Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1968 06 03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL June 3, 1968 CALL TO Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Coco. ORDER II. PLEDGE OF Led by Mayor Coco. ALLEGIANCE III. INVOCATION Given by the Reverend Karl Christ of Tustin Presbyterian Church. IV. ROLL Present: Councilmen: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer, Miller, CALL Marsters Absent: Councilmen: None Others Present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe Planning Director James Supinger Director of Public Works B. Wheelock V. APPROVAL Moved by Mack, seconded by Marsters that minutes of OF MINUTES the May 20th meeting be approved as mailed. Carried. PRESENTATION OF QUARTERLY BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS The following Beautification Awards were presented by Mayor Coco: New Structure - Robert H. Grant Developer, Inc. for Tustin Meadows, accepted by Mr, Max Tipton Existing Structure - Tustin Presbyterian Church, accepted by the Reverend Karl Christ. VIi PUBLIC 1. PREZONING 68-107 HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE PREZONING (PZ 68-107) OF APPROXIMATELY 95 ACRES TO THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, R-4 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, AND THE MHP (MOBILEHOME PARK) DISTRICT. Subject property is a part of the area designated as the Browning Avenue-Walnut Avenue Annexation. Portions of which front on Red Hill Avenue, Mitchell Avenue, Browning Avenue, Santa Ana Freeway, and Walnut Avenue. Hearing opened at 7:35 P.M. Mr. Supinger,presented the Planning Commission and staff recommendations for approval of this prezoning. Mr. Dale Heinl~, attorney representing William M. and Millicent K. Barry, objected to this prezoning saying that they had relied upon the zoning in the Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 2 County and would like to bring this property into the City zoned for agriculture and determine use at a later date. To zone R-1 will depress the land value at this time. They would permit it to be zoned R-4. Mr. Charles Squires, owner of 10 acres between the proposed MHP zone and the school~ objected to the MHP zoning as he felt the area to be overrun with apartments now, and mobilehomes would hurt his property even more. Mr. Ronald R. Foell of Stahdard Pacific Corporatio~ owners of 15 acres at the Northeast corner of Red Hill and Walnut and who have an interest in Mr. Squires' property, said they are planning to con- struct an R-1 development. The tract map was approved by the County of Orange Planning Commission. Mr. Foell stated that they take exception to the proposed zoning of MHP to the North of this parcel for the following reasons: 1) inconsistent with County Master Plan; 2) inconsistent with County street pattern which includes this parc~!(Mr. Foell pointed out the two stub streets on a copy of the map of Tract No. 6633 which the County had approved); 3) This type of use is definitely incompatible with the $28,000 to $30,000 homes that they will be con- structing in this area. Mr. James Taylor, representing the Irvine Company, stated that the 20 acre parcel proposed for the MHP belongs to the Irvine Company. The City has adopted a well designed and restrictive Mobilehome Park set of standards and the Irvine Company will construct a Mobilehome Park of high quality. Three basic factors were used in determining the request for this type of zoning: 1) Existing zoning and land use which is adjacent to this parcel is mostly R-4 or commercial and these is another mobilehome park to the East just off of Nisson Road; 2) Impact of freeway and the railroad spur adjacent to the Northern and Eastern boundaries; 3) This parcel, because of these other two factors, did not lend itself to the type of single family development that the Irvin~ Company wishes to participate in. The Irvine Company feels that a mobilehome park of high quality which would exceed the minimum standards as presented by City Ordinance could be developed on this property and would fit in with the high density area which is zoned adjacent to the parcel. In answer to questioning, Mr. Taylor stated that the dead end streets, shown on the tentative map of Tract No. 6633, do present a problem to the developer to the South and to the Irvine parcel. He was not actually aware of street alignments that stub in to their parcel as they had not seen a copy of the Tract map. This is something that possibly could be worked out without detriment to either one of the developers. AS to average lot size in this mobilehome park, Mr. Taylor stated that the City standards for a mobile- home park allows a maximum of 10 units per acre with an average of 2800 square feet per lot. This develop- ment may not go to this high a density. Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 3 Mr. Don Gittleson, an interested party in the development of the Pollard property on Browning Avenuer stated that they plan to develop the prop- erty in 23 residential lots, They are fairly well along in their work with the County, and to shift jurisdiction from County to City would be a severe hardship. Mr. Ronald Foell stated he was sure that the Irvine Company plans for a mobilehome park would be top flight. Plans for Standard Pacific Corporation development are immediate.. They have time committ- ments which must be met. They plan to record the map in 30 days or less. 48 of the 60 homes are pre-sold and purchasers are making their purchases on the basis of the existing surrounding zoning. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 7:55 P.M. In answer to questions by the Council, Mr. Supinger gave the following information: 1) Justification for rezoning Barry parcels to R-1 zone - The property in question is on the East side of Walnut Avenue, the property on the Northwest developed by Standard Pacific is R-1. The staff has known of Mr. Gittleson's plans to develop to the South with R-1. The property to the South and West is developed as R-1. The General ~lan calls for a density of 6~ units per acre for this property which would be a little higher density than R-1 standards. Consequently, he felt that R-1 would be the best designation for this property rather than going to the R-4 density which would be multiple family. 2) R-4 zoning permits a maximum density of 14 units per acre. R-1 permits 4 units per acre. So the R-1 is closer to the General Plan density of 6½ units per acre. 3) The staff had not given any consideration to the PC zone on this property because PC standards call for setting use and standards at time of approval of specific plans. 4) The staff has not seen the tentative map of this tract and he was surprised that this tentative map has been filed. Normally the County would have referred the map to the City Planning Commission for a comment. There may be some problem with the extension of Mitchell should that go on beyond Browning. Mr. Wheelock stated that there might be some problem for Standard Pacific due to the time element to go back and have another map approved by the County. This map would have to be revised showing the cul-de- sacs back on it again. The City did receive the first tentative map, but the map was revised at the County level. After it was filed, the County staff recommended revision of this map. This was to facilitate the development of the adjacent property by the streets going directly into it rather than cul-de-sacing. This was without the knowledge that a mobilehome park might go in on the adjacent property. Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 4 Mr. Gill stated he could see no reason why a favorable street pattern could not be worked out as street patterns would have to be approved by the City. Further discussion was held by the Council as to the street pattern including the possibility of the stub streets curving in a "U" shape through the mobilehome park and the continuation of Nisson Road and Mitchell Avenue. Mr. Wheelock stated that the staff feeling has been not to continue Mitchell Avenue. He felt it would be better to have a street go through the middle and have neither Mitchell or Nisson go through. Mr. Supinger explained the density of various multiple zones and open space requirements~ further stating that the BarFy property is presently zoned PD-3300-R4-6000 which is a multiple family designation of slightly less density than normal PD and about one-half the R-4 density. R4-6000 would allow about 5 units to the acre and R-1 would ~llow 4 units per acre. PD-3300 would be approximately 12 units per acre. Further discussion was held and it was stated that MHP is really a lesser density than R-4 and should be a lesser problem when considering the use of the streets. Mr. Gill stated that owners of 20 acres have protested the prezonlng in this area. Moved by Mack, seconded by Klingelhofer that Ordinance No. 402, prezoning property in the Browning-Walnut Annexation, have first readin~ by title only. Carried unanimously. 2. PREZONING 68-108 TO CONSIDER THE PREZONING (PZ 68-108) OF APPROXIMATELY 4.24 ACRES TO THE R-4 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT. Subject property fronts 341 feet on the South- east side of Red Hill Avenue and 540 feet on the Northeast side of Walnut Avenue. Subject property is a portion of the Browning Avenue- Walnut Avenue Annexation. Hearing opened at 8:20 P.M. Mr. Supinger reported that, at their public hearing, the Planning Commission had taken no action on this matter. Mr. Matt Nisson of 14462 Red Hill Avenue, owner of the subject property, stated that if annexed to the City, the proposed R-4 would be acceptable and is in the scope of the General Plan. The property is on. the corner of secondary and primary highways, across the street is R-4, and there is PD to the South. He stated that he is in favor of.this zoning. Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 5 Mr. Ronald Foell Of Standard Pacific Corporation, stated that they own the 15 acres to the North and are developing this as R-1. Mr. Foell pro- tested this R-4 zoning. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 8:23 P.M. Mr. Supinger explained that the General Plan shows that this property is a borderline situation which could go either way either 6½ units per acre or the 10 units per acre which would be R-4. In answer to questioning by Councilman Miller, Mr. Wheelock stated that he did not feel that as an R-1 development, there would be sufficient distance from Walnut or Red Hill for a safe intersection. Councilman Miller stated that because this property doesn't lend itself to R-1 development when con- sidered with the present street pattern adopted by the Standard Pacific Corporation, he would move as follows: Moved by Miller, seconded by Mack that Ordinance No. 403, approving PZ 68-108, have first reading by title only. Carried 'unanimously. 3. BROWNING AVENUE WALNUT AVENUE ANNEXATION TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Portions of this annexation front on Red Hill Avenue, Mitchell Avenue, Browning Avenue, Santa Ana Freeway, and Walnut Avenue. Hearing opened at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Gill stated that written protests totaling 29.7% of the assessed valuation had been received. Mr. Dale Heinly, representing William Barry, stated he would like to see a breakdown of protests. Mayor coco declared a five minute recess to allow the Public Works Director to prepare a complete breakdown and tabulation. Meeting reconvened. The following protests were reported: Standard Pacific Corp. $ 16,066 William & Millicent Barry 16 630 William & Millicent Barry 15 690 Standard Pacific Corp. 15 190 Standard Pacific Corp. 15 730 Rose Marie Pollard 15 940 Charles Squires 14 390 Charles Squire~ 27 820 ~ Total Protest Value $137,456 Total assessed value $463,540. Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 6 Mr. Dale Heinly, attorney for William Barry, protested this annexation and stated that it was unfair to use the assessed valuation of the school site to bring in other properties. It was stated by Mr. Gill that there was not a ~ majority protest even if the school site was not included, either by assessed valuation or acreage. There are seven ownerships and the school for annexation, and three against. Of the 100 acres, 40 acres are protesting and 60 acres are for annexation. Mr. Ronald Foell urged that this annexation be denied. Mr. Don Gittleson stated he was not against annexing to the City, but requested that the effective date be postponed to December 1st or not earlier than September 1st to give his company time to develop their property. Mr. Charles Squires stated he was against annexation at this time. There being no further protests or commentsr the hearing was declared'closed at 8:50 P.M. In answer to Mr. Heinly and Mr. Fo~llr Mayor Coco stated that a public hearing is held on matters __ like this in order to hear the reasons for the protests. The Council cannot by law ma~ UD its mind on any issuewithout hearing all who wish to speak, especially the property owners involved. At this session, we have opened to the public to hear all comments. The decisions are going to be based on comments that were made before the Council tonight and ultimately on the Council's own judgment as trustees for the residents and citizens as to what is best for the City of Tustin as a whole and its citizens. Councilman Klingelhofer pointed out that when we have zoning problems before the City, there is always controversy. When combined with annexation, there · s bound to be more controversy. This is a decision making body, as it should be. The State of California has organized the Local Agency Formation Commission which goes over prospective annexations in order to eliminate the ridiculous and we can all recall situations where this has occurred. This annexation did appear before the Local Agency Formation Commission, and was approved. Councilman Miller stated that to add to thisw the City did try to exclude one area from this annexation and the Local Agency Formation Commission did not allow this exclusion, stating it would not be a reasonable annexation to exclude this parcel. Councilman Miller felt that the request of Mr. Gittleson was reascnable, and suggested an effective date of September 1st. Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 7 Councilman Mack pointed out that anyone involved in property mn the South Tustin area would admit that at best there has been some confusion, and in some cases, unjustified zoning. The biggest problem is because there are two bodies governing these parcels. The quickest way to solve these problems ms to have one jurisdiction to deal with. The only answer is a blending of zoning. In answer to questioning, Mr. Rourke stated that the law does not require prezonmng. If not pre- zone~. the property would come mn unclassifed unless we have an exact matching zoning of that in the County. Councilman Klingelhofer stated that it is really a fair process to have these hearings prior to the annexation, and zone the land ~n open hearings. If this were not done, people would annex in the hope that they would get the zoning they wanted. Councilman Marsters said he would lik~ to see this matter continued for deliberation by the Council to the next regular meeting. Mo~ed by Mack, seconded b~ Klingelhofer that Ordinance No. 404, approvlng the Browning Avenue Walnu~ Avenue Annexation, have first reading by title only, with effective date of September 1, 1968. ~yor Coco pointed out that readings of ordinances are done in two parts. A first and second reading for every