Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1970 03 02 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL March 2, 1970 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Mayor Coco at 7:30 PM. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco. III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman Cliff Miller. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Coco, Marsters, C. Miller, L. Miller,' Oster. Absent: Councilmen: None. Others Present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that the minutes of February 16, 1970, be approved as corrected. Carried. C. Miller abstaining. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. -ZC 69-201 OF ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ON BEHALF OF FIRST WESTERN BANE AND TRUST COMPANY. To consider rezoning of an 11.12 acre parcel from the E-4 (Estate Residential) District to the following: Professional District along the north side of Irvine Boulevard for a depth of 199.64 ft. R-2 District on the northerly 300 ft. Site fronts approximately 970 ft. on the north side of Irvine Blvd., approximately 500 ft. on the east side of North "B" Street, and approximately 500 ft. on the west side of Prospect Avenue. Mr. Fleagle explained that the Planning Commission on January 26, 1970, conducted a public hearing on the proposed zone change of the Andrews Development Company to create a "PR" District on. the front 19~ ft. of the property located on the north side of Irvine Blvd. between "B" Street and Prospect, and to change from E-4 to R-2 the remaining northerly 300 ft. The hearing was continued to February 9th for a workshop session with the surrounding property owners and the Development Preview Committee. The Planning. Commission adopted Resolution No. 1146, recom- mending to the City Council, denial of Application No. ZC- -- 69-201 on the basis that the propsed R-2 development would not be compatible with the contiguous E-4 development to the north. Mr. Fleagle then read a letter from Mr. Jay A. Andrews, Presi- dent qf the Andrews Development Company requesting that this_ zoning matter be returned to the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission for further review as the Company had decided to completely change the design'for the property, therefore making the origihal application obsolete. Mr. FleaGle thus ~~ed ~l~at ~hi~ m~t~8~ B~ ~eturned ~o ~e Plan~in~ meeting of the City Council. =~ Council Meeting ~ ~- 3/2/70 Page 2 Councilman Marsters stated that he would abstain from any discussion or action on-this matter. Mayor Coco asked Mr. Rourke if this matter were continued .nd the application changed.to a more restrictive zoning, !,i~0uld it be necessary to re-notice. ~..,~,~/~ Mr. Rourke responded that he thought it would not be neces- sary if the hearing was ,continued to a specific date. In the meantime the Planning-Commission could review the matter and possibly have a fulle~ recommendation. -This would not necessitate re-notice. Mayor Coco stated that he was primarily concerned about the knowledge ofthe, property owners and other affected persons whether they would know when the hearing was! to be held. CounCilman Oster shared his concern and asked how the Plan- ning COmmission planned to publicize the hearing. Mr. Fleagle responded that he was certain the Planning Com- mission would insist On sending notices-to surrounding pro- perty owners so that interested parties could review the plans. Also the developer would again work with the adjacent residents on the plans. The Planning Commisslon's recommen- dation would~.then be subject to the public hearing before the City Councii. Mayor Coco suggested two!~ways to continue the hearing. One way.would be to open it to discussion from the floor as a public hearing. The comments would be based on the existing presentation before th'e Planning Commission which in essence had been rescinded. The other way would be to continue this matter as an open public hearing for one month, the comments at that time being based on the revised information that would be before the Planning Commission from the applicant. Councilman C. Miller suggested another possibility. The Council could disapprove the application and then the appli- cant would have to re-apply and the procedures of notification would therefore have to be completely repeated. Mayor Coco stated that a public hearing at tonight'S session would discuss an obsolete application. Mr. Rourke stated that the application could not be denied without a public hearing. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:43 PM. Mr. Walter Wands, 17692 Westbury Lane, Tustin, stated that he was a representative of the home owners and had met with the developer and the Development Preview Committee. The owners were still willing to work with the developer and with the City to establish some type of equitable plan. The residents are unanimous for developing the property as E-4. It appears that anything which can be developed in the R-2 is unacceptable. He zecommended that the existing proposal be denied. Public Hearing closed at 7:47 PM. Councilman L. Miller asked Mr. Wands whether their opposition to E-4 was for the entire parcel. Mr. Wands stated that from the beginning there was no oppositiol to the development of lhe first 199 ft. as PR. Councilman OSter agree~d witk Councilman C. Miller in making certain that this matter gets proper noticing and the only way to insure this would be to deny the application. Mo~e~tai~-~e~s.ecOnded_.b¥._L..~Mille~ that ZC69-2D1 of Androws Council Meeting 3/2/70 Page 3 Development Company on behalf of First Western Bank and Trust Company be denied. Carried. Councilman Marsters stated 'that he was abstaining because he was a homeowner in the immediate area. VII. OLD BUSINESS 1. TO CONSIDER CHANGING DESIGNATIONS OF EDINGER STREET AND NAVY WAY TO MOULTON PARKWAY. Mayor Coco explained that this matter had been continued closed to this meeting and that the Staff recommended continuance to March 16th pending discussion with the property owners on Edinger. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Resolution no. 70-10 changing designations of Edinger Street to Moulton Parkray and Navy Way to Moulton Parkway be continued to the Council meeting of March 16, 1970. Carried. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 457. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED, RE- LATIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMITTEE. Mr. Pleagle stated that the members of the Development Pre- view Committee had reviewed this matter and were in complete agreement with the intent and changes proposed. This amend- ment would require three sets of preliminary drawings instead of the two now required and the deadline for submitting plans would be 5 days priorto the Committee meeting rather than the ½ day now required. On line 11½ of the proposed ordinance the words "and within the jurisdictional review of the Development Preview Commit~ were added for clarification. Councilman Oster asked how the developers would be notified of the new requirements. Mr. Fleagle explained that the application form would contain all necessary instructions for the developer. The form would 'be amended and would state specifically as to what should be done, what procedures should be followed, etc. Councilman Oster asked that the Council see the application form. Mr. Fleagle explained that the Committee was attempting to clarify all application forms to make sure that the right application was used for the right request. The Council will be shown the application form as soon as it is amended. Councilman L. Miller suggested inserting an emergency~factor into the amendment to waive the 5-day requirement in case of hardship'. Mr. Fleagle stated that the Development Preview Committee was also concerned about this matter and felt they could be flexible. Councilman L. Miller stated that the flexibility should be spelled out or else the Committee would be in violation of its own ordinance. Mr. Fleagle suggested inserting the phrase "unless such minimum time period is waived by the CO~anunity DevelOpment Di~e~e~" ~ %~e ~n~ eE ~aph b, ceunci~ e~reed. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 457, as amended, relative to the Developmen~ Preview ~e, ha~.;e first reading by title ?~-]~,. Carried. ~ COuncil Meeting ~2- 3/2/70 Page 4 3. ORDINANCE NO. 458. AN ORDINANCE OF TtIE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. ZC 69-200 OF ROBERT HALL ON BEHALF OF WILFRED TAYLOR. ~r Councilman C. Miller asked about the 1½parking spaces per unit requirement. --- Mr. Robert Hall, 17.452Irvine Blvd., Tustin, explained that four of the lots were deep and that these had 4-car garages per duplex. The othe.r six lots had 3-car garages. Councilman C. Miller stated thathe was concerned with ade- quate parking facilities. Assuming all duplexes were two bedroom, adequate parking must.be required. Councilman Marsters stated that at the last Council meeting he had initiated a Minute Order to study the parking situation. Councilman C. Miller stated that it was not too late to act in this matter and require 2 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Robert Hall explained that they had not decided on the interior plans as tO'how many bedrooms each duplex would have. He knew that four".would have 4-car garages and six would have 3-car garages, but he could not be more specific than that. He understood-that the plans had met everyone's approval. Councilman L. Miller asked Mr.'Hall if the surrounding com- munity was in favor of the plans. ._ Mr. Hall responded that he had gone over the plans with the surrounding community and had gained their approval. The only concern had been expressed by the Advent Christian Church. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 458, rezoning property on-Application No. ZC 69-200 of Robert Hall On behalf of Wilfred Taylor, have first reading by title only. Carried. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 459. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, PREZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. PZ 69-121 OF WILLIAMS AND CLEGG, ON BEHALF OF ASSEMBLIES OF GOD. Site fronts approximately 284 ft. on the northwest side of Browning Avenue and is located approximately 290 ft. southwest of the centerlin~ of Nisson Road. Mr. Fleagle explained that the matter had been referred to the Planning Commission and had received their approval. Moved by.Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 459, prezoning property on Application No. PZ 69-121 of Williams and Clegg on behalf of Assemblies of God, have first reading by title only.- Carried. ~_II. NEW BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE NO..460. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 6 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO PERMIT FEES FOR SEWER CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. Moved b~ C. Miller, seconded b~ Marsters that Ordinance ~o. .46q# amonding Article V o~ Chapter 6 of the ~ustin City Code Council Meeting 3/2/70 Page 5 relative to permit fees for sewer construction and other work on private property, have first reading by title only. Carried. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 461. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ESTAB- LISHING REGULATIONS FOR MOBILE X-RAY UNITS. Moved b~ L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Ordinance No. 4C~ establishing regulations for mobile x-ray units, have first reading by title only. Carried. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 70-12. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MEDIAN CURES AND STREET WIDENING ON FIRST STREET, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution No. 70-12, approving plans and specifications for construction of median curbs and street'widening on First Street, and authorizing and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids, have first reading by title only. Carried. Councilman C. Miller asked what was the status of the ordi- nance relative to the re-loCation of existing non-conforming billboards. Mr. Gill stated that the City would probably be involved in acquiring the board (mentioned in the ordinance) and would pursue this matter before issuing bids. Councilman C. Miller stated that the City did not allow oth people to re-locate non-conforming signs and so the City should not do so either. Mr. Rourke stated that the board would either have to be removed or re-located; the City might have to buy the board if it does not re-locate it. Councilman C. Miller stated that he would prefer to have the City buy the hoard rather than re-locate it and violate its own ordinanc.e. He also stated that he felt there were not enough tree wells in the new plans and suggested adding two or three more. He suggested amending the resolution as such. Mayor Coco stated that the resolution had been read by title only and could still be amended. He suggested a two-week delay so that the Staff could clarify the'i~sues raised. Mr. Gill stated that this would be preferable. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that approval of Reso- lution No. 70-12 be referred to the next regular Council meeting. Carried. 4. ACCEPTANCE OF INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT McFADDEN STREET AND PASADENA AVENUE. Moved by L. Miller~ seconded by C. Miller that the City Council accept the work on the installation of traffic signa.ls at McFadden and Pasadena and authorize payment of $11,950.20 which is 90% ef the contract amount, tO the contractor, Stein ~ ~i~eh~l, ~hc~, with the remaining't0% te be paid time. Carried. 5. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Mr- Gill, in answering Councilman Marsters' question conc~rnin~ Council Meeting 3/2/70 Page 6 item No.'16485, stated tha't~this was a new investment through the United California Bank and thathe would on this at the,nex= m=eeting if ! oved by Mars ers,lseconded by L. Miller that the demands in the amount of $218,684.75as submittedbe paid. .Carried. IX. OTHER BUSINESS 1. STATUS OF THE CIVIC CENTER Mr. Gill reported that the Town Center Sub-Committee of the TNT Committee had received the Civic Center report and will be making recommendations tothe TNT Committee and'the City Council in the future. 2. JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH EDISON COMPANY FOR POLE RE- LOCATIONS ON NEWPORT AVENUE AT THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL. Mr. Gill reported that the Edison Company wanted the City .to execute the joint use,agreement. It was the consensusOf the Council that it was of no ad- vantage to the City to execute the agreement and that the Staff be directed to inform the Edison Company that the City's position has no~ changed. 3. ORGANIZATION FOR COMPUTER PLANNING - JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT. Mr. Gill stated that a letter had been received from Mr. William Hamilton, President of the Organization for Computer Planning and Mayor of the City of Brea relative --- to the Joint Powers Agreement. The City Attorney has re- viewed the revised draftof the Agreement and By-Laws and has found it satisfactory. .Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that the City Council approve the contents ofthe draft concerning the Joint Powers Agreement and By-Laws relative to the Organization for Com- puter Programming. Carrfed. Councilman C. Miller asked what the financial committment would be. Councilman Oster=stated that'it was not known at this time. 4. MOBILE HOME PARKS Mr. Gill recommended that no gction be taken concerning recent actions taken by some Orange,County cities relative to mobile home park regulations until more information is received. 5. NEWPORT AVENUNE OFF-RAMP Mr. Gill stated that he had met with the State DiviSion of _. ~ighways regarding the O~f-Ramp. Mayor Coco related Mr. Gill's verbal report which essentially ~aid that the local qrdup will recommend to the State Division Of H~ghways a limited agreement be generated approving the construction of the Off-Ramp and that the ultimate agreements regarding the Santa Anal and Newport Freeways be continued. However, the ultimate ag=eemen~ should not act as a necessary pre-conclusion to the d~f~Ramp. The matter will go uo the State and they Will the~ decide whether'it will go to the State Highway Commission. The earliest time that it would gO,before the Commission would be the April meeting if all ~entsmoothly. The situation now is to decide whether or not o institute condemnation proceedings. Council Mceting s/ /vo Page Councilman Marsters stated that he was against condemnation at this time and was also against deferring a decision. He stated that a decision must be made immediately. Councilman L. Miller stated that no liability had been in- curred at th~ present time. He stated that the City was closer now than had ever been in the past to the desired decision. Councilman Marsters stated that he thought from this point on the City's liability would be increased and that the permits should be issued soon. Mr. Rourke, in response to questioning by CouncilmAn Marsters, stated that there was no way in which he could estimate the amount of liability that the City could possibly incur. Councilman Marsters warned against taking the risk of in- curring liability. Mayor Coco stated that it was generally agreed by the Council not to initiate condemnation proceedings. The Council could either drop the matter completely or else issue permits in the next two weeks and meanwhile determine what funds were available for acquisition. The Council knows the cost will be in excess of $50,000 and it must be determined whether there are financial sources outside of City funds. Councilman C. Miller stated that it would be advantageous if the Council could proceed; but if action were deferred for two weeks then the Staff could determine whether funds were available. If not,' then the Council could do nothing. Mayor Coco said he had a request to hold the decision on the Off-Ramp until the last item on the agenda. Council agreed. 6. RESIGNATION OF RICHARD B. SMITH FROM BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS. Councilman C. Miller stated that a letter had been received .from Richard Smith giving his resignation =from the Building Board of Appeals. He suggested directing a letter of appre- ciation to Mr. Smith for his serviGe on the Board of Appeals on behalf of the Council. Mayor Coco stated that Mr. Smith's resignation was due to his very busy schedule. There had been three resignations since the last Council meeting and he felt these were partly influenced by the very restrictive Financial Disclosure Law. This law has been objected to as a matter~ of principal and an invasion of privacy. He suggested giving consideration to replacing 'Mr. Smith as well as Mr. Siegel and Mr. Chandler