Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1970 05 18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL May 18, 1970 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order an 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco. III. INVOCATION Given by Mayor Coco. IV. Present: Councilmen Cocot 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. K. Fleagle V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that minutes of May 4, 1970, be approved. Carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ZC 70-210 - R. T. FRENCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Application of R. T. French Development Company for rezonlng from R-3 a~d R-1 to PC-C-2 and PC-R-3. Property is located approximately 300 feet southeasterly of the intersection of 17th Street and Yorba Street. Mr. Fleagle explained location and background stating that at the Planning Commission hearing of April 27 there was no opposition to this change. The Planning Commission at that meeting had recommended approval of ZC 70-210 subject to the following conditions as specified in their Resolution No. 1154: 1. Compliance with the stipulated requirements of the City Engineer for public improvements per Staff Report dated April 8, 1970. 2. A maximum density of 216 residential units with authority granted to the Development Previews_Committee to adjust the density if determined essential to gain the desired amenities and design criteria. 3. Review'and approval by Development Preview Committee and City Staff (City Engineer, Fire Chief, Building' Official and Community Development Director) of the ulti- mate project design and development. 4. Submission and approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission prior to development. 5. Coordination of EOEal project review and design by Development Preview Committee of the City of Tustin and the Orange County Architectural Control Board. and re~or~ be made to the Develo~men~ Preview Committee of CQ~.m~S~lon Cg~Cetns for the various development Criz~ria Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. R. T. French, Campus Drive, Newport Beach, showed renderings andpl~ns~d stated that as shown the archi- tecture would be similar to that of the office buildings on Irvine Boulevard. They have allowed for no signing and the entire project will be blanketed by a large wall, giving an estate-like appearance. Mr. French then intro- duced Mr. Vinton Frost, representative of Burke, KDher, Nicolais, Archuleta, the architects for R. T. French Development Company. Mr. V. Frost stated that the architectural problem involved is to produce not only a residential neighbor but in con- junction some commercial aspects and it was determined to- do it all in a residentialidiom- There will be no sign above elevation line, no overflow lighting. They will use textured wood, masonry, tile roofs and stucco chimneys. They have agreedwith the suggestion of the home owners that there should be alandscaped fence along the south lot line. Ralph Yeaman of 14242 Acacia Drive, member of the Board of Directors of Enderie Gardens Association stated he was speaking for the majority of themembers. General Yeaman said the following five conditions were presented to the developers by-the home owners and the developers had assured them that they would be taken care of~ 1. No two-story buildings within 100 feet of the Enderle Gardens fence. 2. Garages be 10 feet from the= wall. 3. Landscaping including a barrier of trees for 1,200 feet next to Enderle Gardens. 4. No night lights be reflected into Enderle Gardens. 5. Wall 6'8" or higher be constructed first to preclude a lot of noise and dirt. The majority of the association members agree with the pro- posed under these conditions if the renderings, drawings and layouts indicate exactly what is going to be carried ou~ and the Council should then see that all agreed on ~s carried out. Mrs. Harry Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, stated it was her under- standing that the developer has agreed to annex all the 17th and Yorba corner once accepted. Mrs. Harry Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, asked if the developer planned to eventually annex the entire developmenn ~o the city and what kind of shopping center this will be -- will it be quality units? Mr. Frost stated architecture of commercial development will be almost identical to the apartments. Tenants will include a bank and office buildings. Richards Market will be in the center and Mr. Richards has the right of approval or dis- approval of any tenant. Annexation has been mentioned of the 30 acres of the develop- ment. The portion in the County is subjec~ to County approval. It is unfair tomake them annex until final approval by the County -- then free to annex. Projected time for this would be about one year. In answer to Mrs~ Wagner, Mr. French stated that if and when development ~s approved by the County, it is their