HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1967 04 17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 17, 1967
I
CALL TO Meeting called to order at 7:31 P.It. by IIayor Mack.
ORDER
II.
PLEDGE OF Led by Mayor Mack.
ALLEGIANCE
III.
ROLL Present: Councilmen: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Miller,
CALL Ring
Absent: Councilmen: None
Others Present: Cit~ f~.dministrator, Rarry Gill
City [~ttorney James Rourke
Cit~ Clerk Ruth Poe
Pla~aing Director James Supingot
IV.
APPROVAL Councilman Coco reqaested addition of original motion by
OF MINUTES Councilman Miller for two weeks continuance of the Hospital
hearing, and vote on this motion and the addition
original vote and recoumt by roll call on motion to deny
entertainment permit request of Jim Dandy's.
Moved by Coco, secondeddy Klingelhofer that minutes of
April 3, 1967 with corrections and minu~es of April 10~1967
meetings be approved. Carried.
PUBLIC 1. U.P. 67-290 0F ROGER MCCUNE - APPEAL
HEARINGS
APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE TUSIN PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING USE PERMIT NO. 67-230 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH A POLE SIGN WITHIN THE REQUIRED
FRONT SETBACK AREA, AND A ROOF SIGN.
Mr. Supinger reported t~aere was nothing further to add
otl~er than ~'~hat is in the Comcil books, unless the
Council has any questions.
tIearing opened at 7:35 P.It.
Mr. Carl Sherbondy, representing Security Title Co. and
~i'r. iicCune, spoke on the backgromd of this application
and stated that in order to comply with City regulations,
they have completely rodesigned the building to comply
with regulations as to square footage and reduced size
of sign on front of building from a length of 90' to 30',
and complied with the request of Public Uorks Department
that polo sign be moved back to eliminate any conflict
~'~itl~ traffic signals. lit. Sherbondy also stated that they
did not consider this a roof sign as it is a canopy and
does not project above the roof of tl~e building, They
felt this to be a facial sign. Ilr. Sherbondy then
respectfully requested the Council to override the
Planning Commission ~d grant this request.
Mr. ~ohn Jamieson spoke o~ behalf of Roger licCme stating
that he did not believe this sign to be a roof sign
referred to in the Sign Ordinance which defines a roof
sign as bei~ on or above the roof. This sign on tlae face
of canopy does not, in his opinion, fall into this category.
There being no objections or further comments, the hearing
was declared closed at ~:44
/~ discussion by the Comcil follo~,~od regarding the intent
of the Sign Ordinance and ~'~hether or not t. his sign r~ould
be classified as a roof sign, facial sign, or what
classification it wo~ld come ~der. It ~as the opinion of
the majority of the Council that as this sign is on the
face of the canopy and does not project above the roof of
the buildi~, it should be classified as an ~ttached sign.
Council Minutes
4/i i~g. 2
Moved by Klin~elhofer, seconded by Coco, that this
attached sign, as submitted in this application, be
aDdProved and that the Engineering Department's recomen-
dation of the free standing pole sign being moved back
behind the property line to eliminate any possible
conflict with traffic signal be complied with; CarriedL
The City Administrator was requested to prepare a
clarification of this section of the Sign Ordinance so
that the Council migl~t review it at the earliest possibleI
date.
IIr. Gill stated that this has been part of a staff
review ~.rith the City Attorney and that their report
will be coming to the Council with recommendations.
2. TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO THE TUSTIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mayor [.lack reported that one application had been
received and that IIr. Shaw, the applicant, was unable
to attend tonight ' s hearing.
Moved by Coco, seconded by Klingelhofer, that this
hearing 'be continued to the next regular meeting. Carried.
The Couhcil announced the invitation for applications
and requested coverage by the press.
VI.
OLD 1. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 873, COMMENDING
BUSINESS DON HEFNER.
Mayor iiack road this Resolution and then presented a
copy Of the Resolution to lit. Don Hefner.
2. PZ 67-104 - SADDLEBACK MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT
DECISION ON PZ APPLICATION NO. 67-104 CONTINUED
FROM APRIL 3rd MEETING.
Mayor Hac'k informed those present of the procedures of
a Public ]~earing as held on this matter at the last.
regular meeting and the fact that the hearing had been
closed to the public and was now before the Council
for discussion. There would be no presentations a~
this meeting _ only persons to speak are those
questioned by the Council.
Councilman Miller asked if there was a representative
present from the Orange County Medical ~ssociation and
said he would like to ask him what the position of this
Association is in this matter, and if he could hear an
enumeration of their reasons for their position.
