Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1970 02 16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL February 16, 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 CouncilmanMarsters. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: CoCo, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster Absent: Councilmen: C.Miller Others Present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that minutes of February 2, 1970, be approved. Carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ZC 69-200 OF ROBERT HALL ON BEHALF OF WILFRED TAYLOR For rezoning of a 1.52 acre parcel from the R-1 (Single ... Family Residential) District to the PC (Planned Community) Districk to permit 10,duplexes per specific plans. - Site fronts, 220 ft. on the north side of Main Street, 300 ft. on the Wes~ side of Pacific and 220 ft. on the south side of Third Street. Councilman Marsters Stated that he would abstain from any discussion or action on this matter. Mr. Fleagle explained that the Planning Commission had unani- mously adopted Resolution No. 1142 recommending to the City Council the approval of this application, subject tofour conditions: (1) development in accordance with the specific plans on file, (2) installation of UndergroUnd street lighting conduit andsstreet lighting as specified by the City Engineer, (3) planting of street'trees in accordance with the Master Street Tree Plan, and (4) construction of sidewalk and drive approaches. No opposition was expressed at the Planning Com- mission hearing. The Planning Commission thus recommended approval in accordance with the above stated conditions and that this development would be the best use~for what is now considered to be a, transitional zone. Hearing opened at 7:35 ~M. Mr. Leroy Connelly, 17332~Roseleaf, TuStin, representative of the Advent Christian ChUrch across from the proposed development expressed oppositio~ to~the plans due to insufficient parking. The present plan calls forl½ garages per unit which is in- adequate. He stated that visitors would not be able to find parking because the apartment residents would be using all of the spaces. He objeCte~ to the Council's policy of approv~ng inadequate parking faCilities'in apartment complexes. M~._~h~,/~*.A~L~t,, 17452 Irvine Blvd., Tustin, representative of ~ ~nd increaSeS ~e!t pa~kiHg, ~he property has been vacanu Council Meeting 2/16/70 Page 2 for 26 years. He stated that there should not be any major problem concerning parking onSundays. Mr. Connelly added that his only objection was to the ~ontinued approval of units with 1½ parking spaces per dwelling unit. Hearing ~losed at 7:41 PM. Councilman Oster stated that he was in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting where this matter was considered and that Mr. Connelly was not present to state his opposition at that time. He felt Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hall's solution was acceptable. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that the application for ZC 69-200 for rezoning of subject property from R-1 District to the PC District topermit 10 duplexes per specific plans' be adopted. Carried~ Councilman Marsters abstained. 2. TO CONSIDER CHANGING DESIGNATIONS OF EDINGER STREET AND NAVY WAY TO MOULTON PARKWAY. Mayor Coco explained that the County of Orange has changed the name of their portion of Edinger east of the Newport Freeway. Edinger retains its name in Santa Ana, but as it passes the Newport Freeway it becomes Moulton Parkway. Mr. Gill explained further that. Moulton Parkway east of the Newport Freew&y again becomes Edinger as it is within the City Limits of Tustin. It is this portion (east and west of Red Hill) that is being considered for change to Moulton Parkway. Public Hearing opened at 7:45 PM. Mr. Hans Fischer, 1200 East Edinger, representing U.S. Plywoo stated that the County had not informed his company of the change in name. The change would cost a great deal as all business stationery, invoices, etc. would have to be changed. As the portion, of Edinger west of the Newport Freeway will retain its name, it seems less confusing to their customers if Edinger retains its name up to Red Hill Avenue. Mr. Tom Rowe, 15501 Pasadena, Tustin, representing Lumbermen's Mercantile Company, 1100 Edinger, concurred with Mr. Fischer's statement. Mr. Frank Greinke, 1011 Laguna Road, agreed with these two corporations and felt the County had put Tustin in an embar- assing position. Mr. Gill =asked whether the property owners had been notified by the County when the County changed the names. Mr. Rowe stated that he had received no notification. Councilman Oster suggested that the hearing be continued so that the Staff could meet with the County staff to discuss the matter. Councilman L. Miller concurred, although he felt it would be confusing to have an island in the middle with a different name. Councilman Marsters shared their concern and suggested con- tacting the COunty. Mayo~Coco suggested that the hearing be continued in a closed sense until next m~ing so that the ~taff could