Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1967 05 01 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL May 1, 1967 I. CALL TO Meeting called to order at 734 by Mayor Mack. ORDER II. PLEDGE OF Led by Mayor Mack ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL Present: Councilmen: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Miller CALL Councilman Ring arrived at 7:40 P.M. Absent: Councilmen: None Others Present: City Administrator Harry E. Gill City Attorney James G. Rourke ..City Clerk Ruth C. Poe Planning Director James Supinger IV. APPROVAL Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Coco, that minutes of OF MNUTES April 17th meeting be approved as mailed~ Carried. V. PUBLIC 1. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS Continued from 4/17/67 Hearing opened at 7:41 P.M. The following applicants introduced themselves and presented their reasons and their qualifications for service on the Commission: Mrs. Eleanor Jacobson Mr~ HOward E. Larnard 15500 Tustin Village Way 13621 Loretta Drive Mrs. Marilyn Ludwig Mr. Don Combs 17332 Village Drive 17412 Vinewood Ave. Mr. George Ritsi Mr. Rollin Maho~ey 17342 Village Drive 13661 Wheeler P1. There being no objections or further comments the hearing was declared closed at 7:50 P.M. Applicants were asked if they were all aware of the time consumed being. a member of the Commission and the nights of the regular meetings and asked to give this careful consideration before accepting an appointment. Councilman Klingelhofer spoke on the desire to have rep- resentation from all areas of the City, although this would not be the only consideration, nor is it mandatory. He encouraged those applicants not appointed at this time to keep their letters on file for.the future as both Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Rltsi had done. Councilman Miller stated he was happy to see female applicants on the scene. Councilman Ring said that at this time there is no rep- resentation from West of the Newport Freeway in the area of Village Way. He also stated that he had received 3 phone calls recommending Mr. Shaw and Mr. Larnard. Moved by Miller, seconded by Cocq, that Mrs. Marilyn Ludwig be appointed to serve as a member of the Tustin Planning Commission Motion Carried unanimously. Council Minutes Pg.2 Hearings continued 5//67 1 2 . ORDINANCE NO. 352 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE N0. 157, AS AMENDED, RELATIVE TO SMALL ANIMAL HOSPITALS, CLINICS AND KENNELS Hearing opened at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Supinger presented the Staff Re~ort, background and recommendations of the Planning Commission for approval of this amendment to the Zoning OrdinanCe. There being no objections or comments the hearing was declared closed at 8:10 P.M. In answer to questioning, Mr. Supinger stated that this amendment had been brought before the Commission due to a situation which has arisen for Dr. Stanton whose Veterinary Hospital is now in a C-1 zone on Laguna Rd. and consequently a non-conforming use and he is now unable to build on to the existing facilities. Mr. Supinger said he had proposed this amendment prior to arrival of Dr. Stsnton's problem. The other solution would be for Dr. Stsnton to apply for C-2 zoning whicM in the staffs opinion is not proper zoning for the area. The only zoning allowing kennels, at this time, is the R-A Zone. As Veterinarians are not interested in boarding other than for medical purposes. There have been no objections to this ordinance. Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Miller, that Ordinance No. 352, amending the Zoning Ordinance relative to Small Animal Hospitals, etc., have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Councilman Klingelhofer stated that he wsnted it made clear that it is not the wishes of the Council to'elim- inate boarding by Veterlnarisns, but it is the wishes of the Veterinary Hospitals themselves. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 353 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE N0. 157, AS AMENDED, RELATIVE TO HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF FENCES, HEDGES AND WALLS, AND DEFINITION OF "FRONT YARD" AND "SIDE YARD". Hearing opened at 8:15 P.M. Mr. Supinger presented the staff report, history, and recommendations of the Planning Commission for approval of this Ordinance. In answer to questioning by Councilman Miller, Mr. Supinger said that many fences & hedges, though not objectionable, are no~ permissible under the existing Ordinance. Instead of granting Variances and Permits this Ordinance will make them legal. There being no objections or comments the hearing was declared closed at 8:17 P.M. Council Minutes 5/1/67 Pg.3 Hearing No. 3 -cont. Moved by Ring, seconded by Miller, that Ordinance No. 757 amending Ordinance No. 