Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1971 06 07 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL June 7, 1971 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Mayor Coco at 7:30 p.m. II. · PLEDGE 0F ALLEGIANCE Led by Councilman C. Miller. III. INVOCATION Given by Mayor Coco. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L.- Miller, Oster. Absent: Councilmen: None Others present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke City Cie~k Ruth Poe Asst. City Admin.- Comm. Dev. K. Fleagle V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE - cont'd from 5/17/71. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR DEDICATION OF LAND, PAYMENT OF FEES OR BOTH FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL LAND IN SUBDIVISIONS. Mr. Fleagle~explained that the proposed Park Land Dedication Ordinance had been advertised for a public hearing on May 17, and continued to this dat~ in order to give the Planning Com- mission an opportunity to consider suggested amendments. The Planning Commission has ap- proved an amendment deleting the requirement for payment!of park fees for existing subdivided land. He further stated that the recent decision of the California Supreme Court in the Walnut Creek case answers every possible charge that may arise mn protest against this ordinance. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:35 p.m. Mr. John Siegel, 515 East First Street, Tustin, read a letter he had written to the Council regarding the revised ordinance. The main points were as follows: a. The legality of the proposed ordinance, as upheld by the State Supreme Court decision, is not in question, but rather the equita- bility Of applying such an ordinance in Tustin at this time, when only one to two percent'of the total City area would be affected~ b. A park dedication fee imposed on new con- .struction is unwarranted, especially in view of!benefits normally accruing to the City from new construction, such as em- ploymen~ opportunities; business license revenue; increased revenues for general fund purposes, park & recreation activities, and reduction of general obligation bond Council Meeting 6/7/71 Page 2 indebtedness--all! resulting from increased assessed valuations; additiona~ consumers and sales tax revenues; improvement of the appearance of the p~operty. c. The ordinance could be modified to apply to the annexation of new land to the City where the land and/or fees would be used to the benefit of those contributing. d. This proposed ordinance needs more study. Mr. Matt Nisson, 14462 Red Hill, Tustin, stated that the proposed ordinance is extremely dis- criminatory. He felt that it would put an in- creased burden on the property--thwarting those who wish to maintain their property in its present "green" state, by making it a liability to develop in the future. Mr. Siegel, replying to a question by Council- man L. Miller, stated that he felt the ordinance would be more workable if applied only 'to annexa- tions and not to existing property in the City, and that, if adopted, sufficient notice be given to developers, etc., that this is forthcoming. Current transactions could be greatly affected by passage of this ordinance. There being no further comments or objections, Mayor Coco closed the public portion of the hearing at 7:50 p.m. Councilman Oster asked Mr. Fleagle if Mr. Siegel's assertion that only about two percent of the land in the City would be affected is correct. Mr. Fleagie explained that in his opinion~ the only area within the City that this ordinance could possibly affect would be the Town Center area. Any newly developed or presently sub- divided property would not be affected. There is only a small portion of the City yet to be subdivided, including property on 17th Street, on Irvine Boulevard off Prospect, and north of 17th Street and along the freeway. On a vacancy factor of overaI1 land, only a very minute por- tion of the City--from two to five percent-- would be affected. In response to further questioning by Council- man Oster, Mr. Fleagle stated that if a duplex were approved for the Town Center area, this ordinance would impose an approximate $450 added cost for each duplex, as a contribution to park land improvements or acquisition. Also, the intent of the Staff and Planning Com- mission in proposing this ordinance was to achieve uniformity in all directions. Uniform- ity with the policies of the County would pre- vent a developer from playing the City against the County; the standards would be uniform. A person whose land is being annexed could not claim that he was being discriminated against versus someone who already had property within the City. Council Minutes 6/7/71 Page 3 Councilman Oster asked whether, without adopting this ordinance, the City Council could be em- powered to impose a requirement fo~ park land dedication, ~imilar to this, as a condition on certain rezoning, or on a subdivision or pre- zone--applying this condition to land to be annexed and not to land presently in the City. Mr. Rourke replied that this would be pretty questionable.. Councilman O~ter said that with the passage of the park bond issue and the present uncertainty as to the exact burden the City will be assuming shortly, he would not like to see this ordinance on the books.