Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1969 05 19 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL May 19 , 1969 CALL TO Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Coco. ORDER Ii. PLEDGE OF Led by Mayor Coco° ALLEGIANCE IIio INVOCATION Given by Councilman Mack. IVo ROLL P~:~sen"~ Co~ncii:~r:n; Coco, Mack, '- CALL ~DsenU: Counci~cn: None Others Present: City Administrator Harry City Attorney Janus Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe Planning Director James Supingot V. APPROVAL OF Moved by Mack~ seconded by Miller that minutes of May 5, 1969 MINUTES meeting be approved as corrected, Carried. Corrections: Hearing No. 4 - name of Architect for applicant to read Dorius; Section c) of Ordinates No. 435 to become section j) and read 15 gallon trees rather than 15' trees be planted along the northerly property line. Vi. PUBLIC 1. PZ 69-115 OF DR. DUAYE CHRISTENSON HEARINGS APPLICATION OF DR. DUAYNE CHRISTENSON FOR PREZONING (PZ 69-115) OF A 3.07 ACRE PARCEL TO THE R-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT. Site fronts approximately 314 ft. on the northwest side of "B" Street, approximately 30 ft. northeast of the cenuerliue of McFadden St. Mr. SuDinger described location and stated that the request is for R-3 zoning~ the Planning Commission recosansuds R-3-i750. Straight R-3 permits a maximam of 34 dwelling units per acre, the recommendation of R-3-1750 would permit 24 units per acre. Hearing opened at 7:36 P.M. There being no objections or comments, the hearing was declared closed at 7:37 P°M. Mayor Cdcomade reference uo letter from Mr. Carl Ziegler of 15762 California Street, objecting to this proposed zoning due to increased noise and invasion of privacy. In answer to questioning by the Council, Mro Supinger stated: The slides show a 40' wide subsurface M.W.D. easement along the west property line. AS zoned in the County, R-4 zoning allows 14 units per acre. Surrounding area consists of R-I to the ~st, R-4 to the east, Mobile Rome Park to the north, condominiumto the northwest and multiple to the south. The ten additional feeu of right-of-way for ~ Street as recommended by the Planning Con~ission would allow a standard street and they would be required ~o install indioated open parking on ~he northern half of the 40' easement Council Minutes 5/19/69 Pg. 2 with some planter islands and with most of the required open spaces being along the westerly boundary. A 6'8" wall would be required along the west property line, although, he believes this now exists. Due to the 40' easement upon which nothing can be built and the legitmate concern to the residents on California Street~ Councilman Miller asked if there is anything in the Zoning Ordinance that could specify that a portion of that 40' be used as a planter to screen the development. .Mr. Rourke said this could be done through directive to the Architectural Corc~,ittee. Mayor Coco stated that if there were no can direct that the Architectural Committee take into account the request that this 40' be used in some landscaping manner and that the applicant also Be apprised of the CounciI's wishes in this regard. Councilman Miller stated he would like to see something stronger than just asking the Architectural Con~nittee to take this into consideration. He would like to see any 2-story building set back 80 feet from the property line. It is possible to put planting in the 40' and start the one-story at the edge of the easement. This could be a condition of an agreement as with other prezoning. Mr. Rourke stated that there could be conditions made as part of the zoning, but there is a question of the desirability and effectiveness of such conditions. A separate agreement could be entered into. Moved by Miller~ seconded by Mack that application PZ 69-115 of Christenson be granted at R-3-1750 as recommended by the Planning Commission and City Attorney be directed to draft the necessary ordinance. Carried unanimously. Moved by Miller~ seconded by Mack that the City Attorney be directed to draft an agreement with the applicant with the following conditior~s 1) The westerly 8' of the Metropolitan Water District easement be landscaped and irrigation provided to the satisfaotion of the Architectural Board° 2)Two-story development take place no closer than 80' to the westerly boundary of the property. Motion carried. 2. VARIANCE 69-243 - APPEAL Appeal of the decision of the Planning Co~aission denying application of Angel-Mock and Associates on behalf of Pioneer Chicken for a variance (V-69-243) to permit: 1. A take-out food establishment in t~e C-2 (Central Commercial) District. 