15 relative to height & location of fences, hedges & walls and definition of front & side yard, be read by title only. Carried unanimously. ---- 4. DEMOLITION OF BUILDING AT 210 EAST THIRD STREET RESOLUTION NO. 875 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING DEMOLITION OF PROPERTY AT 210 E. THIRD STREET, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Mr. James Hammerton of Garden Grove, attorney for Mrs Hoodenpyle, one of the property owners, stated that he felt that the City had been very patient in this matter. PrOperty is now in Joint ownership. Instructions have been drawn to place the property in escrow and they are requesting a 30 day escrow. Mr. Hammerton felt that the City would be in abetter position if they wait until the property is sold. The purchaser of the property intends to demolish the building. Mr. Gordon Green representing one of ths owners also stated that the property is in escrow and asked for a 30 day delay. Mr. Rourke stated it is now a matter for the CounciI'to determine. ' Staff has made all reasonable efforts to have building brought to standard. There may be good reason why this has not been done, but it continues to be an eyesore and a blight on the area to the distress of other property owners. There being no furthgr comments and no objections the hearing was closed at 8:24 P.M. In answer to questioning, Mr Rourke said that the Council could amend the Resolution to state that if nothing is done in 30 days the City would demol~ish. If no action is taken st this time, new action would have to be taken with a new owner. If action is taken now the demolition charges go with the property. The wording 'on or after June l, 1967' could be inserted after the word 'order' in line 1, Paragraph l, Pg. 2 of resolution. Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Coco that Resolution No. 875, with specified changes as presented by the City Attorney, be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Ring, seconded by Klingelhofer that Resolution No. 875 directing demolition of property at 210 E. Third St, Tustin, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. yes: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Miller, Ring. Noes: None. Absent: None. OLD 1. ORDINANCE NO. 348 BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. 67-152 OF LA POINTE. Moved by Miller, seconded by Coco, that Ordinance No. 348 have secodnd reading by tltle only. .Carried unanimously. Moved by Miller, seconded by Klingelhofer, that Ordinance No. 348, rezoning property on application No. 67-152 of La Pointe, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Miller,Ring.. Noes: None. Absent: None Council Minutes 5/1/67 Pg, 4 Old Buiness Continued 2. ORDINANCE NO. 349 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO INHALATION OF GLUE VAPORS. Moved by Coco, seconded by Ring, that Ordinance No. 349 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Ring, that Ordinance No. 349, amending the Tustin City Code, relative to inhalation of glue vapors, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Miller, Ring. Noes: None. Absent: None.. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 350 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER I OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES, ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS, ETC. Moved by Coco, seconded by Miller, that Ordinance No. 350 have second 'reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Ring, seconded by Klingelhofer, that Ordinance No. 350 amending Chapter l of the Tustin City' Code relative to violations of Ordinances, issuance of citations, etc, be passed and adooted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Mack, Klingelhdfer, Coco, Mller. Noes: None. AbSent: None. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 877 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF'THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING COUNCIL POLICY NO. 00-2 RELATIVE TO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AND RETENTION OF TAPE RECORDINGS OF MEETINGS. Councilman Coco requested the following changes in Policy 00.2. (Changes or additions underlined) Sect. 1. A. Item 6. - Vote. All roll call votes tolinclude names in .S..tand taken byleach~CounCilman voting. Sect. 1. B. Transcript and audition Item 2, Transcripts to be available for City Council members-- Sect. 1. B. Item 3, - Audition (playback.) of tapes to be authorized and accomplished for City Council members when- ever. requested, and for others as'may be deter- mined by the City Administrator. Sect 2.A. Item ~.Vote~ R011 call votes clearly transcribed. Sect. 3. A. Lest line -- after any non-continued action etc. Sect. 3. C. Permission for use of the tapes shall be gained from the City Clerk. with a report of such request to be made to the City Council. Moved by Klingelhofep, seconded by Ring, that Resolution N0. 