in~on~ annex to the City, 5-18-70 Page 3 Mr. Walt Wans, 17692 Westbury Lane, spoke against this development and stated that there are too many apartments in the City and he Ks satisfied with the tax base. Mr. Sol Shapiro, 14222 Mimosa, asked if the neighbors would be able to check the complete plans Before final approval. Mr. Fleagle stated that final conditions and plans will come under a use permit hearing which will be advertised and noticed. Mr. Harry Wagner stated he would like Mr. French to show the Enderle Gardens Association the final plans exactly as will be submitted to the City for final approval. Mr. A1 Enderle, 14152 Yorba Street, spoke in favor of this developmen~ as being the best proposal he had seen and if held many more years the alternative could be worse. This is an opportunity for a quality development. It Ks no longer economically feasible to care for the orange grove and the trees have not produced in five or six years. There being no further protests or commentst the hearing was declared closed at 8:10 P.M. Councilman ester noted that condition No. 2 of the Planning Commission permits Development Preview Committee to adjust density. Mr. Fleagle stated that this would only allow them zo lower 'the density and the Council should sez a reduction by noz more than 5% or it can be appealed. In answer to further questioning, Mr. Fleagle stated that it is the intent of the Commission that home owners will review plans and will be given notice of use permit hearings. Mr. Rourke stated that if anyone is not satisfied when this goes for a use permit, they can appeal to the Council. Mayor Coco stated that conditions of the Enderle Gardens Association could be a part of any Council Resolution. In answer to questioning, Mr. French stated tha~ they are no~ yet planned to the number of three bedroom units in the development but they are planning an adult community, but have no restrictions yet as he does not think he can set qualifications when getting a loan. Mr. French further stated thatin the developmen~ 216 units will be in the City and 140 in the County. In answer to Mr. Marsters, Mr. rlqagle stated approximately 12 acres in the total portion within the City out of the 43 acre parcel, less than 8 acres are zoned R-3, 2 acres' R-1. Councilman C. Miller stated that it appears by the plans ~o be 216 units on 9.5 acres, approximately 22.7 per acre. Original plans show 106 one-bedroom and one-bath units, 61 two-bedroom and one-bath units and 49 two-bedroom and two- bath units. This is very high density devel6pment. Mr. Frencht in answer to Councilman C. Miller, stated that all side yards for one-s~ory buildings next to Enderle Gar- dens will be 10 feet as stipulated at the Planning Commission meeting. Councilman Marsters stated his concern in taking R-1 and E-1 to a high density use~ especially in the north, and he would be ~bbbsed to this zone Change. He realized the COunty has taken th~ iniative, but the City does not have to condone it. ?~ ~.~~I C i ty Counc i 1 Moved by Marste~s~Se~on~edbY ester, that ZC 70-210 be denied. Councilman ester stated that the introduction of 22 ~ units per acre is a mistake. Lesser density can be built. Councilman C. Miller said that it had been his ~mpress~on they have with the feeling of resignation minimum conditions that would have to be met. There are problems in the "density that no redesign or discussion with the Development Preview Committee is going ~o solve. Mayor Coco stated that the fact that stands out in his mind is that Enderle Gardens did make several recommendations which were agreed to by the applicant. The applicant has indicated willingness to listen, has a quality ~enan~, landscaping, sign control, etc. Mayor Coco reminded the Council that there had been an application for this general area of 11 acres. Everyone was unhappy with that and the Council was holding out for a 40 acre coordinated develop- men~'-- now have that development. The Mayor stated that his criterion ts that each developmen~ be better than the last and he could see this as a good developmen~ and ulti- mately coming into the city. The applicant has gone on record that he will apply for annexation. His concern was what will come if this is denied. Councilman Miller stated he would like to hear General Yeaman if he had pertinent points on this. General Yeaman said he appreciated Councilman Marsters' remarks and although~the density is high in deference ~o property owners of this land, to do what would best satisfy the community as a whole. He would be against the motion to deny this zone change. Councilman Marsters called for the question. Motion to deny ZC 70-201 carried by roll call. Ayes: Marsters, C. Miller, L. Miller, ester. Noes: Coco. Absent: None. VII. OLD BUSINESS 1. ZC 70-211 - WILLIAM W. ZINK, JR. - Cont'd. from 5/4/70 Application of William W. Zink, Jr. for a Zone Change from R-4 to PC (R-3-1800) tO authorize the construction of 111 Deluxe Apartment Units on proper~y located on the east side of Red Hill Avenue approximately 300 feet southeasterly of Mitchell Avenue consisting of 4.75 acres. Mr. Fleagle explained the history of this zone change and presented the May 11 recommendations of the Planning Com- mission for approval with consideration being given to the original plan submitted for 111 units based on: 1. New plan reducing the green area and developmen~ amenities. 