Dr; Richard Opfell stated that he is a member of the
Board of Director~ of Orange County Iledical Association
with authorization to speak for them and as indicated in '-
their letter, they do not feel this proposed hospital
is in the public's interest. tie stated the Boar~ did
not enumerate or make a detailed list of various reasons
why, but that the vote was unanimous and he could
enumerate his feelings on various considerations.
Councilman Ring stated he felt it unwise to open the
meeting I'or 'opinions of one man: The opinion of the
Board has been stated and to listen to opinions of one
man would mean hearing should be re-noticed.
Council Minutes
~/17/67 Pg. 3
In answer to questioning by Councilman Klingelhofer,
Dr. 0pfell stated that creditation can be obtained in
many ways:
1. Inspection by an appointed joint committee
from certain bodies who inspect on basis of
physical facilities, safety, by-laws, and
committee structure~
2. State Board of Hospitals has a licensing bureau
dealing primarily with brick and mortar.
3. California Medical Association sends a team of
physicians to judge primarily on quality of
medical treatment.
Dr~ Opfell also stated that lack of creditation does not
stop a hospital from operating.
In ans~.~er to further questinning, Dr. 0pfell said he
had been authorized to negotiate for the 20 acre parcel
north of Fourth Street and Uest of Tustin ~:venue for
Santa Ana Community Hospital expansion in the construction
of the Santa Ana-Tustin Memorial Hospital,
That there is no restriction as to the hospital being
in any one jurisdiction.
It is the feeling of tl~e Board and the consultant that
the hos~ital sl~ould be located within a one mile radius
of the ~ourth and Tustin location.
That the building of the proposed proprietary hospital
· --- could present a serious problem to the expansion program~
That the Santa~kna-Tustin Memorial Hospital could not
be built in less than three years, possibly four or five.
Councilman Ring stated he is not against free enterprise,
but restated h~s position again as follows:
"I do not feel that it is good zoning to have a
hospital in that area. I am directly opposed to
letting that in to this area.. I personally think
if they want to build in the middle of Tustin,
that,s another consideration, but to go out of the
bounds of the City of Tustin to bring these people
into the City for that specific purpose, i'm totally
against the zoning of it. I can not agree. I am
against this particular PZ 67-104 to have the
Prezoning favor."
p.ouncilman Coco stated the following for the record:
"Us sent out a questionnaire to a list of Doctors. These
Doctors in the list were agreed to be both sides of. this
matter. Uith the exception of tl~s applicants of this
proposal, the returns we have from the pt~ysicians were.
17 to i in opposition to this Particular application a~
this time. I have every one of the questionnamres
returned. Most of this has been from the medical
profession, some from laymen. On the questionnaire sent
out, as I said, with the exception of the applicants,
17 'co i were against this. They ~'~ere against it for
various reasons that I would like to get into. How, I
will make this as brief as I can and this is being ~aped
so the Clerk can copy what she ~ants.
Council iiinutes
4/17/67 Pg. 4
The citizens, that is the non-medical profession, were
both pro and con on this. Those who arc against it, I
think one or mwo of ti~e citizens who are aga~ast this,
primarily on location basis. They thought it would
generate traffic. Ue have a traffic study. I don't
think that's a major consideration right now. These
citizens who arc for this have ~wo major points: l)
wanted a hospital nearby. Felt Santa Aria hospitals too
far away, especially for emergenames. 2) they felt that
there ms a shortage of beds in emergencies or not
emergencies if the beds are short, thore'd probably be
more beds. The~e are not members of the medical
profession.
All the medical response, again, with the exception of
the applicants, made throe points; 1) The hospital board
should pass on this first, before the Council, that is.
2) A small hospital whether it be proprietary or not is
inadequate, usually has been historically inadequate to
provide the facilities of adequate, modern, expensive
machinery that are necessary. 3) Proprietary hospitals
in Orange County traditionally have been inferior to
the non-proprietary in other ways, Professional ethics -
things like that have been mentioned, but again I don't
believe that's our primary concern here. The last point
that the medical profession mentioned was that the Santa
Ana Community and St. Joseph's propose to come nearby
forcing the proprietary hospitals ~o consider the profit
motive to greater degree than if they wore not being
expanded.
Mr. Mayor, from the first body of data in front of me,
i'm convinced ~f the probability, probability now - not
a certainty that a small hospital will have maybe
inadequate facilities that might jcO~ardize the
expansmon of a hospital that might best serve the
community, On the othcr hand, the City pride and the
desire for taxes in the community make me fccl the
opposite way. Always like 5o see a hospital in Tustin,
it's good for the bankroll, it's good for the health
of the community - economic health of the community.
Uith these things as background, we l~ave another letter
here, This letter was not written to the Council or to
the City Administrator, but this letter was written t'o
the press. This gentlemen decided ~o go to the public
wit~ his comments. It's from a long-time citizen in
the ar~a, an influential citizen. Uith your permission,
I would like to read just a couple of paragraphs or
excerpts from it.