877, including additions & Changes by Councilman Coco be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Council Minutes 5/1/67 Pg. 5 Old Business cont. No. 4 Moved by Coco, seconded by Ring, that Resolution No. 877, adopting Policy No. 00-2,be passed an adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Miller, Ring. Noes: None. Absent: None. 5. REQUEST OF TUSTIN TILLER DAYS FOR CITY LICENSE REFUND Background and charges explained by Mr. Gill. Moved by Ring, seconded by Klingelhofer, that to facilitate this matter the City Council rule that Tustin Tiller Days Inc. does not owe the City any money and the City does not owe Tustln Tiller Days any money. Motion carried. SUPPORT OUR SERVICEMEN Mr. Les. Andrew requested that the Msyor and the City Council proclaim the week of May 29th - June 4th, as Support Your Servicemen Week. There being no objections to this request Mayor Mack stated thst he would issue such a proclamation. that he would issue such a proclamation.. VII. NEW 1, ORDINANCE NO. 351 BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2-7 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO THE MEETING PLACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Councilman Coco stated he has reservations about some of the details, such as rent and how much should be put into improvements. He felt that perhsps the Council could go ahead with the first reading of the Ordinance, but he would hesitate to authorize the execution of sn agreement without further discussion. · Mr. Gill stated that the Council could have the first reading of the Ordinance tonight and the agreement could be prepared for Council considerstion at the nexu meeting. Moved by Coco, seconded by Klingelhofer that Ordinance N0, 35l, amendlng section'2.7 of the Tustin City Code relative to the meeting place of the City Council, have by title only. Carried unanimously. After a discussion regarding terms of the agreement it was recommended that the agreement be written on a straight rental bssis, with a 60 day cancellation clause, 2. ORDINANCE NO. 354 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE REMOVAL OF ABANDONED SIGNS, Moved by Ring, seconded by Klin~elhofer, that Ordinance No. 354, providing for the removal of abandoned signs', have by title only. Councilman Coco asked if wording re abandoned signs used to advertise that which has been moved or discontinued is adequate wording for political signs. Council Minutes 5/1/67 Pg. 6 New Business No. 2 - cont. Mr. Supinger pointed out that in Section 33 (exempted signs) there is a provision that states 'temporary polit- ical signs provided said signs are removed within 7 days following the purpose for which they were erected. Mr. Supinger also stated that he had made some recommendations that would cover this and take care of the situation. Political signs require specific enforcement procedures and he feels it best that a bond be posted for political signs, but this has not gotten to Ordinance form as yet. Above motion carried unanimously. 3- RESOLUTION NO. 876 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION N0. 843, AND ADOPTING COUNCIL POLICY NO. 30-1 RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICIES, REGULATIONS, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICE STATIONS. Moved by Ktingelhofer, seconded by Coco, that Resolution 876 be read by title only, .Carried unanimously, Moved by Ring, seconded by Klingelhofer, that Resolution No. 876, rescinding Resolution No. 843, and adopting Council Policy No, 30-1, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Miller, Ring, Noes: none, Absent: None. 4.AGREEMENT FOR TRASH AND GARBAGE DISPOSAL IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, HOLTHE DISPOSAL Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Ring that agreement for trash and garbage disposal with Holths Disposal be approved and the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents. Carried. 5, FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT FOE TRAFFIC SIGNALS BRYAN AVENUE & RED HILL AVENUE Moved by Miller, seconded by Ring, that the contract with Stainy and Mitchell, Inc. for traffic signals at Bryan Ave. and Red Hill Ave. be accepted in the amount of $9 200.00. Carried. ' ' Councilman Coco commented on the statement in report from the 'Public Works Director, that work was satisfactory & cooperation of personnel was excellenn. Similiar state- ments were made regarding this contract and that or Paul Gardner Corp. for signals on First St. Mr. Coco asked if the City could keen a file of people who do excellent work. A file to evaluate these people in the future, as there could be a border line situation on a bid and some consideration could be given through these files. 6. FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS FIRST ST. & "D" ST. AND FIRST ST. & PROSPECT Moved by Ring, seconded by Miller that the contract with Paul Gardner Corn. for traffic signals at First St. & "D" St. and at First St. & Prospect Ave. be accepted in the amount of $19,971.11. Carried. Council Minutes 5/1/67 Pg. 7 New Business cont, REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY ON STATUS OF ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Mr, Rourke reported that on Friday, April 28th, the ,--- Superior Court of the County of Orange made a determination that there was enough question of doubt whether a city can, at this time, enact any laws regulating anything that has to do with sexual activity so as to cause that judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Ordinance No. 347, Determination by the judge was that the State of California through its enactments & statutes is the only jurisdiction that can.enact laws that would have anything to do with sexual activities. Mr. Rourke stated that while there is substantial authority contrary to this you can't say that this Judges decision is not supported in tha law. However, Mr. Rourke said he differs with this decision. Mr. Rourke informed the Council that at this time there are only 3 things to be considered by them: 1. The Judges preliminary injunction, even though it is preliminary, is appealable by itself. If the Council feels that it is of such Importance as to want to bring it to a higher court they may appeal at this time, prior to determination by this Judge. 2. The State Legislature has under consideration a bill which would clarify the law so that it would be clear that the Legislature. has not intended, and does not intend now, to be the only agency regulating sexual activities and to make it clear that cities may enact laws that do regulate such activities. It has been requested by the League of Cities that the assembly adopt such a law and in all probability such a law will be enacted and go into effect sometime in the fall, If so the Council is probably concerned with lthe period until September or October. 3. The Court did express some'feeling that perhaps Ordinance No. 347 would not have been intended by the Council to stand if section 8-23, which specifically relates to topless entertainment, were to be deleted from it. Mr. Rourke felt that it would be appropriate if the Council would want the balance of the Ordinance to stand without Section 8-23 in it that they so state by Ordinance. He had prepared a draft of an Ordinance which would recite that the Council did feel that they would want the main provisions of the Ordinance to stand as a protection of the health, safety and morals, even though 8-23 is not in it. He further suggested that if it is the Councils intention to so do that Section 8-23 could be enacted ina separate Ordinance and become a separate section of the City Code. Mr. Rourke also reported that the License and Permit Board held its first hearing on April 20th, on various applications that had been submitted. All of these hearings were contin- ued to Obtain record checks of the various applicants and the hearings ware continued to May 2nd. Decisions will probably be made at that time granting or denying a variety of ~hese permits. Under this injunction, even if s permit is denied to Mr. Dill, the City Police Department wo~ld not be able to take any action against this place of business. Council Minutes 5/1/67 pg. 8 New Business No. 7 - cont. When an Ordinance, regulating certain tyOes of entertainment was first considered the Council was advised that there was a substantial auestion in California as to cities en- acting such ordinances. The ordinance presented to the Council was considered the best ordinance that a City could have on this subject and from there on it has been beyond __ the City's control other than by way of argument. It is now up to the Superior Court to decide as to whether a city can adopt sn ordinance or whether they must leave it entirely to the State Legislature. The State Legislature has not adopted anything that would prohibit or cover any such activity such as topless. In answer to questioning by Mr. Coco, Mr. Rourke said he did not feel the courts would give any consideration to pend- ing action of the Legislature or to what bills are coming o~t of committee, If the Legislature does take action in this session to give back to cities the Jurisdiction to regulate this type of matter the question would then be clear that cities could regulate this sort of activity. The only question that arises now is that the law is un- clear whether a city can or cannot regulate activities in matters that have to do with such conduct. Councilman Klingelhofer stated that he would be most pleased to accept the recommendation of the City Attorney. Mr. Rourke