, 19, 20, and 21 year olds, hitchiking is a matter of life. Now you say these are vagrants and they should be prohibited from 'cluttering our streets. ~ouncilman C. Miller stated ~at he was for total prohibition. It is not just ~e people that are hitchhiking ~at are being protected, but also the people who are foolish enough to pick them up. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by C. Miller ~at hitchhiking be prohibited and ~e City Attorney dr~lt an ordinance accordingly. Motion carried, Mayor Coco voting no. 2.ANNOUNCEMENT OF LEAGUE OF CITIES BREAKFAST ON OCOTBER 27th at 8:00 a.m. IN"S~DIEG0'i Mayor Coco & Councilman L. Miller volunteered to attend. 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES WINNER " City Council October 19, 1970 Page 8 4. RESOLUTION N0.70-49 A Resolutionof the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OLD. Moved by Councilman C. Miller~ seconded by Councilman Marsters that Resolution 70-49 be read. by title only. Carrier___ d unanimously Moved by Councilman L. Millerr seconded by Councilman C. Mill~J that Resolution No. 70.49, authorizing the destruction of certain Police Deparment'.reccrds at. least five years old be a~opted. Carried unanimously- 5..STREET SWEEPING IN COUNTY AREA. The question was raised by Mr. George Argyros as to the possibility of sweeping certain streets that lie in the County abutting City property. The Council requested that the ~taff prepare an estimate of the cost of sweeping th~se streets. 6. PARADE FLOAT Mr. Don Allison requested that the City float which was to De entered in the Santa Ana parade be entered in the Fountain 'Valley parade instead. Moved by Councilman L. Miller~ seconded by Councilman Marsters. that an additional expense of $200.00 be approve~ in order to enter the float in the Fountain Valley parade as well as the San~ Ana parade. Carried. 7. TRASH PROBLEM The problem of the late trash pick~up was brought up. It was reported by the City Staff that the problem had been corrected to some degree. 8. ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICER TO HELP IN THE NARCOTIC~ DIVISION. Council asked for a report as to the necessity of an additional .officer to aid in the detection of narcotics as requestd by ~he Police Chief. ' 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CLIFTON C. MILLER'S FIVE YEAR CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION FOR SERVICE ON THE ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT. 10. LETTER TO LAFCO ON INCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF IRVINE Moved by Councilman L. Miller, seconded by councilman Mar~ter~, that the letter to LAFCO indicatingTustin's stand in regard to the incorporation of the City of Irvine be approved as sub- mitted except for the section concerning the Marine Corps Air Station (H) which should be recorded to indicate more emphat~~-~1 Tustin's interest in the Marine Corps Air Station (H). Ca~rri ll. PETITION FROM CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS ASKING THAT THE CITY OF TUSTIN BUY THE PROPERTY AT BRYAN AND NEWPORT FOR A PARK. Decision Of the Council to send these people a letter asking their support and help in the parksite program. !~ ,i~ ~ City Council October 19, 1970 Page 9. 12. CAT PROBLEM OF MR. AND MRS. NATHANIEL REICH ~T~ Reich came forward and expressed his disappointment in the !~i~=~'~ithe problem concerning his tenants and t~l~s which they maintained was handled. He stated that he did not feel the City had acted in the appropriate manner or that the questions which he had submitted had been answered to his satisfaction. Mayor Coco sta~ed that on.behalfof the City 'Staff and those individuals involved from the County that action had been taken on the matter and that the City had made a more than adequate ~ effort to abate the problem and also answer Mr. Reich's questions If, as Mr. Reich Said, he wished to tell his neighbors that the City did not spend adequate time in listening and acting on his questions, that is his privelege, but many hours have ~ been devoted to this matter. XIII. ADJOURN. Moved by Councilman L. ~Miller, Seconded .by 'Councilman Marsters MENT that-the meeting be adjourned. Carried.