2. Reduction in the required parking spaces from twen~fivl ~5) spaces to nineteen (19) spaces, Site is located on the south side of the intersection of Laguna Road and El'Camino Real and fronts approxinately 118 ft. on the southwes~ side of Laguna Road and approximately 140I on the east side of E1 Camino Real. Council Minutes 5/19/69 Pg. 3 Mr. Supinger' explained location and proposal for development of take-out.food establistu~ant for which a Use Permit is required and also for a variance to permit a reduction in parking from 25 spaces to 19 spaces. This variance was denied by a 3-1 vote of the Planning Commission. Rearing opened at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Robert Johnson, 2930 West Imperial.Highway, Inglewood, employee of Angel-Mock, stated that it has been proven that 12 parking spaces are adequate for this development and they are providing 19 which they. feel will be more than adequate. Mr. Paul Witmoth, 1310 Echo Park Avenue, Los Angeles, Vice President of Pioneer Take-Out, stated that they realize that the parking is based on Size of building. Actually the serving area is based on 700 sq. ft. Their average parking per location is 12 as they have their customers in and out in approximately 6 minutes. Mr. Jerry Murray of First Western Bank, 548 W. Spring Street, Los Angeles, stated they have been the property owners of this property since 1966. Because of the shape and size of the property they have been unable to find a buyer. If this variance is approved it would increase the assessed value of the property. If denied, it could be another 3 years or more before it is of use to the City. They feel the ordinance is unjustified for this property. Mr. Steven Jones, 8833 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, representing the buyer, stated that under the present ordinance, a facility would have to be reduced to 800 or 900 sqo ft. If they try to fit the code it would greatly restrict the productivity of the building and the property. In considering what other use could go on this property they could not thip_k of one that could be as productive. They had also weighed and compared the possibility of developing in the town center area rather than the outlying area and felt that this was an opportunity to stay in the core area and help solidify the center core. There being no objections or further comments the hearing was declared closed at 8:07 Mr. Supinger said that a take-out food establishment can be permitted in the C-1 District with a Use Permit and that Formal Finding sees forth the parking requirements which is the only reason for the variance. This application is a combination Use Permit and Variance. in answer to questioning, Mr. Johnson stated that there would be about 16 or 20 facilities for on-premises consumption of food. Councilman Mack stated that he believed this development would be a traffic problem because of traffic from several areas and that parking in the street and close to the corner is a vital point~ As stated by Mr. Johnson there would be 5 employees which would narrow on-site parking and if employees parked in the street this would create a problem. ~r. Supinger stated that this had been discussed by the staff and on-street parking would be a problem. deni~. Mayor Coco stated that he wanted torneke clear that the Council recognizes that this is a problem piece and they don't want to discourage the initiative to develop such pieces. The council Council Minutes 5/19/69 Pg. 4 does have an obligation as regards traffic and it must be sho~ for the variance that this variance is a justified one for that particular piece. it is a difficult decision with a piece that has been unused for this length of time with very little prospects of future use. This certainly does weigh into the decision. Whatever the vote will be, it certainly is not an arbitrary or capricious one. All factors are taken into sideration. ~ouncilman Klin~elhofer stated thatif the Council has relaxed parking for any reason in the past they have lived to regret it later on. There will be a time when this corner will have to be posted as no parking whatsoever and this will create a problem with cars dropping people off and circling the block, etc. Would like to see the corner developed safely. Above motion carried unanimously. 3. USE PERMIT 69-298 - APPEAL Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying application lIP 69-298 of Seaboard Engineering Company on behalf of Gulf Oil Company to permit the construction of a flagpole exceeding the maximum height permitted in the C-2 District. Site is located at 102 North Tustin Avenue~ Tustin. Mro SuDinger described location and explained that the height limit in the C-2 District is 50 feet unless additional footage is granted through a Use Permit. The Planning Commission granted a height of 65'. Hearing opened at 8:25 P.M. Mr. George Bernhart of Seaboard Engineering Cc~r. pany, representing Gulf Oil Company, stated that Gulf Oil Company has embarked on a program of flagpoles at most of their freeway oriented stations. Several have been installed and there are now 31 under construction. The Tustin ordinance sets a 50' limit and in order to qualify for a variance the applicant must prove that maintenance and operation of the use will under no circumstances be detrimental to the health, safety, morals: comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the