Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1966 11 21 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL November 21, 1966 CALL TO Me~ting called to order at 7:31 P.M. by Mayor Mack. ORDER PLEDGE OF Led by Mayor Mack. ALLEGIANCE ROLL Present: Councilmen: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Miller, CALL Ring Absent: Councilmen: 'Nane Others Present: City Administrator Harry E. Gill City Attorney James G. Rourke City Clerk Ruth C. Poe Planning Director James L. Supinger APPROVAL OF Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Coco, that minutes MINUTES of the November 7, 1966, meeting be approved as mailed. Carried. V. PUBLIC 1.. GENERAL PLAN HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN. SAID PLAN IS A PROPOSED GUIDE TO THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWENTY SQUARE MILE TUSTIN PLANNING AREA. THE PLAN INCLUDES A LAND USE ELEMENT (RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND PUBLIC USES) A SCHOOL AND PARK ELEMENT, AND AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY ELEMENT. Hearing opened at 7:34 P.M. Planning Director james Supinger gave a short back- ground report including the recommendations of both' the City and County Planning Commissions. Mr. Ted Adsit, Planning Consultant, explained the background of the General Plan study from the initial steps in 1964 and the formation of the Citizens Committee, through the many types of reviews and economic analyses that have been made and the studies held by both the City and the County of Orange. He felt that this Plan would assure the area of a proper economic base· Mr. Adsit also stated that this is the first General Plan recommended by both City and County Planning Commissions to the County Board of Supervisors and City Council for adoption· Mr. Supinger explained several elements of the plans presented including land use, schools, parks and recreation, and highway network systems, and showed slides explaining the planning for the future· He stated that the staff and the Commission feel this is a good and practical plan and very important as a common guide for development in the area by both the City and the Council. Council Minutes 11/21/66 Pg. 2 Mr. Harry Brand, 15661 Pacific Street, Tustin, stated that although he is currently on the Tustin Planning Commission, he wished to speak as an individual and, as such, he objected to the zoning as shown in the General Plan for the South Tustin Area. Mr. Brand stated that initially this was meant to be a residential community and that the slides just shown indicated approximately 50% will be apartment dwellers. This he felt was not a residential community in the sense that was expressed two years ago. He objected to high density being delegated to a specific area as this has a tendency to create slums of the future and is a degradation of property values. Mr. Brand said he would like to see this plan show medium high density. Mr. M. O'Malley, 14681 Charloma, voiced his objections to the high density as shown south of the Santa Aria Freeway and agreed that this development all in one area could lead to slums. Mr. D. Knieper, 14131 Carfax, was opposed to the General Plan on the basis that in the high density area shown, there are only two schools. Mr. D. McKenzie, 1142 Drayton Way, located in the southernmost part of the existing residential zone, asked who is going to supply Police protection. Mr. C. Hare, 15751 Pacific Street, stated he did not feel it conducive to good planning to centralize density in one area but felt the Plan to be good except for this portion. Mr. L. Richards, 14641 Charloma, stated he is opposed to planning a~ 'it stands and asked the following questions: 1. When zoning was placed in this southern area. 2. How this ~llan affects the Irvine Ranch. 3. Where new Sears complex is going to be placed. 41 V~en was dwelling unit population figured for south area and how close they will follow for schools. 5. What type of figures used for projected 72,000 figure for 1982. Mayor Mack stated that all questions would be answered at conclusion of public discussions. Mr. J. Clark, Utt Drive, stated there should be more R-1 south of the Freeway and that it seems the planning people are not taking to heart the residential plans of two and three years ago. Mr. C. Marks, Arroyo Drive, asked why community parks are shown as being almost in Orange and Santa Ana. This only brings outsiders in. He also asked why did the General Plan not show the difference in the E-4-100 and E-4-125 in area near Seventeenth and Newport. Council Minutes 11/21/66 Pg. 3 There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 8:25 P.M. Mr. Supinger endeavored to answer all above questions as folkows: 1. We do not anticipate a Sears in Tustin as they have just opened in Costa Mesa and he under- stands will be closing their ~ain Street, Santa Ana storep 2. Population figures given tonight were derived within the last six months projected from 1960 census and 1966 special census and by comparison with other communities in the area. 3. Police - as to who will police the SouthTustin Area° It is mostly County and that area is patrolled by the Sheriff's Department. As this area annexes to the City, it will become the City's responsibility. 