2. Requirement for increased number of parking spaces beyond the number required by ordinance for any other district. Mr. Fleagle also presented a parking and density analysis ~Qr ~he a~ea-boun~e~ by Newpor~Nisson-Browning and Walnut and showed slides showing developmenE in the area. In answer ~o Mayor Coco, Mr. Fleagle said in his opinion some of the amenities could be returned such as the drive approach, landscaping on north boundary which could be pu~ back in with the elimination of a few parking'spaces. City Council 5-18-70 Page 5 One that couldn't go back without the approval of the developer is in the area of the mansard roof. He recom- mended that the Council set the density and the develop- ment go before the Development Prevaew Committee for amenities of design. Councilman C. Miller stated he would like to comment on the Planning Commission minutes and discussion as reported in the paper. It seems the Planning Commission took their action on certain assumptions which are not necessarily correct. One assumption that is correct is that orig/nal ' package as a better design and would be better looking than the design presented to them. The other two assumptions seemed to be that the City would have to accept this development at this density because as presented it would be a good development which conversely can be interpreted that they believe that there is no way to have a very fine development at a lesser density. The other assumption is that the Council is very anxious to have this property developed an apartments and~ therefore, the City should proceed to approve a development because at this time it could go right ahead. Mr. Miller stated that he did not hold to the point of view that there~ is any advantage to the City anywhere near the advantages to the developer to proceed with an apartment development at this time. If the Council can look at the assumptions and decide what the bases is for any action, then they can give some direction to the developer and property owner. Councilman ester stated that in looking at the area map, the density of this development even at 21 units per acre is too h~gh. Neighboring density seems to have been de- veloped at R-4 or P--1. He did not believe this would have to develop at the 21 units. Councilman Marsters concurred and stated he saw no necessity in developing immediately or necessity to rush into high density. Councilman L. Miller concurred. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters, that ZC 70-211 be denied. Mayor Coco stated there were two factors worthy of more discussion, ~he threshold of density and the anxiety that the City might have of developang. He thought there was no question about it that the anxiety that the City might have ms nowhere near what the developer or owner might have for any parcel. The City is anxfous to see that a s~reet be widened and that any undeveloped property is developed in the best way. If there is any anxiety, it is not so much what goes on land but possibly the peripheral benefits to the C~ty. His reservation is the threshold of density. On the more dense side more ameni- ties can be afforded and on the less dense side they can't and the development will be cheaper. The applicant came in for 23 units per acre and has gone down to 21 and claims this is where his threshold is. Perhaps there is a need for more expertise on the Commission that can answer that one basic question. At l his ,point, the Council has no way to evaluate the opinion of the developer. There must be a way this can be evaluated. ouncilman C. Miller stated in this the Couhcil would be a~ki'hg ~f many threshold~ -- the landowners, the developers~ determine is what is best for the City. No way to deter~ine what is best for the others. If the Council assumes that no development can be done at a lesser density at the same quality -- then should buy it, i f the Council also assumes that they cannoz live with a vacant lot. City Council Mayor COCO. asked at what~ensl~y will an applicant be able to come before the CounCil and get an approval -- is the Council unwilling ~o set a density. Councilman C. Miller answered that that would be dealing with more variables there as it would depend on the density, the quality and location. It would be helpful beyond this study here to have slides to show densities the City. Mayor Coco said it wouId also be helpful to have the dates when built --.under what economics. At this time, he is ~rying to determine what density the Council would