"It's time to blow the whistle on our City Council.
the last two year~ record is one of constant
harassment of private enterprise..."
"These things ape none of the Council's business.
These considerations belong to those who arc putting
up their
"Again I'm concerned with the degree of intrusion
by our Council into concerns traditionally reserved
for'the private scctor. I think it has a great deal
to do with the stagnation of our City in recent
months."
He talks about the planting of Olive trees and
and says outside of the beautifioation, what have we
aceomplishedo
Council Hinutes
4/17/67 rg- 5
Last paragraph "In all justice, our Ilayor Jerry iiack
must be cxcludcd from the onus implicd by the record.
Generally he has tried manfrilly to hold his colleagues
to the specifics of their trust. as for some of the
others, [l~eir talents for intruding into the details
of the life of the citizen would bc more appropriate
in llinsk or Ilavana,"
And he signs l~is name,
i understand tonight that this ms only half of thc
letter and that we haven't heard anything yet, and that
the rest of it wilt be published in the Tustin News.
Now, these are the fasts. IIo. 1, I have been on the
Council for those two years than he mentioned. IIumber 2,
I'm not the IIayor. Number 3, both Havana and IIinsk are
communist cities. llow from this it ms reasonable to
assume I have been called a communist - that is, my
actions have been called communistic. Now, i've been
thinking over the last two years t have always acted
with regard to community. Sometimes free enterprise
and the welfare of the community, as I see it, conflict
inevitably. I've ah.mys ac~cd in accordance with my
own conscience. Itowever, there is very little Dublie
response from those who are in agreement with the way
I've acted over the past couple of years. I have had
private response, by the way, people with telephone
calls or seeing me on the streets, and so on. But
the only things published are things like this. ilow
perhaps ~his man is right, and since I don't wish to
be called. a communist any further -
.I.therefore move for aoprovc.] of this zone change
application. Iiotion seconded b' Ilayor liack.
Mayor Mack stated he had seconded this motion on the
'basis that this has been a problem area with no cut
and dried another, area is adequate for this use and
the hospital must be aidproved by the State Bureau of
Hospitals in regards ,to plans and the State Fire
iiarshall. The inspection of the operation is done by
a State Accreditabion Board on an annual basis. I
feel that the zoning is in the best use of the land in
that area.
Councilman Klingelhofer - As to have reviewed the
materials presentcd and after hearing what Councilman
Coco , I agree with him in the sense that
the ihw does not permit me ~o cast a negative vo~c.
However, I fool I'm not willing to cast a positive
vote. I therefore express my abstention in this .vote.
Above motion for approval of PZ 67-104 failed by tie
vo~e. Roll Call- Ayes: Hack, Coco. tIoes: Millcr,
Ring. Abstained: K1 lngelhofor. Absent: llone.
Hayor llack ~Glled a five minute recess.
3. ORDINANCE NO. 348
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
REZONING PROPERTY OF LA POINTE ON APPLCIATION
NO. ZC-67-152,
Moved by ~oco~ seconded by Rinf~ that Ordinance i-To. 348,
rozoning property of La Pointc on application ,~C-67-152,
have first readinG by title only. Carried unanimously.
Council iiinutes
4/17/67 Pg. 6
4. ORDINANCE NO. 345
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING ARTICLE III OF THE TUSITN CITY CODE,
RELATIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Iioved by I.(linF~elhofer, seconded by Rin~, that
Ordinance i[0. 345 have see. end reading by title only.
Carried unanimously.
Iioved bV Kl. ingelhofcr, seconded by RimE, that
OrdinanCe, lie. ]45, amending Article III of the Tustin
City Code, relative to the Planning Commission; be
Passed and adopted. Carried by roll call.
ilack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Hiller, Eing. Noes: None.
Absent: IIone.
VII
NEW 1. Cstabtishmen~ of Procedures for Council and
BUSINESS Planning Commission Iiinutes.
.Councilman Coco commented on the suggestions sub-
mittcd by the City Clerk, that minutes show action
only and only names of persons speaking before the
Council and whether pro or con, IIr. Coco said he
would hopc this would not result in less information
mn the minutes than they have been receiving. IIe
would like the same kind of information in the
minutes and retention of ~apes for 3 or 6 months.
,~.o. unci~man Ililler agreed with Iir; Coco and with
suggestion from the Planning Commission regarding
their minutes.
Counqilman Coco requested that tapes be retained for
6 months.
City Administrator ~as requested to prepare a policy
on this ma~tcr for presentation at the nexn regular
meeting.