area of the proposed use. It is rather hard to say that the American Flag would qualify under any of these conditions The Planning Staff recommended approval for a 75' flagpole° The Commission approved a 65' high pole. As Seaboard Engineering had not received a notice of that hearing they were not present and did not hear the reasons for denying the 75' pole. All these poles are ordered in quantity and are a standard 75' inheight and all fly a 12' x 18' flag. The cost of these poles is in the neighborhood of $2500. Any deviation would be a financial burden. A pole not giving proper exposure is useless. ~r. Bernhart showed pictures of flags now constructed and flying other locations and letters of commendation sent to the Gulf Oil Corporation. There being no objections or further comments the hearing ~as declared closed at 8:28 In answer to questioning Mr. Bernhart said that the poles are of steel, 10%" in diameter at the base and sit in concrete cylinders 2' in diameter and 3' high. It is a telescopic pole in liT sections with a a" diameter at the top° There will never 3e anything other than the United States Flag flown from it, not even the State Flag. Council Minutes 5/19/69 Pg. 5 With regard to the lack of notice, Mr. Supinger. stated that this had been published and notices mailed° it was the normal procedure for applicants to be notified and to the best of his knowledge this had been done. Moved by Miller, seconded by Mack that UP 69-298 to construct a 75' flagpole be approved subject ~o the following conditiop~: 1) No flag or emblem other than United States or State be allowed on the pole. 2) Applicant install three, 3' box size trees around perin~eter of site. Mr. ~ll ztct~d znaz due to drivers_ this corner it was the staff's opinion zha~ c~~ - ~rcc~ could be installed. Mro Bernhart stated that this station is going to be modernized including landscaping. He did not know the timing on this, but stated that it has been designed to beautify this station. Mr. SupinSe~ requested Mr. Bernha~t's cooperation in requesting Gulf Oil to please get in touch with him to discuss Service Station Site Development Guide at an early stage. Mayor Coco asked that Mr. Supinger write a letter to Gulf Oil as well as having Mr. Bernhart carry the message back. Councilman Miller stated that this ~odernizing and landscaping is another aspect'to the case and he withdrew his motion to have this request along with the landscaping considered at one time. Councilman Mack withdrew his second providing another motion can be considered. Councilman Klingethofer questioned whether or not there is a reason why the pole should be placed now. Mr. Bernhart stated that the contract to install 45 poles has been awarded and the contractor will install them regardless of what happens to the rest of the station. Then the various stations will go out for bid for modernization and this will go to a different contractor. If they ha~e to wait it will mean this station will be scratched and the flag given to another location. To tie the two together would mean no pole. Mayor CocR stated that he has a personal opinion on the use of flags in this manner. These flags are obviously being located only at freeway locations. There is no doubt in his mind that these are being used for exposure for the station. Re stated he could see a precedent and can see nothing to prevent other freeway oriented stations from requesting a 75' pole. The use is wonderful but it is fairly obvious that there are no other Gulf stations or any other kind of station, not freeway oriented, that are requesting this kind of exposure. The granting of a flagpole at that height is setting a precedent. Ceuncitman Marsters po{=ted out that the letter from the County on this matter stated that they could find no justification to go OVe~ ~0 Council Minutes 5/19/69 Pg. 6 Moved by Marsters that the Council approve a 55 ft. pole at this location and that the company provide for street trees as per Mr. Miller's previous motion. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Mack stated he agreed with the statement made about use of flag for advertising purposes, but it is getting more exposure to the colors. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Klingelhofer that 75 ft. flagpole be granted, that a minimum of 2 (3 if feasible) 3' box size street trees be placed according to the City Engineer and with proper irrigation. Councilman Ktin~elhofer stated that he ~s nc~ cc ..... r.