~ He agreed with Mr. Nisson that the few people who have chosen not to develop their property and have thereby "given" us the orange groves to look at, will be forced either to develop immediately, before the ordinance goes into efEect, or pay a premium in the future. Moved by Oster, seconded by C. Miller that no action be taken, and that the Staff be.directed ~to report to the Council at such time as the park bonds h~ve been put up for sale. Mr. Fleagle, in answer to Councilman C. Miller's questions, skated that the underlying philosophy for the fee ~chedule was based, in great extent, upon land coverage; the purpose of this ord- inance was t~ preserve as'much open space as possible, onethe basis that the more land coverage, the greater should be the responsi- bility to contribute toward open space acquisi- tion. This basic philosophy was used by the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the enabling legislation of the State Legislature. Regarding th~ exclusion of single-family resi- dential development from the provisions of the ordinance, Mr. Fleagle stated that, in obtain- ing zoning fdr duplexes, a developer has been g~ven a privflege by the Council in the form of an increase in permitted density, resulting in increased land value. Under this ordinance, you do not pay unless you are granted an addi- tional benefit that you do not have at the present time. Mayor Coco a~reed, emphasizing that it is the exchange of benefit on the part of the City that will bring about this payment or dedica- tion. Those'who are willing and able to develop in their existing zoning will not be subject to these provisions. Councilman C.q Miller suggested that the effect of the ordinance would be to inhibit develop- ment rather than speed it up as Mr. Nisson has suggested, since it would make the cost to increase to Higher densities more expensive than it is p~esently. Council Minutes 6/7/71 Page 4 Councilman Marsters commented that the possi- bility could develop that the City~might, in order to increase revenue from these fees, negotiate with a builder to increase density, creating a bargaining situation. He did not view this as being a healthy situation. Councilman L. Miller concurred, and recommended tabling this matter pending further scrutiny of the entire park and space picture. In response to Councilman Marsters, Mr. Fleagle explained that the amounts on the fee schedule represent an attempt to achieve uniformity with the County in this regard. For example, he said, a prezone application now on file with the City Planning Commission has been simulta- neously filed with the County Planning Commission. Mayor Coco said that this'has happened before, and mentioned a report he had received concern- · ng the Task Force on Urban Adjacent Areas and its work to eliminate the type of border con- flicts experienced in Orange County and else- where in the State. Counties and cities are trying to become more compatible in many areas; · n this case, adopting a higher fee schedule than has been adopted by the County would tend to inhibit annexation, while a lower fee sched- ule on the pa~t of the City would be inconsist- ent with this "movement" toward cooperation. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Coco that the original motion to continue this matter be amended to provide for continuation specifically to the July 6th Council meeting. Councilman C. Miller explained that he wished to set a deadline for presentation of the answers to the questions raised by the Council, such as how the fee schedule was decided upon by the County, why this would be unfair to people already in the City as suggested by Mr. Siegel, what is the philosophical back- ground and history of this type of ordinance. He suggested that perhaps some favorable aspects of this were not presented to the Council as effectively as Mr. Siegel's arguments against it. Mr. Gill informed the Council that Mr. Fleagle would be out of town on July 6th, and suggested continuation to August 2nd. Councilman Oster amended his original motion to provide for continuation of the Park Land Dedication Ordinance to the August 2nd Council meeting. Amended motion by Mr. Oster carried unanimously. At this point in the proceedings, Mrs. Paul Bramhall, 17432 Parker