c6rre~pond Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that this hearing be continued clo'a'ed"t0 tl~e ~ext regular Council meeting and that the Staff should correspond with the Cc~n~xy as directed. Carried Council Meeting 2/16/70 Page 3 VII. OLD BUSINESS 1. DECISION ON PZ 69-1210F WILLIAMS & CLEGG ~For prezoni~g of a parcel totalling appro~,~'ly 1.89 acres to the R-3-1500 (MUltiple Family Residential - 1500 sq. ft~ of area per dwelling Unit) District to permit the construction of a 54 unit apartment complex. Site fronts approximately 284 ft. on the northwest side of Browning Avenue andis located approximately 290 ft. southwest of the centerline of Nission Road. Councilman Oster stated that he would abstain from any discussion or action on this matter. MaTor Coco explained that the public hearing had been held on the prezoning and the decision was deferred from the last Council meeting formoreinformation from the applicant. Mr. Rourke~ in response to Mayor Coco's question, stated that 3 votes of'theCounCil were necessary for this plan t6 be adopted. Mr. Fleagle explained the background of this proposal. The Planning Commission recommended to the Council the prezoning of subject parcelto R-3 (1900) authorizing 22 units per acre instead of the requested R-3-1500 or R-3 1750, as this would be doubling the recommended density of the General Plan. 1900 sq. ft. would assure an open area. Anything greater than t~is would needa planned development. Mayor Coco explained that the discussion would be among the Council. The"applicant~is willing to acceptan R-3 1750 _. although they prefe~ R-3 1500. However, the Planning Commission has recommended R-3 1900. Mr. Fleagle in response to Councilman Marster's question explained that.the property to the north was unincorporated and zoned C-1 although it was doubtful that it would be developed this way. It consists of about 2 acres. He also stated that duplexes had~been developed to the south with no open space. An R-1 development zone exists south of the trailer park. Councilman Marsters stated that a decision on the subject parcel would take care of most~of the property in this subject area. Mr. Robert Cleqg, 2957 Randolph Avenue, Costa Mesa, explained that there was much green area in~the development with just under 2 parking spaces per unit. No one opposed these plans at the Planning Commission~ meeting. Mr. Connell~ stated that he would also object to this proposal on the basis of insufficient on-site parking although there was an improvement. He suggested that the Council should work with its committee on zoning regarding parking requirements. .. Mayor Coco explained that theSub-Committee on Zoning was concerned more with creating an imaginative type of zoning. He stated that.Tustin~has parking standards now and perhaps there could be a Planne~ Community zoning in t~is subject area. Councilman Marsters stated that aPlanned Community would be logical in that there would be better control. Moved by L. Miller, seconded byMarsters that this matter be referred to the Plannin~ commission for recommendation as a Planned Community zoni~.~. Mayor Coco stated that ~he reason this could be referred to ~h~ P~an~ing COmmission'would be to~allow flexibility in the R-3 ~O~i~, ~ would ~ve the interest ~ the Qity a~d the Council Meeting 2/16/70 Page 4 applicant to arrive at something between 1750 and 1900. Mr. Fleagle stated that any decision would be the Council's pleasure. He then asked about the timing and whether sending this matter to the Planning Commission would be too much of a delay for the applicant when the Council could a'ct now. Councilman L. Miller stated that perhaps the restr~ictions could be alleviated if sent to the Plannzng Commission. Mayor Coco suggested the time delay might be critical and ~ that the Council could make the ultimate decision at this ti] Councilman Marsters stated that this particular location should be developed in the manner proposed. If it were under a PC zone, he'wouldn't be adverse to an R-3 1750 where there would be more control. Mayor Coco concurred and suggested either a PC 1750 or PC 1800. Mr. Fleagle stated that either one would be acceptable. With a PC zoning it assures open space. The Council could even make it a PC 1750. With the PC controls the density would not be as critical as the building plan. With a PC 1750, it could still be limited to 46 dwelling units. Above motion and second withdrawn. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that PC 69-121 of Williams and Clegg be prezoned to PC (Planned Community) R-3 1750 with the condition that there will be no more than 46 Dwelling Units to this parcel and that all requirements as set forth in the Staff report be adopted. Carried. Councilman ester abstained. VIII. NEW BUSINESS 1. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH STATE DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FOR LANDSCAPING OF SYCAMORE OFF-RAMP & NEWPORT FREEWAY. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that Cooperative Agreement between the State of California and the City of Tustin for the landscapingof Sycamore Off-ramp and the Newport Free- way be approved and the Mayor and City Clerk authorized to execute said agreement. Carried. C. Miller absent. 2. GENERAL REPORT FROM THE TNT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, CHARLES GREENWOOD. Mr. Greenwood reported on the activities of the three sub- committees o~ TNT. The General Plan Sub-Committee zs working on updating the General Plan;:the Zoning Ordinance Sub-Committee is working on re-developing ordinances, but action will depend on the activities of the other sub-committees. The main reason for reporting is to present the recommendations of the'Town CenterSub-Committee. The First ~ecommendation is a request that this committee participate in the decision of locating the new Civic Center. The second recommendation relates to First Street and E1 Camino Real. The Committee A recommends widening of First Street as first priority; modernizing street lighting on both streets; and the institut ~n of a beautification program for both streets. Mayor Coco stated that the Council. planned to consider the ~idening of First Streetat this meeting and suggested con- sidering it at thi~ time. He reviewed the Staff recommendatigns of Plans A,B, and C. Plan C was the ultimate development of First Street a~empti~hed by taki~ all of the R/W and moving low~ e~s~ alternate, ~la~ A was ~he ~ way to acquire R/W and acted as an interim step toward the ultimate goal of Plan C. He stated that the Staff recommended Plan A.. Council MeetinU J~. 2/16/70 Page 5 Councilman L~ Mili~6~'i'~'~d~hat he thought Plan A was not the right answer. He recommended Plan C on the basis that although there was $120,000 difference between Plan A and P1 n C, if Plan C could be funded, the'resulting tax increase ~d offset the ifferential. d ~ ' ~ Councilman Marsters asked Whether the moving of the centerline in Plan B'was temporary or permanent. Mr. Gillreplied that.both A and B were methods to achieve Plan C. The differences are that in Plan B the center line will sway somewhat and in Plan A the parking will be restricted. Ultimately, both wilt evolve into Plan C. A & B are interim. Councilman Marsters commented that hethought Plan A would be acceptable :~nd would~be more economical as the improvements would influence'more people to donate property for Right-of- Way. CouncilmanL~- Miller stated that the Development Research Associates had said that the ultimate use of the tax dollar would come from offices and Plan C would attract more offices to Eirst Street. He suggested a study session regarding funding. Mayor Coco remarked that cost was not the only factor. He stated that Plan C was the most disruptive to the residents on First Street. The only reason Plan C had been submitted was as a comparisioh. "Plan A leans toward Plan C ultimately and the only disadvant'age,would be parking. Plan A is also the least disruptive to the'community. Councilman Oster noted that the Right-of-Way'on Plan A cost $135,000 while the Right-of~Way on Plan C cost $267,000. If Plan A eventually-iS converted into Plan C, then Plan A seemed the least expensive; Councilman L. Millersstated the reason he had suggested a study session was 'to enable all interested community groups to make recommendations. Mayor Coco stated that~if the Council adoptedA in principle as an interim measure they would all agree that C was the ultimate goal. The main question was which plan would the Council approve in principle and the Staff wanted a recom- mendation on eitber'A~Or B as the purpose of C was to act as a comparison. Codncilman L. Miller stateQ that the study session would m~<e recommendations and w0~ld not pick A, B, or C. The Ceunci! should have a study session with groups such as TNT and then decide for itself which Plan to adopt. The Council agrees already that something should be done, but any approach would have some opposition. ~ouncilman Oster warned against over study and suggested giving it to the Chamber of Commerce and TNT to study for one month. At that time the Council would make its decision. Mr. Gill stated that th~ groups studying these Plans should also ma~e recommendations on how to finance. The City does not have $496,.000 for ~ian C. Mayor Coco asked that this report be submitted to the Downto~c Businessmen's Association, the Chamber of Co~nerce, and the TNT Committee for a 4 w~e~ period. The intent is to have recommendations from these groups by the second meeting in March. The Council wou~d be willing to participate ~n a study session. (All agreed.) Council Meeting 2/16/70 Page 6 3. ORDINANCE NO. 457 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, Amending the zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 157, as Amended, RELATIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMITTEE. Mr. Fleagle explained that the existing ordinance required the developers tosubmit two sets of plans by the Wednesday noon before the Thursday meeting. This allowed insufficient time for the Committee members to study the plans. The in- tent of the new ordinance is to have the plans submitted in time for study by the Staff, and so the members will be able to look at the sites before the meeting. Councilman Marsters stated that he felt the changes were acceptable. Moved,Marsters that Ordinance No. 457 have first reading by- title only. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Oster stated that perhaps all this time in advance would abdicate the functions of the Planning Commission and the Council to the=Development Preview Committee. He was concerned about getting more information to the Development Preview Committee prior to the original hearing of the Planning Commission and whether the Committee is acting as a Zoning body which was not the Council's intent. Mr. Fleagle agreed that there was an inherent danger with the Development P=eview Committee, but also there was a high degree of expertise and knowledge on the committee. As long as there is staff guidance and where the preview amounts to an advisory opinion, the Committee can give guidance to the Planning Com- mission. Councilman Osterasked if the developers were told that the opinions of the Development Preview Committee were strictly advisory. Mr. Fleagle responded that there was no doubt in the developer's mind that the opinions of both the Preview Committee and the Planning Commission were advisory and that the ultimate authority lay with the Council. The extra days asked for in the new ordinance are just to get an agenda out with sufficient time for the members to look at the sites to be developed. As the ordinance now stands, it works a hardship on the developer to have to wait while the committee looks at the site. Councilman L. Miller asked if the Staff would give recommen- dations to the Committee. Mr. Fleagle responded that the Staff would give minimum recommendations within the limits available. As it is now, due to lack of time the Staff can't even look at the plans. Councilman Marsters stated that the Committee members needed some information beforehand so that they could make decisions. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Ordinance No. 457 be continued until the next regular Council meeting so that the Council can review the old ordinance and the proposed ordinance and be able to talk with Committee members. Carried. Councilman Marsters further suggested that Mr. Fleagle get Other suggeStiOns ~rom the Committee members. Mayor Coco stated that at the last Council meeting, members were asked to consider filling the two openings on the Develop- ment Preview Committee. He had a recommendation from Cliff Miller for the architect's position on the Committee. council ee ing 2/16/70 Page 7 Moved by Oster,.sef , Marsters that Mr. William Hockenberry, 465 West 2nd Street, Tustin, be appointed to the principle archite~t's position on .the Development Pre- view Committee. Carried. I~or Coco stated that the Council's appoin~e~6~ition was stall open. Councilman Marsters-recommended Don Christeson, a resident of Santa Ana, as a member to theDevelopment'Preview Committee. Councilman L. Miller stated that he had two people whom he thought should be considered, but that he would first like to contact them before the next meeting. Councilman Oster suggested Don Christeson as a good choice. Moved.byMarsters, seconded by Oster that Mr. Donald Christeson be appointed to the Developme'ntPreview Committee to replace the position vacated by Mr. Webster. Carried. 4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that the demands in the amount of $63,261.48as submitted be paid~ Carried. IX. OTHER BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 70-11 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS AND DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION OFFICERS FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY THE 14TH DAYOFAPRIL, 1970, for the election of certain officers of said city~as required by the provisions of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities. Moved by Ostert seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 70-11 have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. C. Miller absent. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Resolution No. 70-11 establishing Voting Precincts and designating Polling Places and Appointing Election Officers for the General Municipal Election on April 14th, t970, be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. C. Miller absent. 2. TEMPORARY FACILITY- CITY HALL Mr. Gill announced that the Development Preview Committee had approved the plans for th~ temporary facility atcity Hall. 3. CIVIC CENTER Mr. Gill stated that the report on the status of the Civic Center as requested at last council meeting is enclosed in the Councilmen's books~for their information. 4. PROPOSED JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH EDISON COMPANY Mr. Gill announced that the Joint Use Agreemen~ would not be needed with the Mac~o Corporation apartment development. 5. POPULATION INCREASE Mr. Gill presented the. tlatest population estimates from Rex Waldo, Building-Official. The estimated population for March l, 1970, is 26,0~0.