accepz. Councilman Osier stated he has seen nothing that would show him that this proper~y canno~ be developed aE 14 or 16 or 18 units per acre on an economical basis. He did no~ think that the Council had ~o change zones jus~ ~o change them. When this property was bought, it had a certain zonlng on it. The Council makes the economics. If wantto make the economics aE the expense of introducing higher density into an area, fine. But in this location he saw no reason · ncrease the density Up ~o 21 units per acre. The burden of proof that change ~s necessary rests with the applicant. Councilman L. Miller Stated that he and Councilman C. Miller had talked to many peop~in the area and been approached with a mandate from the populace with concern regarding the apartment density exceeding that of the residential community. Consequently, if any undeveloped areas are rezoned, it is nnperative that it is a) quality~ b) lowesE density possible, c) if possib.le on the basis of the First Street developmen~ that looks residential -- the Broadmore. Above motion to deny this zone change carried by roll call. Ayes: C~ Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: C~co. Absent: None. 2. UP-70-339 - APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Cont'd. closed from 5/4/70 Appeal Of the decision of the Planning Commission on appli- cation of L. Dennis Huchison on behalf of W. L. Sneed and Ben Fiore for a use permit [UP-70-339). Appeal is requesting consideration on that portion of the application pertaining to the installation of a gian~ space pillow in conjunction with existing-miniature golf course on leased property known as 721 West First Street. ~r. Fleagle explained that this maEter had been held over from the last Council meeting for the Council ~o ge~ an actual demonstration of what a space pillow is and whether or noE it is an appropriate adjunct to this Goony Golf location. Mr. Fleagle showed video film Of Councilman L. Miller's family jumping on a space pillow complete with sounds pro- jected from the space pillow tent. Mr. Fleagle stated that the noise level ten feet away would no~ be over normal speaking. Councilman Millersstated that ten tO twelve feet away you would no~ hear anything. There · s a definite lack of recreation in the community. It would not be an objectionable use in the rear or rear of the parking lot. Councilman Oster s~azed that he still believes this Eo be an exEension of a nonconforming use. Moved by Oster, seconded by C. Miller, that use be denied. Mr. Fleagle stated that the recommendation of the staff would be the compliance with conditions set forth by the Fire Department in report dated April 27, evidence of adequate liability insurance as determined and approved by the City Attorney, dedication of addit.ional street right- of-way in the form of 15 foot radius corner as stipulated by the City Engineer. The City Engineer would also like, as a condition of approval, the paving of 165 feet of sidewalk on Myrtle Avenue, and a site review by the Development Preview Committee for the pupose of recom- mending aesthetic improvements for the benefit of the leaseholder and the community. Though the Golf Course is a nonconforming use, the addition to it is not a structure as such. It is a portable unit so it is not an expansion of a nonconforming structure, but would be an expansion of a nonconforming use. Mayor Coco said that it sc i~e City has little to lose and much to galn ... ~roved.. If not, it not being a structure, the chances are it could be put in anyway. If put in without Council approval, then the City stands to lose the 15 foot dedication. Having seen the TV show and heard Mr. Miller and the assurance that it would not be an appreciable acoustic addition to the area, his feeling is that the City has very little ~o lose and should take the recommendations of staff. Above motion to deny the use failed. Ayes: Marsters, Oster. Noes: COCO, L. Miller, C. Miller. Councilman C. Miller suggested that approval should include time limit for the dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Fleagle stated that it could be a condition that the dedication precede the issuance of a permit and recommend the condition be included that it be specifically located inside of the golf course fence. Mayor Coco confirmed that staff was recommending that con- ditions ba: 1. Originally specified location be approved. 2. Dedication be precondition of the ~ssuing of the permit. 3. That all other staff recommendations apply. Councilman L. Miller stated he had gone over to the site. The owner believes that if they move the fence slightly and put pillows where the trampolines were they would have better supervision from the office. Mr. Miller recommended that rather than setting the site and location for the pillow that the Development Preview Committee be granted the option of determining the specific location. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster, that approval of use be subject to the conditions as specified by the staff and that the Developmen~ Preview Committee exaunine and locate the use with proper screening and the dedication of the street -- right of way be precondition ~o the issuance of a permit. Carried. City Council J~ 5-18-70 Page 8 3. ORDINANCE NO. 463 ~ second readin~ AN ORDINANCE OF TNE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING ZONE ON ZONE CHANGE PROCEEDING NO. ZC 70-205. Property of H. Zarember, located on the westerly side of Williams Street, approximately 774 feet northerly of the centerline of McFadden. ~Oved by 0ster, seconded by L. Miller, that Ordinance No. 463 have ~econd reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Ordinance No. 436t changing zone on Zone Change proceedings No. ZC 70-205 be passed and adopte~. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L~ Millerr Oster. Noes: None. Absent: None. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 464 -second reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADDING ARTICLE VI TO CHAPTER 4 TUSTIN CITY CODE PROHIBITING DOGS IN CITY PARKS. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by C. Mill'eK, that Ordinance No. 464 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller, that Ordinance No. 464, adding Article VI to Chapter 4 to the Tustin City Code Pro- hibiting dogs in CityParks, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call~ Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, L. Miller, Marsters, Oster. Noes None. 5. ORDINANCE NO. 465 - first 'reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING ZONE ON ZONE CHANGE PROCEEDINGS NO. ZC 70-209. Changing from Unclassified Use District to PC-C-1 and PC-C-2 property located on the southwesterly corner of San Juan Street and Red Hill Avenue. Councilman C. Miller stated he had had second thoughts about the "northern portion of this property and asked if it were possible to act only on the southerly portion. Mr. Fleagle stated that this is the Council's prerogative. The benefit of acting on the entire parcel is to give the church guidance in the disposal of the proper~y. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Ordinance 465 be altered to change Gnly the southerly 470 feet and the northerly 149 feet be considered separately. Councilman C. Miller stated that he felt a better use would ~e the continuation of the existing use on San Juan west of this property and recommended PC-R-3 density. Councilman Oster stated hewould prefer to see the entire ordinance continued and ge~ the church viewpoint. Moved by Oster, seconded by Marsters that action on Ordinance 465 be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting and the property owners be advised of this continuance. Carried. City Cou~ 5-18-70 6. APPOINTMENT OF TWO MEMBERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMITTEE AND ONE MEMBER TO THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS. Cont'd. from 5-4-70. Moved by Oster, secon.~.e.d by L. Miller that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting. Carried. VIII. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 466 NEW BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO PROVIDE THAT THE PLANNING COM- MISSION SHALL HAVE FIVE MEMBERS. Moved by..C.. ~ille~, seconded by L. Miller that Qrdinance NO. 466, amending the Tustin City Code to provide that the Planning Commission shall have five members, have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 467 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE NAME OF THE DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP- MENT PREVIEW COMMISSION. Moved by ester, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance NO. 467, changing the name of the Developmenu Preview Committee to Developmenn Preview CommisSion, have first readin9 by title only. Carried unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 468 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO BUSINESS LICENSE FEES. Moved by ester, seconded by Marsters that Ordinance No. 468, amending the Tustin City Code relative uo business license fees, have .f. ir~t readin9 by title only. Carried unanimously. 4. AWARD OF-BIDS FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF RED HILL AVENUE AND SYCAMORE AVENUE, AND RED HILL AVENUE AND WALNUT AVENUE. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that contract be awarded to Steiny Electric Company being the low bidder in the amounu of $24,748 and the Mayor and City Clerk authorized uo execute necessary contract. Carried. 5. EXONERATION OF IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR TRACT NO. 5849 AND TRACT NO. 6749. Moved by Ma~sters, seconded by Oster that .improvements within Tract No. 5849 and Tract No. 6749 be accepted and the pertinent bohds be re~eased. Carried. 