recommended that the Council enact this Ordinance which is in draft form. The essence of it is a statement of intention by the Council that Ordinance 347 would be intended to stand as a regulation in protection of public ~-~ health and welfare etc, even,.if Section 8-23 would not. This ordinance would maintain provisions identical to Section 8-23, the section that absolutely prohibits top- less but would maintain them in a different portion of the City Code. If any Judge feels that those provisions regulating topless are invalid at least then there would be no ambiguity in the courts mind whether there is an intention of the Council for the balance of the ordinance to remain in effect. Mr. Rourke felt this to be one point that could stand to be clarified. In answer to questioning by Councilman Ring as to the status of the situation at this time Mr. Rourke said that the City has been ordered by the Superior Court not to enforce any of the sections of Ordinance 347. In part the decision was based on the determination of the Judge that he would not know whether the City Council would want Ordinance 347 to stand alone without these provisions of absolute prohibition in section 8-23. This recommended ordinance would clarify that point. A further hearing will be held on Friday May 5th before the Superior Court at which time additional evidence will be presented with action of the License and Permit Board at their meeting Tuesday. Mr. Rourke said he was not extremely optomistic that the court ~ will make any different determination at that time. If it does not this ms~ter will continue in its presen~ sza~e until a final hearing which will probably be a month to two months away. The only other possible action the Council could take would be an appeal of the present order. Whether the matter is of enough importance to Justify the City spend- in 1 or 2 thousand dollars in legal fees and expenses is up to the Council. Council Minutes 5/1/67 Pg. 9 New Business No. 7 cont. In answer to further questioning by the Council, Mr. Rourke answered that in a recent appeal in December of '66 the Appellate Court held an ordinance valid for various tech- nical reasons. This Court did not seem to think those ressons valid. He reminded the Council that in an Appellate --- Court three other Judges might not agree. If the City did strike out Section 8-23 and the judge did not rule in our favor it would be possible To go ahead and appeal. Mr. Miller felt that any action by the Council should be taken after the court hearing Friday. Councilman Ring felt that other action to contact our State representatives should be taken by both the City and by private Citizens. Councilman Coco stated that he is concerned about the emer- gency clause in adoption of the ordinance recommended at this meeting, and thought the original action was usurping emergency powers. Mr, Coco said that he was not convinced of sny ambiguity of Council intent in this matter. This particular ordinance is a part of the City Code which has a severability clause. This means that the City has a clause in the Code which essentially says that any section deemed unconstitutional or invalid does not render the remainder of the Code invalid or illegaI or unenforcible. Dels~ion of 6ne clause and the maklJ~g of a separate ordin- ance is not necesssary because of the severatity clause. In this case it would be a flagrant abuse of our urgency powers and he would not consider such action. It is not necessary and he would not go along with an urgency measure. Mr. Rourke stated that It was his personal opinion that this is a severable ordinance, but not apparently the opinion of the judge. .Councilman Klingelhofer requested that the Councill move on to the next order of business. 8. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Moved by Miller, seconded by Ring, that the demands amount of $52,'243.88 be approved and paid. Carried. VIII. REPORTS l. REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO HOLD ANNUAL LORETTA DR. & OTHER BLOCK PARTY BUSINESS Moved by Coco, seconded by Klingelhofer that request to block off Loretto Drive between Leafwood and Laurie Lane on Memorial Day from 3 P.M. to 7;00 P.M. for annual block party be approved. Carried. CORRESPON~ The following correspondence received no action taken: DENCE ' Frank G. Michelsns & Associates reouest for resolution backing Pacific S/W Airlines. American Indian ~o~ Ass~. ~ request for documents to be used for goodwill purposes on their tour trough out the country. Council Minutes 5/1/67 Pg.10 Correspondence cont. 3, County of Orange , Air Pollution Regulations 4. City of Costa Mesa . Resolution re preemption 56 City of Newport Beach , Resolution supporting AB 877 X. ADJOURN~ MENT Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Coco, that meeting be adjourned, Carried,