~ 6. PSA LEASE Mr..~i.tl announced tha~ the'Board Of ~erVisors had ~la~ed · ~3~ Council Meeting 2/16/70 Page 8 restrictions on the operations of the airport, the hours and the number of flights. 7. HARBOR DISTRICT Mr. Gill stated that there was no change in the Harbor District matter as of the last meeting with the League of Cities, which will continue to support dissolution. 8. MISSION BELLS Mr. Gill announced that the 12 Mission Bells are ready for installation on E1 Camino Real. Mayor Coco stated that there had been several requests for sponsorship of the bells. He suggested putting all 12 bells up at the same time and to erect pedestals in concrete with a recessed area where plaques can be inserted. Mr. Gill stated that ehe bells would be located adjacent to the curb lining and would be relatively easy to move. Councilman Marsters stated that. he would like to see the overall plan on where ~he bells would be placed before they are installed. He wo~ld also like to know the exact type of pedestal. Council agreed. 9. NEWPORT AVENUE OFF-RAMP Mr. Gill announced that the plans for the "Sizzler" had been approved by the Development Preview Committee. If the temporary off-ramp is to be constructed, condemnation proceedings would have to be started immediately. If not, then the building permit would have to be issued to the "Sizzler" within the next few days. Mayor Coco stated that a letter had been drafted to the Stat Highway Commission stating in substance that if the City was to be forced to agree to the ultimate widening of the Santa Ana and Newport Freewayswith the resultant catastrophic changes to the downtown area that the City would regretfully have to terminate action on the off-ramp. Councilman Marsters stated he saw no other course of action than to send the draft letter.~ The Council could not sign the other agreement with the Highway Commission. Mr. Greinke stated that the Chamber of Commerce had not been informed of this latest situation. Mayor Coco stated that there was a disparity in the initial appraisal and the new information on the land acquisition cost, almost three times the initial estimated cost of $50,000. Secondly, the Clause in the State Highway Commission's resolutioz stating that Tustin had to approve the ultimate widening of the Santa Ana and Newport Freeways was objectionable to the City. Also the State's plan takes more territory than originally proposed. Now the "Sizzler" poses a time constraint on the Council and a decision must be made t6night in order to either ensure condemnation proceedings or else to abandon action on the temporary off-ramp. Mr. Greinke asked for a two week delay. Mr. Gill stated that the main problem with the two week delay was that the "Sizzler" wanted its permit now. Mr. Rourke stated that the City could run the risk of incurring 'liability to the property owner if the permits were not issued within a reasonable period Of time. They have been processing ~lans ~or two We~s ~i~dy which is as long as it usually takes· ~ ~t~ eS~ ~ ~e~ing ~o~t~ ti~biliE~'if ~ t~es too i~ng; .Mr. Gr.einke stated that the City had been working on this for 15 years and asked for one more trv- 2/16/70 Page Mayor Coco. asked w.hat the Chamber of Commerce proposed to do since the City was committed to approve the widening of the Santa AnaFreeway if the agreement was signed. Mr. Greinke said he wasnot certain if all political power .~been used. ~! ~ Mr. Gill stated that to change the last paragraph to make it acceptable to the City would require a meeting of the State Highway Commission. The City could condemn the property and hope that the State Highway Commission would change the last pgragraph- The City either has to condemn or else grant a permit. Mayor Coco said the City had to know preferably tonight whether it would bewilling to pay as much as-three times the original estimated cost of acquisition, and secondly whether the State Highway'Commission would be willing to change its resolution. Mr. Rourke stated that if the permits were not issued this week the city should start condemnation proceedings. Mayor Coco stated that all decisions had been made concerning the off-ramp on the basis of the $50,000 estimate. The ex- pense has now jumped and he wondered if the same decisions would have been made if this new information had been known then. In questioning Mr. Rourke, he asked what would the expenses be if the State Highway Commission did not rescind and the City had already started condemnation proceedings. Mr. Rourke responded that the City could become responsible to the property ownersl for damages suffered by the action. He had no way of knowing the cost. Councilman Oster suggested giving the Chamber the opportunity to exert its politicalpower and to move slowly on issuing the permit. Councilman L. Miller asked what the reactions had been of our political representatives in Sacramento. Mr. Gill stated that he h~d heard nothing recently. Mayor Coco stated that the City and the Staff had been keeping in constant correspondence with the State