ordinance. The ordinance may be adopted at the time of the second reading. Ordinances are read by title onl~ as these ordinances are quite lengthy. Anyone interested in just what an ordinance says is welcome to come to City Hall and review them at any time. There must be a unanimous vote by the Council to read by title only. One dissent means that the ordinance must be read in its entirety. Roll call vote requested by Councilman Marsters. Ayes: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer, Miller. Noes: Marsters. Absent; None. Moved by Miller, seconded by Klingelhofer that brdinance No. 404 be read in its entirety. Motion carried. Councilman Marsters voting no. He stated that his reason for voting no was that he would like to have seen this continued at least to the next regular meeting so that he could take some of the data heard in the public hearing under further consideration. 4. ZONE CHANGE 68-175 OF MARY BROOMELL APPLICATION OF MARY E. BROOMELL FOR REZONING (ZC 68-175) OF APPROXIMATELY 2.33 ACRES OF LAND FROM THE PD 3500 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 3500 SQ. PER UNIT PER LOT AREA) DISTRICT TO THE C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) AND R-3-190D (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 19D0 SQ. FT. PER UNIT PER LOT AREA) DISTRICT. Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 8 Proposal is to zone the most Southerly 150 feet C-1 and the Northerly remainder R-3-1900. Site fronts 164 feet on the North side of Seventeenth Street, 620 feet on the West side of Yorba, and 164 feet on the South side of Medford Avenue. Hearing opened at 9:10 P.M. Mr. Supinger explained the location of the property and presented Planning Commission recommendations for approval of this zoning. He stated that a petition bearing 37 signatures of protest had been presented to the Commission. Mr. John StanleZ, attorney representing the applicant, stated that this property has been vacant some three years. There have been proposals for the use of the parcel, but none were satisfactory and in their opinion, were not economically feasible or a credit to the colmnunity. ~his particular proposal has been passed by the Planning Commission and proposes two uses - C-1 and R-3-1900. Mr. Thomas Grieve of Shell Oil Company s'tated that they proposed the latest style service station of the Spanish motif with indirect lighting. The service station bays have be~n proposed to enter from the rear. The reason for this location is the high traffic count on Seventeenth Street which is some- what in excess of 30,000 cars per day and Yorba is a major neighborhood street entering into the traffic on Seventeenth Street. Estimated cost of construction is in excess of $70,000. Mr. G. Smith, speaking for Jack Thoner developer, stated this is a peculiar piece of property in that it is completely bounded by streets except for the commercial to the East. It is a highly desirable area from a residential standpoint and commercial standpoint and from a multiple standpoint. Intention is to establish a high quality multiple residential unit. Mr. Thoner has done several units in Tustin, all of which he is justly proud and this by far will exceed in quality and beauty anything that he has done to date. The units will be primarily two bedroom with one-third being one bedroom. This development will meet and exceed all requirements of the City including parking and open area. These will be two story units. The closest to the R-1 property will be 145 feet. From the two story R-1 houses to the two story building in this development will be approximately 170 feet. First units will have no windows in the end toward the R-1 property. Mr. George Brewer of 13791 Palace Way, stated he represented a large number of people in his area and in the Summerfield Homes, asking that the Council deny this application and not allow a service station and apartment house to be built on this property. They did not feel that another service station or an apartment house was either needed or wanted. Mr. Brewer read excerpts from a petition protesting this zoning and presented petition to the Council stating it contained more than 106 names. Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 9 Mr. William Gilmore of 13771 Palace Way, stated he had an additional 47 signatures to the petition filed by Mr. Brewer which he filed at this time. Mr. Gilmore urged denial of this application. The following persons spoke protesting this zoning: Mr. Enyen Gott, 13811 Palace Way Mr. B. C. Randall, 13751 Fairmont Way Mr. Vincent Leggio, 13782 Palace Way Mr. Wi Sinclair, Laurie Lane Mr. Barsanti, 13772 Palace Way. Mr. Barsanti also presented a petition which he stated carried 74 signature. Mr. Grieve stated that the reason some stations such as on First Street have closed is due to the change in traffic patterns in the past few years. He felt this applica'tion to be good zoning as it puts C-1 up to C-1. Mr. Smith stated that their development proposes 40 units which is 11 units more than the present zoning. It is estimated there will be less than two bodies per unit and children will be far less per capita than R-I.' Development will be in Spanish architecture. There