~cd wizk precedent. He could see nothing better at this entrance of the City than to have a flagpole of this size, 65' or 75' does not make any difference. Councilman Marsters said that in retrospect he even now feels more strongly that a flagpole of 50' to 55' would be more in order. Councilman Miller stated he favors the pole, but would like to get more for the City and would get more if it were made a part of the whole package. Would be in favor of granting this request after seeing the rest of the development plans. Moved by Miller~ seconded by Marsters that the pending motion be amended to read - Use Permit granted subject to submission and ,, approval of landscaping plans by the Architectural Committee. Motion carried. Ayes: Coco, Klingelhofer, Miller, Marsters. Noes: Mack. 4. PURSUANT TO SECTION 3508 OF THE MEYERS - MILlAS - BROWN ACT" A HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF TUSTIN EMPLOYEES. Hearing opened at 8:59 P.M. ~r. Gill presented proposed revision Personnel Rules and Regulations and explained that rules to date were set forth in Resolution No. 754 adopted in 1964 with several amendments. This new package includes Council Policies and State Laws. ~r. Gill recommended approval of these proposed regulations. There being no comments or objections the hearing was declared closed at 9:01 P.M. Councilman Miller suggested' the following changes in proposed Rules and Regulations: 1) Inclusion of a section covering the prohibition of relatives being supervised by relatives. 2) A section relative to discriminating against those belonging to subversive organizations possibly defined ..... as ~o those organizations on the Attorney Generat's list. 3)Page 15, Section 5 - Change in wording from authorizes to approves. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Marster~ that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting to incorporate these cn~=~ges. Carried. Council Minutes 5/19/69 Pg. 7 VII. OLD 1. ORDINANCE NO. 432 BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROViNG THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED "RED HILL AVENUE - MITCHELL AVENUE NORTH ANNEXATION" TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA. Annexation consists of 15.67 acres bounded by Red Hill Avenue on the east, Mitchell Avenue on the south, Nisson Road on the north and Utt Drive on the west. Moved sy Mack~ seconded by Klingelhofey. that urc .... I,I~ Yo. 432 have second readinS. by title only. Moved by Marsters~ seconded by Mack that Ordinance No. 432, approving the annexation of certain uninhabited territory desig- nated Red Hill Avenue - Mitchell Avenue North Annexation, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer, Miller, Marsters. Noes: none. Absent: none. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 433 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, REZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. ZC 69-193, INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Site fronts 392 ft. on the south side of Main Street, approximately 850 ft. west of the centerline of Willjams Street. Moved bY Miller~ seconded By Marsters that Ordinance Noo 433 have second readin~ by title only. carried unanimously. Moved by Mack~ seconded bv Klin~elhofer that Ordinanhe No. 433 rezoning properzy on application ZC 69-193 initiated by the Planning C~mmission, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer, Miller, Marsters. Noes: none. Absent: none. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 434 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, PREZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. PZ 69-116 OF FIRST WEST MORTGAGE. Site fronts 550 ft. on the southwest side of Mitchell Avenue, approximately 660 ft. southeast of the centerline of Newporm Avenue and is the site of existing 118 unit apartment complex. Moved by Mack, seconded by Klingelhofer that Ordinance No. 434 have second reading. by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Mack~.seconded by Klin~elhofer that Ordinance No. 434, prezoning property on application PZ 69-116 of First West Mortgage, be passed and adopted.. Councilman Miller stated he had voted yes on this motion only to avoid time-consuming reading of the ordinance in its entirety, but did not think this prezoning should be approved as the Council does not know what is really being approved. The question being what will happen by fi~ing in new buildings. The increase in density Council Minutes ,Councilman Marsters stated that he concurred with Mr. Miller and suggested that the Council should walk the site and really look at this project together with the City Engineer and Planning Director, ~.~ Mr. Supinger stated that the Architectural ComIaittee had met and approved the plans for the additional units. They do want more details but generally speaking these would be Spanish and a combination of 2 and 3-story structures. The only requirement that the Planning Commission put on at this stage was that ~ 20' roadway be provided around one of the buildings for fire protection. Basically they were favorably impressed with the architecture of the buildings and the way they ~,Ta'il~ fit in with the project. Parking ratio will be slightly greater than would be required under the ordinance. Above motion to approve this prezoning carried by roll ca!l~ Ayes: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer. Noes: Miller, Marsters. Absent: none. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 435 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, PREZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION PZ 69-117 OF GEORGE L. ARGYROS. Prezoning a 3.5 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Fourth Street and Yorba Street. Mr. Rourke informed the Council that an agreement had been drafted but that Mr. Argyros had not seen it until today. Mr. Argyros has brought up certain items that he would like to ckangeo Mr. Rourke believed these are things that should have some discussion between the applicant and himself to arrive at a reasonable form of agreement. If the Council were to approve this prezoning and specify that its approval is conditioned upon reaching a satisfactory agreement that the City and Mr. Argyros both would have some subsequent control over the matter in as much as both the City and Mr. Argyros can cause the property not to be annexed in the event a satisfactory agreement cannot be reachedl Mr. Gill suggested that the Council authorize the Mayor to execute such agreement. Of course at such time as it comes up for annexation it can be denied. Mr. Rourke stated that this would not cause a modification of the ordinance. In the motion for adoption the Council can specify that prezoning is being conditioned upon the execution of an agreement satisfactory to the City concerning certain limitations in the uses and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute such an agreement. In answer to questioning by Mayor Coco, Mr. Rourke stated that as item c) relative to 15 gallon trees on the north property line was ,-- deleted in error and corrected prior to approval of the May 5th minutes, this item could be included in the ordinance without re- quiring another first reading. Mr. Rourke then read a list of proposed ___ conditions and said they had been discussed with Mr. Argyros and believed that the agreement can be satisfactorily worded and agreed upon. Mr. Gill stated that the annexation goes before L.A.F,C. on bIay 2gth. The agreement would be executed for Council review before the annexation hearing before the Council. Council Minutes 5/19/69 Pg. 9 Mr. Argyros stated that in essence they agree with the conditions° The only thing being discussed actually is the matter of terminology. In fact Mr. Rourke has already cleared up some of the terminology and he said he did not really see any problems. They are not objecting to the items per se, only ~o the legal language. Mr. Argyros, said he believed they are in concurrence with ~he general ' idea of the agreement. Mr. Rourke stated that the development will be reviewed by ~he Architectural Committee. Moved by Ktingelhofer~ seconded by Mac~ that Ordinance No. 435 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Klingelhofer~ seconded by Mack that Ordinance No. ~3.5, prezoning property on application PZ 69-117 of George L. Argyros, be passed and adopted conditioned upon the execution of the agreement to the satisfaction of the City concerning certain limited uses and that the Mkyor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement. Councilman Marstars stated that he would not be voting in favor of this prezoniug ~ he is in disagreement with permitting a service station in this area and for all other reasons he is on record for opposing ito Councilman Miller stated that he had seen pictures of service stations developed by Standard 011. No one in the community could object to a station done as those were done and he expects this station to be as good. With the assurance that these pictures are going to go no -- the Planning Commission, the Architectural Conmittee and the Counci!~ he believed this development could be very acceptable. Councilman Marsters requested that copies of these pictures be sent to Mr. Argyros. Above motion carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer, Mi!ler~ Noes: Marstars. Absent: none. 5. ORDINANCE NO. 436 - 1st reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FIRE ZONES OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Marstars that Ordinance No. 436, amending the Fire Zones of the City of Tustin, have first readins by title only. Carried unanimously. Mayor Coco called for a short recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:40 P.M. 6. CONSIDERATION OF M!LEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR - Continued from 5/5/69° __ Moved by Marsters~ seconded by Mack that the City authorize as of July 1, 1969, a $120.00 and a $80.00 monthly mileage allowance to the City Administrator and Assistant City Administrator, respectively. Carried. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 999 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION APPROVE APPLICATION NO. 51007 TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO PERMIT SCHEDULED, DIRECT AIRLINE SERVICE BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY AND SACRAMENTO. Council Minutes 5/19/69 Pgo 10 Moved by Mack~ seconded by Miller that Resolution No. 999 be read hY title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Miller that Resolution No. 999, requestin. approval of Application No. 51007 to provide direct airline service between .Orange County and Sacramento, be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. · ' VIIIo NEW 1. RESOLUTION NO. 997 BUSINESS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, PETITIONING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CANCEL TAXES. ~oved by Klingelhofer~ seconded by Mac~ that Resolution No. 997 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. ~oved by Macki seconded by KlinMelhofer that Resolution No. 997, petitioning the BOard of Supervisors to cancel taxes, be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 998 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN BE EXCEPTED FROM TAX LEVY BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR STRUCTUtAL FIRE PROTECTION OF COUNTY AREA. Moved by Miller~ seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 998 be Feed by title only. Carried unanimously. Boved by Mack~ seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 9987 requesting that property within the City he excepted from tax levy by the County for structural fire protection, be passed and ~dopted. Carried unanimously. " 3. RETURN OF ACCESS RIGHTS ON RED HILL AVENUE, NORTH OF NISSON ROAD. Councilman Miller stated that this area is a traffic hazard. The ~rom the signals alone creates a problem. Granting this access looks like it would really be ahazardous situation. ~F- Gill stated that this matter has been discussed at some length with the staff, City Engineer, City Attorney and Mr. Tutt. AS you know this property was prezoned and annexed recently to the City of Tustin. Proposed development would require two driveways. The development is for a Mr. Up Restaurant; a gas station with restaurant above. In the matter of the deed restriction on here, the properuy did, at one time, have access rights. When Red Hill was widened the access rights of one driveway were granted to the County and now this is asking for this right to be returned. There is no exchange of money on this. This has been discussed with the City Engineer and others. It is not the best situation but is required for this particular development. The State is looking into the possibirity of revamping the interchange at Red Hill. The staff does not feel that the traffic will get too much worse and it is not good as it .is. It is the staff's opinion that these access rights should be granted back to the property owner. Councilman Miller stated he would be interested in carrying this over to the next meeting and getting the opinion of the County. Council Minutes 5/19/69 Pg. tl Mr. Gill stated that the driveways were always indicated on the ~lans and the project was approved on the basis that there would be two driveways. The rights must be granted for finalization of agreement with Shell Oil Company. This problem came to light about two weeks ago after the annexation was completed. This was not known to the City at the time of annexation. There is one existing access and in his opinion one additional will not help or hurt the traffic problem. Councilman Mack suggested that there be one-way entrance and exit drives. TTr~ '~ ...... ro?~y owner, sta~ad ~e i~----~'~ " ~va!op this portion ,,p~rc, ~s approved by c~ i ..... ~z and it is necessary ~o get ingress and egress from ~e~ aill Avenue. Re agreed that traffic conditions are serious, but there are negotiations for signals at Sycamore, Walnut, Mitchell and Nisson Avenues which will alleviate congestion at this particular intersection. They are spending approximately $220,000 on this improvement which he believes will be a tremendous thing. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Klingelhofer that Resolution No. 1000 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Klingelhofer that Resolution No. 1000, granting access rights on Red Hill Avenue north of Nisson Road, be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. 4. COUNTY CASE ZC 68-56 - R. T. FRENCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR REZONING FROM THE 100-E4 (SMALL ESTATES) DISTRICT TO THE CN (COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD) DISTRICT. Location: The northwest corner of the intersection of 17th Street and Newport Avenue. Mr. Gill stated that this was sent to the City Planning Commission by the County which they typically do in a!l matters surrounding the City of Tustin in County cases which may have some influence on the City of Tustin. The County requests any coameuts from the City Planning Commission that they may wish to make. Our Conmission did comment on this matter and Mr. French is appealing those comments. The County as a rule sends those matters which are in our joint General Plan area. Mr. Sam Barnes, attorney for R. T. French Development Company, showed plans and renderings for the proposed development and explained that this would be a completely walled and landscaped development with no outside signs. It envisions a neighborhood commercial which is the most