Highway Commission; there had been widespread publicity; and the political repre- sentatives had been kept informed. Only the Chamber was not informed concerning the "Sizzler" plans. Councilman L. Miller suggested that Mr. Greinke, as representa- tive ofthe Chamber, approach the "Sizzler" and ask them to consider a two week delay. ' Mr. Gill said he had already told them the situation and that they felt an off'ramp would not be beneficial to them. Councilman Marsters asked Mr. Rourke what would happen if the City issued 'permits and then condemned. Mr. Rourke responded that if they began construction or began to rely on their permit in any way that this would add to the possibility of the City's expense. Mayor' Coco stated that it would probably be tess of a risk to delay granting the permit rather than to grant and then possibly condemn and Ultimately involve contractors and sub- - contractors and the removal of whatever construction existed. Councilman L. Miller felt that too much time and too many people had been 'involved to give up now. Councilman Marsters stated that he felt the City's hands were tied. ]Xe didn't feelsthe Chamber could do any more than had already b~e~ 80~e, He want~ %~ g~ O~ f~eO~d ~ ~o~ wanting 2/16/70 Page to involve the City in any more expense and being in favor of sending the draft letter. Councilman Oster suggested a seven day delay on the permit and by that time the Chamber would know if it could accomplish anything. Mr. Rourke stated that one week should be no problem. Any more time would be unreasonable and the City had no right to interfer with someone else!s private property. Mayor Coco suggested giving the Chamber and Council until next Wednesday to decide whether or not to send the'letter. If a strong indication was received from the Highway Com- mission that they would rescind then the City would still have to consider the expense involved. Councilman Marsters stated that he wanted to go on record as being opposed to any extension of time. Mayor Coco said the suggestion had been made to hold action until Wednesday and if it looked fruitful, to begin condem- nation proceedings and if not, to send the letter. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that the Staff be directed to call each Councilman by not later than 3 PM Friday with respect to indications from the Chamber of Commerce as to the possibility of getting the decision of the State High- way Commission rescinded. If all indications appear to be negative, then the Council directs the letter be sent by the City Administrator. Carried~ Marsters voting NO. Councilman Marsters suggested that the Staff keep in constant touch with the Chamber and to contact the Councilmen when there is any change in the situation. 10. CIVIC CENTER STATUS REPORT Councilman Oster asked Mr. Gill about the School property and the Irvine Center Ranch Plan. Mr. Gill responded that the School property would have to be sold at full market value and that the money would go to the State, not to the District. Regarding the Irvine Center Ranch Plan, he reported that the Irvine Company will give their final plan within a month. Copies of the Civic Center report are being sent to the TNT Committee for study as well as the Downtown Businessmen's Association and the Tustin N~ws. 11. PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Councilman Marsters suggested that the Staff study parking requirements in light of Mr. Connelly's remarks. 12. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ACTIVITIES Mr. Greinke announced that (1) the Chamber is instituting a Community Calendar and that it~ will need the help of the City in making the calendar a success; (2) there will be a com- munity wide program on narcotics on March 19th; (3) On March ~t~ a retail sales clinic will be held; and (4) a local candidat forum will be held at Tustin High School on March llth. He also announced that the Chamber will sponsor a Mission Bell. Mayor Coco thanked Mr. Greinke and Councilman L. Miller for a job well done on the Jack La Lanne Show and suggested that the Staff work with the Chamber of Commerce on writing a letter of appreciation to Mr. La Lanne. -Following correspondence was received: I, Repo~rt on the TOPICS. Program from Mr. Myers. Council Meeting 2/16/70 Page 11 2. Letter to Mr..Lloyd regarding his billboard 2/9/70. 3. Letter from Major Goldsborough regarding complaint from R. L. Jones 2/11/70. 4. Letter from Mrs. George Hart expressing appreciation to Tustin Police Department 2/6/70. 5. Letter from Sue Liret~e and Carol Poe thanking Sgt. Bixler 2/4/70. 6. Letter from Tom Underwood thanking Tustin Police Department 2/6/70. 7. Building Department Report for the Month of January 1970. 8. BOard of Supervisors ResolUtion concerning SCAG 2/3/70. 9. Letter from the City of Westminster regarding elections 2/2/70. 10. Report from California Assembly Committee on Finance and Insurance concerning Flood Insurance Program. 11. LeagUe of California Cities Legislative Bulletin 2/6/70. Meeting adjourned in memory of Max Tipton and Bill Martin. MAYOR CLERK