being no further objections or new comments, the hearing was declared closed at 10:01 P.M. In answer to questioning by the Council, Mr. Brewer stated he was not objecting to multiple, lust to the density and that a service station is just not needed. Councilman Marsters said he was sure that both the Shell Oil Company and Mr. Thoner would develop fine projects, but is against this zoning. Answering Councilman Klingelhofer, Mr. Supinger stated that he would not have recommended this zoning if it were not in conformance with the General Plan. The General Plan calls for commercial at this intersecti,~n. In fact, the commercial can be interpreted to lap over on the East side of Yorba Street. About a year ago, there was prezoning on the Seventeenth and Holt proposed annexation area. At that time, the staff analyzed the area and existing zoning. The County had zoned the property on the East side of Yorba for professional offices. The City then prezoned the property in that area in anticipation of annexation as professional. That, he felt, was an orderly transition from commercial to professional to residential uses. The same can be said for the transition from commercial to multiple family to single family going North along Seventeenth Street. In answer to questioning by Councilman Klingelhofer, Mr. Brewer stated that he had lived at his present address for a little over a year and had been aware that this property was zoned for medium high density, but not f. Qr commercial. Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 10 Mr. Supinger stated that the General Plan was adopted in December of 1966. Councilman Klingelhofer stated he appreciated the fact that the homeowners knew what the zoning was, not maybe what it would be planned for in the years to come. Councilman Miller stated he would like to see as much of the previous actions over the past few years on this property as possible. Also, he would like to know how many of the people signing the petitions are voters living within the City and how many are not. Councilman Miller said he would like to see this meeting continued for all the facts. Mayor Coco suggested the General Plan which evolved from discussions in 1964 and 1965, be used for a quick reference and might answer some questions. He pointed out that comments concerning coF~ercial Of Seventeenth Street are not new; they were part 'and parcel of what we were fighting about and for some years ago. There was no comprehensive General Plan at that time, but there was a similar situation in a different part of Tustin. The main difference being that no property owner, developer or resident knew how the City was planned to develop. No one had a picture to refer to. This has changed. The City Council and the City Planning Commission have gone on record and have a letter on file with the County of Orange opposing any commercial develop- ment Eastward on Seventeenth Street. If much of the property on Seventeenth Street ultimately does go commercial, it is dependent on the County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. The main reason for this is that when given the opportunity of cominq within the City of Tustin, which is against commercial east of Yorba on Seventeenth Street~ the voters declined the opportunity. The General Plan, as adopted by both the City and the County, shows no commercial whatsoever east of Yorba on 17th Street. There was, however, a concrete proposal by owners of property along Seventeenth to the County to rezone all of this vacant property to commercial. It was only through the efforts of the City that this street is not now commercial. The General plan shows the property in question at Yorba and Seventeenth Street to be a commercial zone. We respect the precedent argument, but we do have something beyond precedent and that is a General Plan which shows that the County and the City are in full agreement that the commercial shown at the corner of Seventeenth and Yorba is the last conm~ercial to be on Seventeenth Street. This General Plan has been in effect for the past two years and those who have moved into the area in that time might have referred to it. To buy in an area with a General Plan is a distinct advantage. Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 11 Councilman Miller stated tha~ the General plan is not a precise instrument. The densities or commercial could be extended or could be stopped. The commercial zone could be just as well professional on the General Plan as C-1. The prezoning for the proposed annexation was for residential-professional as being in conformance with the General Plan. This is something we should consider this evening. When we were making a point of following the General Plan by the zoning, that is the zoning we picked out. Councilman Miller felt that we should focus our attention on this precise piece of property and decide what is in the best interests of the City of Tustin and would appreciate more information. Mr. Stanley stated that it apparently would not create a hardship on the developers to continue this for two weeks. Moved by Mack, seconded by Marsters that the Council defer further decision on this matter until the next regular meeting. Motion carried. Councilman Miller said he would like to see excerpts from past Planning Commission and Council minutes, exhibits and protests plotted on a map, sent to each Councilman by the next meeting. 5. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE C-1 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT WITH A USE PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING: AUTO SUPPLIES (INSTALLATION OF MINOR REPLACE- MENT PARTS AND ACCESSORIES WITHIN AN ENCLOSED BUILDING). Mr. Supinger presented Planning Commission recommendations for approval of this amendment. Hearing opened at 10:32 P.M. There being no comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 10:33 P.M. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Klinqelhofer that Ordinance No. 407, amending Ordinance No. 157 relative to automotive supply stores, have first ~.eading by title only. Carried unanimously. 6. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO 157, AS AMENDED, RELATIVE TO USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT. Hearin~ opened at 10:35 P.M. Mr. Supinger presented Planning Commission recommen- dations for approval. There being no comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 10:36 P.M. Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 12 Mr. Supinger stated that a Use Permit would carry a $25.00 fee and takes approximately one month for processing. Mr. Rourke stated that any establishments presently presenting live entertainment would not have to have a Use Permit. They would be a prior non- conforming use. Members"of the Planning Commission present stated that, as discussed at their meeting, on the pro side was the need for control, the concern in the health, welfare, safety and concern for the best interest of the City and in accord with the recormnen- dation of the City Attorney. On the con side was that such an Ordinance would be cumbersome and a question as to the real need. The final vote of the Commission on this matter was: Ayes: Halus, Larnard, Oster; Noes: Ludwig and Webster; Absent: Bacon. There was one vacancy on the Commission at that time. Mr. Gill stated that this Use~Permit requirement would not eliminate the requirement that requests for enter- tainment still appear before the License and Permit 'Board which is also a $25.00 fee. Whenever an enter- tairunent type is changed, they. do have to go back to the License and Permit Board for a review and approval. When that occurs, if this Ordinance were adopted, they would have to ~ before the Planning Commission for a Use Permit. Entertainers are required to be cleared by the Police Department. Only in the case of a type of entertainment change would they have to come before the Board and/or Commission. Mr. Rourke stated a Use Permit would only be required when a place changed the type of entertainment. It would be up to the Planning Commission to be as general or specific as they wanted to be as to what constitutes a change. The Planning Commission is concerned with land use and its relationship with effect upon other properties and other uses. The License and Permit Board has a broader role. In his opinion, the Planning Commission by the issuance of Use Permits, would be on more solid ground to regulate the presentation of live entertainment in the area where there could be any problems. Moved by Miller, seconded by Klingelhofer that Ordinance No. 406, amending the Zoning Ordinance to require a Conditional Use Permit for presentation of live entertainment, have first reading by title only. Mayor Coco said he Oould not go along with this Ordinance at this time as he had reservations about the fr. equency of appearing before the Commission, the difficulty of drafting permit conditions to be broad enough, time delays and c6st to applicants, and questior about temporary uses. Mr. Gill stated that this Ordinance has been discussed at length by the staff. The Planning Director feel~ that there is a burdensome chore put on the Planning Commission. The one sour apple in the batch has caused the City a g~eat deal of trouble and expense. The staff feels that if there is anything that can be Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 13 done to avoid this type of thing in the future, that at leaat it should be recommended to the Council for their consideration. Mr. Gill stated that it is both his opinion and that of the City Attorney that there is just no other route to go to prevent the type of thing that has occurred in the past. Motion failed to carry unanimously - Mayor Coco voting no. Mayor Coco stated that he wanted it understood that his no vote was in no way a reflection on the advice of Mr. Rourke or the staff, but that he felt the caliber of the weapon is possibly a little large for the target. Moved by Mack, seconded b~ Miller that Ordinance No. 406 be read in its entirety. Motion carried - Mayor Coco voting no. VII. OLD 1. ORDINANCE NO. 400 BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA REZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION ZC 68-172 OF THE IRVINE COMPANY. Moved by Mack, seconded by K!ingelhofer that Ordinance No. 400 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Mack, seconded by Klingelhofer that Ordinance No. 400, rezon~ng property on application ZC 68-172 of Irvine Company, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer, Miller, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: None. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 401 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA REZONING PROPERTY OF STUTSMAN ON APPLICATION NO. 68-169. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Mack that Ordinance No. 401 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Mack that Ordinance No. 401, rezoning property of Stutsman on Application No. 68-169, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Mack, Klingethofer, Marsters. Noes: Miller. Absent; None. 3. STREET RENAMING COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER RENAMING OF CERTAIN STREETS AND TO STUDY EXISTING HOUSE NUMBERING. Mayor Coco appointed the following persons to the Street Renaming Committee representing the categories specified: Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 14 Councilman Mack - Chairman Rollin Mahoney - Planning Commission Lee Wagner - Centennial 'Committee John Prescott - Property owner George Broomell - Resident Jerome Kidd - Resident Margaret Pottenger - Resident Charles Greenwood - Chamber of Commerce Walt Fredricksen - Chamber of Commerce John Jamieson - Chamber of Commerce Harry'Gill - Advisor Ben Wheelock - Advisor, Mayor Coco charged the Committee to conduct meetings as seen fit as to frequency and format, and should consider three areas: 1) Naming of East-West streets marked off on the map to eliminate existing confusion. 2) Compatibility of building numbers with County numbering system. 3) Changes for North-South streets where possible in keeping with the City's heritage. Mayor Coco requested that each member select an alternate from his own group and that the Committee set a schedule for their goal. VIII. NEW 1. RESOLUTION NO. 943 BUSINESS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AMENDING THE 1967-68 GENERAL CITY BUDGET. Meved by Mack, seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 943 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Mack that Resolution No. 943, amending the 1967-68 general City Budget, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Mack, Klingelhofer, Miller, Marsters. Noes: None. Absent: None. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 944 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 STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION OF COUNTY AREAS. Moved by Miller, seconded by Mack that Resolution No. 944 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Mack that Resolution No. 944, requesting that property within the corporate limits of the City be excepted from tax levy by the County of Orange for structural fire protection, be passed and adopted~ Carried unanimously. 3. JOINT AGREEMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY AUTOMATIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM. Moved by Mack, seconded ~y Marsters that the Mayo~ and City Clerk be authorized to execute the aqree- ment with the County of Orange_for the operation of Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 15 the Orange County Automatic Telecommunications system. Carried. 4. MAIN EXTENSION FOR TRACT 5726 WITH TUSTIN WATER WORKS Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Mack that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract with the Tustin Water Works for main extension covering water facilities installed for completion of improvements in Tract 5726. Carried. 5. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Moved by Miller, seconded by Marsters that demands in the amount of $36,124.36 be paid. Carried. IX. OTHER 1. 1968-69 BUDGET ~U BUSINESS Mr. Gill announced that the proposed 1968-69 Budget would b~ presented to the public on June 17th with a workshop prior to that date if desired. Saturday, June 8th at 9:30 A.M. in the office of the Police Chief, was set as the time and place for a budget study workshop. 2. HIGH SCHOOL RECREATION PROGRAM Councilman Klingelhofer suggested that a letter of commendation be sent to the Tustin High School District for their forthcoming, worthwhile Summer Recreation Program and stating the City appreciated their efforts and offer assistance. Mayor Coco said he was researching cooperative recreation programs in other areas and stated he still felt more could be done in cooperation rather than the schools and City working alone. After further discussion, this matter was referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The following correspondence was received: 1. Report on County Assessor's Meeting for City Councilmen James Wiltjams 2. Personnel Activity Roster - H. Gill 3. Fire Suppression Report for April - Chief Hilton "'~ 4. Building Department Activity Report - F. Brook 5. Resolution Setting Hearing in Decision to Designate a Community Action Agency - County Board of Supervisors 6.Resolution Urging Support of Assembly Bills 1604 and 1474 City of Costa Mesa 7. Legislative Bulletins - League of California Cities Council Minutes 6/3/68 Pg. 16 ADJOURNMENT Moved by Marsters, seconded b~; Mack that the meeting be adjourned. Carried. HAYOR CITY CLER~ "'--