Drive, Tustin, who had begun to address the Council concerning projected park maintenance costs during the foregoing pub- lic hearing, was invited by the Mayor to return to the microphone and restate her question. Council Minutes 6/7/71 Page 5 Mrs. Bramhall asked how the annual park maintenance costs would be funded, ~ndwhether the costs indicated by the Mayor in his June 2 letter to her wou!ld be on-going. Mayor Coco sta~ed that the annual figure of $'41,000 estimated necessary to maintain the ap- proximate 18 aeres of parks ultimately developed under the bond issue, would be on-going; increased labor costs may increase that figure. He explained that funding fpr maintenance would be derived from the City'~ General Fund, and not from the bond issue. He stated also that the amount of funds available for development of parks will depend on land acquisition costs. 2. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1, EL CAMINO REAL Initiated by the Planning Commission on its own motioh, at the request of the Downtown Business Association, for the area bounded by First Street, Prospect, Sixth Street and "C" Street. Proposed plan is for the purpose of stimulating private development and redev~lopment by creating a unique village shopping area. Alternatives are provided to on-site parking requirements and building plans will be reviewed by the Development Preview Commission with the in- tent of assuring compatibility of design. Mr. Fleagle related the background of this ord- inance stating that the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Business Association and the T.N.T. Com- mittee had participated in its development. The Planning Commission, at' its May 10 meeting, had recommended approval of the plan. In answer to a question by Mayor Coco, Mr. Fleagle stated that Upon CounCil approval, this plan would, in effect, constitute a change in the Zoning Ord- inance as applicable to this particular area of the City. Mr. Fleagle then replied to several questions posed by Councilmen, stating that uses permitted · n the C-1 District would be permitted in the Downtown Commercial Area, subject to require- ments of the Zoning Ordinance. A drive-in restaurant, for example, would be permitted upon · obtaining a Use Permit, as ~n any C-1 area. The purpose of Section 5, "Authorized and Encouraged Uses", is to classify typical uses to establish a pattern, and does not represent an addition to the Zoning Ordinance. Referring to Section 7-C, "On-Site parking requirements may be waived upon presentation..~of a long-term lease", he explained that evidence ~of such a lease could be imposed by the Plannin~ Commission at the time of approval of the use as a condition of renewing the business license annually. Section 7-F, concerning signs, is more restrietive than the Sign Ordinance, as it reduces. permitted slgning to one sign per building plus identification on the free-standing complex sign. .~This provision eliminates the ag- gregate of two,sq. ft. of sign area per lineal foot, and rela~es signlng to thq building rather than to the pa~king lot; no sign credit is given for the width Of the parking lot as under the present sign code. Council Minutes 6/7/71 Page 6 Ma~or Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 8:40 p.m. ~ Mrs. Lee Wagner of the Downtown Business Associa- tion stated'that the Association regards the signing provisions as discriminatory; she favored equal enforcement of the Sign Ordinance through- out Tustin. There is feeling that some sort of municipal parking in the downtown area will 'D have to come, although the means of financing , it is not presently known; she recommended a six-month study of that situation. Mr. Charles Greenwood, 17802 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, speaking on behalf of the T.N.T. Committee, stated that this is regarded as a forward step, and recommended adoption of this ordinance to serve as a tool for revitalization of the down- town area. Mr. Tom Kelly, 330 E1 Camino Real, Tustin, sug- gested that the people interested in downtown redevelopment could be divided into three cate- gories: 1) Those already in the area2 He felt that they would not be effective in bringing about revitalization if they were required to make concessions to do it, and that the "watered- down wishes of certain groups" were reflected in the proposed plan. 2) The City. He commended the City for its efforts, but expressed disap- pointment that the language of the plan is vague and offers no timetable for implementation. 