of the Development Preview Committee whose resignations had also been received. Councilman L. Miller stated that he had been disturbed at the last Council meeting over the basis of appointing in- dividhals. He suggested directing appointments from now on to a sub-committee and giving the public the opportunity to apply for positions. Appointments in the future should be handled in a more public manner. Mayor Coco stated further that the Council did not take ad- vantage of the other members (alternates) of the Development Preview Committee when appointments were made and that members should be consulted. He suggested appointing a sub-Committee ge~ the fe~li~IS Of~ the Development Preview Commi~ee. By should not only get suggestions but should decide on the permanent structure of prin~cpals and alternates for the Developmen% Preview Committee. Mayor Coco appointed Councilmen L. Miller and Oster to a sub- comm. ittcc~ for purposes suggestc~. Council Meeting 3/2/70 Page 8 Councilman L. Miller suggested that the press mention the openings so that new sources of talent within the community could be tapped. ~ouncilman C. Miller suggested having a Planning Commissioner ~s a member of the Development Preview Committee to preserve mmunications between th~ two bodies. ~ ~ayor Coco stated that there was a dif, ference of opinion on this matter and that it could be discussed at the next Council meeting. The original plan was to have two members of the Planning Commission as continuity members. Since this was set for one year, it should be continued that long. The sub- committee can also consider replacing Mr. Smith on the Bui!dinz Board of Appeals, or can consider combining the Building Board' of Appeals With the Development Preview Committee. CounCilman C.'Miller stated there were code requirements which might prevent, a combination of the two committees. This would be specified inthe Uniform Building Code. Mr. Gill suggested the idea of combination be explored by ~he sub-cOmmittee. Councilman Oster requested a copy of the Development Pre- view Committee Ordinance and the Building Code be sent to the sub-committee. 7. NEWPORT AVENUE OFF-RAMP (CONTINUED) Moved by Oster, seconded by C. Miller that the Staff should bontinue efforts to pursue a limited agreement on the Off- Ramp with the State and Should study, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce, other sources of funding in case a satisfactory agreement is reached. If building permits are required to be issued, the Staff should issue them. The Staff is to report at the next meeting. Carried. Councilman Marsters stated that if the Staff did not with- hold issuing the permits then he would agree. Councilman C.' Miller stated that the City needs outside in- come and a satisfactory agreement with the State to get the Off-Ramp. Councilman L. Miller stated that the first step was to get the State to amend its original agreement and then raise the money locally. 8. REMARKS BY: Mr. Henry Cobb, 17732 Westbury Lane, Tustin. Mr. Cobb stated that after observing the meeting tonight he felt many important statements had been missed by the audience due to the noisy air~conditioning and from the Councilmen not talking directly into their microphones. He asked about getting paving on Irvine Blvd. from Yorba to Prospect. Mr. Gill, in response, stated ~hat Fourth Street or Irvine Blvd. had always been a.construction problem. What was needed now was reconstruction in the range of $30~40,000 worth of work. This would be eligible for gas tax money. If approved by the City Council, Irvine could be improved by the next fiscal year. 9. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CANDIDATE'S FORUM. Mr. Flint, Tustin Chamber of Commerce, invited all candidates ~or the municipal election to come to a forum to be held at the Tustin High SchoolTheatre on March llth at 7:30 PM. Council Meeting 9 2. Letters of appreciation to the Tustin Police Department from Chief Rivera of La Habra, Charles Mitchell, Prin- cipal of Mildred Morrow School, and Pam Lindsay, Student Body President of Del Norte School. 3. Minutes of the_Executive Meeting, Orange County Division of the League of California Cities 2/12/70. 4. Letter from the City of Garden Grove regarding elections. 5. Notice of hearing from the Public Utilities Commission' regarding Tustin Water Works. 6. Announcement from Development Preview Committe~ concerning the appointment of Robert Hall as Chairman and Donald Martens as Chairman Pro-tem. 7. Letter of appreciation to the City Council and Staff from the William Martin Family. In tribute and respect to the memory of Congressman James Utt, all members of the City Counci~l stood in reverence and ad- journed in memoriam. MAYOR