2. Authorization f. or execution of Escro~.~ instructions
Property located at 150 U. Second St., Tustin
Mov. Sd.b.,y Klingelhofcr, seconded by Ring, that the iiayor
and City Clerk be authorized zo execute Escrow instructions
for the purchase of property a~ 150 U. Second St.,
Tustin. Carried.
3. ORDINANCE NO. 349
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AMENDING THE
TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO INHALATION OF GLUE
VAPORS,
Moved by Ring, seconded by Klingelhofer, that Ordinance
fI0. '349'_. amending the Cit~ Code relative be inh~:lation
of Glue Vapersf ~d~o first readinM by title only.
Carried unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE NO. 350
AN ORDINANCE OF TtIE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING CHAPTER I OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE,
RELATIVE TO VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE, ISSUANCE OF
CITATIONS, ETC.
In answer to questioning by Councilman Coco, iir. P~ourke
said Section 1-7 of this Ordinance refcrs to fact that
a person causing, by having causcd the condition to
exist and then leaving it, that they would not
protected in that they would be subject to one citation
or one fihe. Until corrected each day they are subject
to an additional citation as an added offense.
Hr. Rourke said he saw no deficiency mn the Ordinance
as to discreet violations.
Hoved by Klil~gelhofer, seconded by Ring that Ordinance
No., 5.~0 amending the City Code relative to vio].ations
of Ordinances, ~ssuance of Citations, etc., have first
r.eading by title only~ Carried unanimously.
5. RESOLUTION UO. 874
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUUCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING ACTION BY THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTYU OF ORANGE TO CURTAIL
NUDE & SEMI NUDE DANCERS AND WAITRESSES APPEARING
IN PUBLIC
[loved by Coco, seconded by Ring that Resolution i!o.
be read by title only. Carried unanimously.
[loved by Ililler, seconded by Klingelhofer tha5 Resolution
.87L~, requesting action by the Board of Supervisors to
curtail nude & semi-nude dancers and waitresses appearing
in public places, be passed and adoOte~]. Carried by
roll call. Ayes: Ilack, K!ingelhofer, Coco, rilllet, Ring.
Hoes: IIone. Absent: None.
6. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS
IIoved. by Klingelhofer seconded by i iller tha.t demands
"~'n the ~mount~of ~..;25,~??.25 be Da~d. Carried
VIII
REPORTS 1. I.Ir. Gill presented draft of a policy re
& 0THER Responsibility for General Street Improvements and
BUSINESS explained the purpose for such a policy. IIr. Gill stated
that this policy requires detailed review, should be rea. d
carefully and that the Council might want to meet on this
policy.
Following reports presented:
1. Budget Analysis - Harry Gill
2. Amermcan institute of Planners repor~ - Lena Danielsson
3, Fire Prevention and Fire Suppressmen _ Chief IIilton
4, Building Dept. Activity Reports - F. Brook
IX
CORRESPON- Following correspondence received:
DENCE
1. Flood conditions HcFadden & I.lyrtle - G. 'jenck
2. General meeting information Orange Co. League of Cities
Letter of commendation _ Pastor ShowaitcF
4.Use of State Hwy. Construction funds - Southern
California Regional :':ssoc. of Co. Supervisors
5, SB53~ - support request - County of Orange
6.Dissenting report and recommendations on the law
of pre-emption - Warren Dor~, Co. Supervisors
Association of Californma
7.. Civic Beautification _ Orange Co. iiemorial Garden
Center
8. Tax Reform _ League of California Cities
9- Legislative Bulletin 4/8/67 - League of Calif. Cities
10. Legislative Bulletin 3/30/67 - League of Calif. Cities
11. Digests of 1967 assembly and senate bills.
Council ilinu~es
4/tv/67 :!g. 8
Comaell.an Fi]e_- requested a letter fro=. the Council
~o Senator Schmitz opposing SB824, be prepared to bc
signed by all membcrs of thc Council. iir. Hiller
explained that fundamentals of this bill arc ~o increase
the Local _.'_goncy Commission by 2 members 5o be from
special districts of the County such as Park Districts,
Sanitation, etc.
itoved by iiiller, seconded by Klingelhofer that a
letter opoosing SB824 be scn~ to Senator Schmitz.
Carried.
I. ir. Gill suggested that as time was important the
let set be signed by the Iiayor with unanimous approval
by minute orde: of the Council.
So ordered.
Councilman Coco - In regar~ zo the bill requiring
that State 0fficcs and agencies submit a list of
Public Uork to be done in their area. Since we
have a general plan, should we support this bill?
As there was no opposition to this the i.layor directed
that a letter be sent to Senator Bradley and
Senator Schmitz in support of Senate Bill
X
ADJOURNED Hove~ by I.Iiller, seconde~ by Ring that meeting be
adjourned. Carried.
IIA~0B
CFY CLEFfi~