6. APPOINTMENT OF DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES DATA SYSTEMS. Moved by. C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Councilman Robert Oster be appointed as delegaue uo Public Agencies Data Systems and Mayor A. J. Coco appointed alternate. Carried. 7. STATUS REPORT. ON CIVIC CENTER In answer to questioning by ~OUncilman Ost~ relative to acquiring the "C" Street School site, Mr. Gill stated that there is a 1969 act that provided that they don't hav~ uo go out to competitive bidding -- but the City can have the right 8f first refusal on it. Th~ ~hool district is now their appraisals are complete a~c _ I~oa~ ~e~s aeala~e ~he propc~y is to be sold -- t~e ex~ .... e~hod of sal0 will be spelled out by the County Counsel's office, City Council 5-18-70 Page 10 Councilman Miller stated he had some comments on the basic steps as set forthby the staff. PIe thought the order should be changed. The firsu deuermination -- that the Council determine that a civic center is desirable. Next is to determine the ultimate population To be served. Then the ultimate size of the staff for the various depar~- men=s and then the area requirements, then the~_~estimates and appraisals, and then the determination of financing methods. From then on follow the order g~ven in the report. Mr. Gill stated that one basic method of the process that the staff anticipates following in order to develop the anticipated population-and space, and it does have zo be assumptions in this case, has been discussed with the TNT Committee. We have set forth the assumed area of the City. Based on assumed boundary and looking a~ the vacant lands still remaining, we have to set an assumed density to these lands. With that we will come out with some possible alternatives as to the populations. Mayor Coco stated that the Council would like to see these steps incrementally -- specifically called ou~. It was the consensus of the Council that a meeting on this matter should be set with-the TNT Committee. Council to discuss and see the date for this meeting at the Budget Workshop on the 21st. 8. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that demands ~n the amount of $58,320.00 be paid. Carried. IX. 1. RESOLUTION 70-21 BUSINESS A resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, Cali- fornia, in support of the U. S. Marine Corps Air Station (H) and its annexation to the City of Tustin. Moved by d. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Resclution 70-21 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved byMarsters, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution 70-21 he p~ssed and a~opted. Carried unanimously. 2. STATUS REPORT - MATTERS OF COUNCIL CONCERN First Street Center Island Divider Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that the staff take appropriate sueps uo lengthen to the west the cenuer island in front of the Post Office. Carried. Anti-Litter Law In answer to questioning, Mr. Rourke stated that the City Ordinance in its present form refers to ~rash, not to the dumping of dirt. Mr. Gill stated that the City has. tools to cover this -- a grading permit is necessary. He will have police watch for any violation. Police Building Alterations Councilman C. Miller asked to see proposed plans for alterations of exterxor of this building. 3. REPORT ON RESIDENTIAL PARKING IReport to be presented uo commissioners and Developmen~ Preview Committee for commenus and recommondatmons uo the Council prior to settkng for hearing. 527 ity 5-18-70 Page 1t 4. TOPICS Staff to present report on TOPICS at next regular meeting. 5. WATER ON AMAGANSET Councilman C. Miller requested that the staff investigate the water drainage on Amaganse~ and advise the Council as to what can be done and the cost. 6. FOLLOWING REPORTS AND CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: 1) Trains behind Tustin Meadows 2)Traffic Engineering Report - First Street - Prospec= Avenue to Hall Circle 3)Department of Finance - Correspondence relative to City Census 4) Mission Bell Plaques 5) Personnel Activity Register 6) Building Department Monthly Reports 7) Computers and Cooperation - Dan Blankenship 8)Status report - Construction of North Tustin Storm Drain Channel 9) League of California Cities regarding LAFC guidelines 10) Tustin Area Woman's Club - commending Sgt. Bixler ll)~Mrs. D. Persinger - appreciation of street tree trimming 12) Bob and Carol Reilly - appreciation to Officer Krasco for presentation on drugs 7. Mr. Richard Kruppe of 12312 Newpor~ Avenue requested Council opinions as to zoning of his properzy on Main Street. Mr. Kruppe said he had previously been denied multiple zoning awaiting report from TNT Committee and would now like to have some decision on what he could expect. It was the consensus of opinion of the Council that Main Street is a picturesque residentia'l street and should remain that way and that a lot split and an R-1 developmen~ would be compatible with the area. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Coco declared the meeting adjourned. · MAyO~/~ -- Y CLERK