restrictive in the County. Richards Market is the prime tenant. As ~o preced&nt, Mr. Barnes submitted that economics would probably preclude that. There are not many developers such as Rioherds who are willing to invest in this type of development and if there were it would probably upgrade 17th Street. The developer is willing to let the County set conditions requiring landscaping and that they be bound by plans and specifications, assuring that it will be developed in this fashion. Mr. Barnes requested that the Council recommend to the County that a development as anticipated, with any conditions, be approved. In answer to questioning, Mr. French stated that Mr. Richards is associated with Mayfair but still operates as an individual. They can show a need for c~nmercial in this area. The type of tenants in this development such as Richards Market, Stock Brokerage House, Bank, etc. will not compete head ~o head with existing Tustin commercial. Council Minutes 5/19~69 pg. 12 It was the consensus of the Council that it is not the policy of the Council to take a stand with the County Planning Cc~r~nission~ The City has always relied upon the Planning Commission to make ~... any recommendations. The. Council takes action when it goes to the Board of Supervisors. The City Planning Commission is charged with the responsibility of making recommendations for the City to the County Planning Department. ~oved by Klinge.lhofer~ seconded by Mack that the City Council take no action on this matter based on the idea that it seems to be in the best interest of Tustin at this time. Carried. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF MEDIAN CURBS - FIRST STREET CENTER ISLAND DIVIDERS ~.oved by Marsters~ seconded by Mack that construction of median curbs on First Street by D. C. Muralt Company be accepted and ...... payment of 90% of the contract in the amount of $4~553o32 be apprpved. 10% retention of $505.93 to be paid and bonds exonerated upon final approval of City Engineer in 30 days. Carried. As requested, Mayor Coco directed that the City Engineer contact Councilman Miller with the plans and specifications for removing soil, providing soil amendments, holes for trees, type of Trees, etc. for this divider. .......... 6. ISSUANCE OF FLOOD CONTROL PERMITS ~oyed by Mack~ seconded by Miller that the .City Engineer be authorized ~.o sign Permit No. 06069 for Tract 6473 on behalf of the City of Tustin. Carried. Moved by Mack~ seconded by Klin~elhofer that the City Engineer be authorized to sign all Flood Control Permits in the future° subject to the review and approval of the City Administrator. Carried. 7. SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT FOR A FEASIBILITY EVALUATION FOR POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF THE TUSTIN WATER WORKS BY THE CITY Moved b7 Miller~ seconded by Mack that Toups Engineering and Bartie-Wells Associates be selected to conduct an engineering and financial feasibility study, for the possible acquisition by the City,of Tustin Water Works, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement to this effect, and that $5,000 be authorized from the Unappropriated Reserve for this purpose and transferred to Account 2317. Carried. 8. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS ~oved by Mack? seconded by Klin~elhofer that demands be paid in the amount of $96~604.11. Carried° OTHER 1) Councilman Miller appointed Joint Chairman of Sanitation BUSINESS District Boards. ~ayor Coco congratulated Mr. Miller on this appointment by the Sanitation Boards° 2) Speed on Fourth Street. Councilman Marsters~ said he is concerned with the basic speed limit Of 40 miles per hour on Fourth Street which he stated is being violated. This is a definite hazard for pedestrians and for vehicles making a left turn into cross streets. Council Minutes 5/19/69 Pg. 13 Mayor Coco suggested that as this is primarily in the County area that Mr. Gill contact the County and make a report to the Council. The following correspondence and reports received: -- 1)Statement for month of April of Receipts and Disbursements and Fund Balances - City Treasurer. 2)Status of construction of Red Hill Relief Sewer - City Engineer~ 3)Program Report - Chamber of Commerce. 4)Notice of General Meeting - Orange County Division - League - of California Cities. Si'n Ordinance Workshop - Norman ii~L~ ~i~Lning Commission Chairman. 6)Fire Prevention Activities - F. Stoli, Fire inspector. 7)Building Department, April Activity Report - R. Waldo. 8)Letter commending Brent Bixler - T. Woodruff, President of Tustin Meadows Homeo~rners Association. 9) Letters of appreciation for communications relative to current Legislative Bills - Assemblyman Briggs and Assemblyman Cory. 10)Resolution relative to Narcotics Traffic - City of San Juan Capistranoo 11) Legislative Bulletin and Digest of 1969 Assembly and Senate Bills - League of California Cities. X. ADJOURN- Moved by Mack, seconded by Marsters that meeting be adjourned to MENT a personnel session. MAYOR