3) New interest. Mr. Kelly felt that only "new ~' interest" people could accomplish anything on E1 Camino Real$ this plan discriminates against new people, though, in requiring, for example, construction of parking spaces where many existing businesses have none. In summary, he said that Tustin needs some attraction in order to "vitalize its tax base", and that this ordinance isn't strong enough. Mrs. Wagner stated that redevelopment will have to come a step at a time. She commended the change in Fire Zones and denied that any favor- itism had been shown in the development of this plan. She stated that one problem will lie with getting cooperation from out-Of-town owners of some of the older buildings. She felt, though, that what one owner does in the way of conforming to the proposed theme, others will be tempted to follow. Mr. Bill Moses, editor of the Tustin News, 649 South "B" Street, Tustin, asked how restrictive the ordinance would be in requiring 'new businesses to conform to the Spanish theme. ' Mayor Coco read Sections 5 and 7-D, which suggest rather than mandate Spanish-style architecture. Councilman C. Miller asked Mrs. Wagner what con- sideration had been given during Association meet- ings, etc., to encouraging owners of buildings with "considerable charm", such as the Victorian buildings, to retain and capitalize on what they have without extensive remodeling. Council Meeting 6/7/71 Page 7 Mrs. Wagner replied that some feeling had been expressed recently that the Spanish theme was too restrictive. No definite step~ had been taken, however, pending the disposition of this · particular plan. She would like to see Victorian encouraged as well as Spanish. She suggested that the Downtown Business Association would not be adverse tosome provision to encourage renova- tion of existing Victorian-style buildings. Ma~or Coco said that he would like to see some specific language in the ordinance encouraging this. Councilman C. Miller suggested that the follow- ing sentence be added to Section 7-D: "Renova- tion of existing Victorian and western style buildings and construction of others of similar styles is encouraged." Mayor CoCo said that care would have to be taken to ensure that the Council's intent on this is communicated to the Development Preview Commission. .There being no further comments or Objections, Mayor Coco closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:15 p.m. Councilman Oster stated that he would like to see this adopted now, and suggested striking the word "Other" from the last sentence of Section 7-D, and placing this sentence first, followed by Councilman C. Miller's suggested wording. Section 7-D would thereby read as follows: "Architectural styles shall be authorized by the Development Preview Commission upon a finding that proposed developments are compatible with and complementary to the village motif. Renova- tion of existing Victorian and western style buildings and construction of others of similar style is encouraged." Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that Specific ~lan~No. 1, E1 Camino Real, be prepared for adoption,~with the change in wording of Sec- tion 7-D as above. Councilman L. Miller, commenting on Mr. Kelly's earlier remarks, stated that there may have been a degree of validity in what Mr. Kelly said about possible discouragement of new development under this plan, but felt that the recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Business Association,-~nd the T.N.T. Committee should be relied on, as~ these organizations represent the majority of business and personal interests in Tustin. Mr. Kelly reiterated his previous contention that little ~11 be accomplished under this plan because the people who have endorsed it are "the same people that have that street in the condition that it is in." Mayor Coco st~ated that he was satisfied that Mr. Kelly's comments were sincere and certainly not motivate~ by any self-interest. He said that with the influence of the Chamber, the Downtown Business Association, and the T.N.T. Council Minutes 6/7/71 Page 8 Committee to see that there is self-improvement in this area, new interest may be ~ttracted in spite of the parking requirements.' Above motion carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 17 and June 1, 1971 meetings. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS - in the amount of $74,798.62. 3. EXONERATION OF IMPROVEMENT BONDS CONCERNING OFF-SITE STORM DRAINAGE FOR TRACT NO. 6479 (Northeast portion of Tustin Meadows) as recommended by the City Engineer. 4. ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM AGREEMENTS Authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Arterial Highway Financing Pro- gram Agreements between the City of Tustin and County of Orange for improvement of First Street from Newport Freeway to Pros- pect Avenue as recommended by the City Engineer. Councilman L. Miller announced that he would abstain from voting on Item No. 3. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Consent Calendar Items 1, 2, and 4 be approved. Carried unanimously. Moved by Oster, seconded by Marsters that Consent Calendar Item No. 3 be approved. Carried. Councilman L. Miller abstaining. VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 509 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, Calif- ornia, AMENDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 438, RELATIVE TO SIGNS AFFIXED TO VEHICLES. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Ordinance No. 509 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Ordinance No. 509 be adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: none. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION None. Council Minutes 6/7/71 Page 9 RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 71-25 : A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO ANNEX TO SAID CITY CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DE- SCRIBED HEREIN, AND DESIGNATED AS "U. S. MARINE CORPS IRVINE ANNEXATION NO. 71-A" TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 71-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PETITIONING THE INTER-MOUNTAIN - COAST RATE COMMITTEE FOR EQUITABLE TARIFFS. Resolution titles read by Clerk. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that further reading be waived and Resolutions 71-25 and 71-26 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: none. OLD BUSINESS 1. MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE - DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMISSION It was the cohsensus of the Council that the mail questionnaire is now acceptable and should be sent out. 2. TUSTIN JAYCEES REQUEST - TILLER DAYS BUDGET Mr. Richard Stolte, 1891 Royal Oak, Tustin, presented a list of priorities for Tiller Days, as follows: 1) Parade Estimated Cost: $2,383 2) Queen C~ntest 758 3) Queen's~Tea 261 4) Mayors'~Luncheon 710 5) Queen's Sponsors' Breakfast 200 6) Baby Contest 60 · Total: $4,372 A discussion followed of possible fundraising activities to help offset the costs of Tiller Days events, and of the Jaycees' expenditures of funds throughout the year for various service activities. ~! Councilman Oster pointed out that Tiller Days activities were formerly arranged by a committee with little C~ty appropriation. Mayor Coco stSted that more information re- garding Tiller Days appropriations could be given after the City budget sessions, which should begin ~n the near future. It was decide8 that a budget session would be held on Monday, June 14, at 2:00 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room. Council Minutes 6/7/71 Page 10 3. PAVEMENT OF ALLEY NORTH OF LAGUNA ROAD BETWEEN NEWPORT AND ORANGE AVENUES. It was the consensus of the Council that the City Engineer's fourth alternative, to pro- ceed under provisions of Chapter 27 of the 1911 Act, be authorized. XI. NEW BUSINESS. 1. LEGACY OF PARKS - LETTER OF INTENT Movea by L. Miller~ seconded by Marsters that Mayor be authorized to sign letter of intent. Councilman C. Miller commented that his ex- perience with Federal grants would indicate that in accepting a small amount of money, the City would probably be forced to accept also a certain amount of control and regulation the form of ccnditions imposed on the grant. Councilman Oster concurred. Mr. Rourke commented that some Federal.programs have provisions which must be conformed to--as they then exist and as they may be amended from time to time. Once the agreement is entered into the City would be bound to abide by it. Mayor Coco stated that such cenditions can be reviewed at a later date, and that the City is in no way obligated by the letter of intent. Above motion carried. Councilmen C. Miller and Oster voting no. XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. C.E. UTT PARK SIGN Mr. Gill announced that the C. E. Utt Park sign has apparently been stolen. A reward for information leading to its recovery was suggested by the Council. 2. CROSSWALK AT PROSPECT & BENETA Councilman Marsters suggested that the Staff in- vestigate the conditions at Prospect and Beneta (in County area) where therehave been several incidents involving school children attempting to cross the street, and coordinate efforts with the County to find a solution. Dr. Tracy Gaffey of the Tustin Elementary School District stated that the District is already working on the problem. 3. Y.M.C.A. CLEANUP PROGRAM Mayor Coco announced that he and Jack Harrison had met with.Mr. Bullock of the Y.M.C.A. and Cathy Curtis who has recruited about 80 junior high school students for a summer project of litter-pickup in the City. Council Minutes 6/7/71 Page 11 4. CAMP PENDLETON LAND ISSUE City Attorney to draft resolution endorsing Camp Pendleton land transfer. XIYI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Coco adjourned the meeting at 10:39 p.m.