4. The pro~ected 1982 population figur~ was ~erived from the existing land use plan and Santa Ana's proposed use in accordance with their General Plan, surveys of vacant property and type of development anticipated. 5. Irvine Ranch property. The Irvine Ranch supports the General Plan. Mr. Supinger called the following to the attention of those present: A. The agricultural land north of the Santa Ana Freeway is under contract with the County Assessor to be held in agriculture for ten years. B. The Irvine people say that sometime in the future they will be coming in with amended zoning soutk of the Freeway showing residential development. 6. Schools. The Plan calls for three elementary schools and one high school in the area. The school staff feels this will serve the anticipated population. If Irvine develops, this plan for schools will have to be revised. 7. R-1 as shown is virtually all existing at present. ~e could take some density land for R-l, but have no control over some land on western side of Freeway as it is in the Santa Ana General Plan. The staff agrees with many that there is too much multiple, but the zoning is already there and they did not see much chance of zoning for single family and decided to hold the line at this time. 8. Parks. Three proposed parks were shown: A. Near Fairhaven to make use of excess Freeway right-of-way which is not now on the tax roll. Council Minutes 11/21/66 Pg. 4 B. Expansion of existing Prentice Park in Santa Ana. Purchased by Santa Ana. C. South Tustin Area because of high density proposed in the area and available property and could be connected to Regional Park by a Recreation Way. 9. The General Plan 'is not meant to show zones in detail so in some areas the density does not agree with existing developments. 10. The feeling is that in the future predominance of multiple will phase out R-1 development in some areas. ll,. R-4 was placed on the land in this area in 1949 by the County as a holding zone. In answer to questions posed by Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Adsit explained the economics of assessed valuation per capita and the fact that as a community becomes developed with more residential, the ratio tends to go down with less assessed valuation per capita. Councilman Coco stated he was grateful for comments from surrounding citizens and the military in the development of the General Plan. In answer to statements made by Mr. Brand that one-half of the population will be apartment dwellers, a great many of these developments are in Santa Anao If we took the area west of the Newport Freeway out of the Plan, the apartment dwelling percentage of population drops considerably. Population figures call for ultimate population of 100,000 in the entire area, not just in the City. It is the job of the Council to prepare for these people. These changes are not to be made tomorrow, but we must pla~ for the future. Councilman Coco also felt that the City will grow and all we can do is plan for this growth. Tustin is the best City in Orange County and the job is to keep it that way. People will disagree with the elements of this Plan if they take a short range view. We must look to a Tustin of 100,000 people and decide where to put them. Councilman Ring stated he had as much invested in his home at 15712 Myrtle as anyone in the area and felt that it is unfortunate that these people were not here ten years ago to initiate a plan at that time when there were people here who could not see that Tustin would grow. Councilman Ring then stated that there were specific parts of the Plan that he did not like, but he is in favor of the Plan as a whole. The City can re-study the southern area. He was in favor of adopting this Plan and then adjusting specifics. Councilman Coco stated that the Planning Commission had called for a detailed study of the southern area. The map and Plan presented tonight will be followed by a detailed Plan of the City of Tustin. If the Council is to adopt. the General Plan tonight, he would favor adding the conditions that a detailed study of the area south of the Santa Ana Freeway be made and that a recheck with the School Board on the subject of schools projection also take place. Council Minutes 11/21/66 Pg. 5 Councilman Miller said he had the deepest sympathy for the people present. As a result of interested citizens and single family residents, this Plan was initiated. Councilman Miller said he had no desire to live in the biggest City, just the finest City. He had had the same experience when he moved ' to Tustin and all the land in his area was zoned R-4. The R-1 was spot zoning. He also stated that he did not agree with the high density south of the Freeway but it does show something people can base plans on. He felt one of the best questions asked pertained to assessed valuation and is something we will be taking up in detail. The Plan is not an end, just a means to an end and something that will keep growing. Councilman Klingelhofer felt there is a tough road ahead and the more we get into detail the more we will face problems. A more in-depth study in the south area is needed as well as other areas. There has been much effort expended in determining what cities goals are and it will be difficult to anticipate changes in the future. Councilman Klingelhofer said that the Plan should go forward and the Council's first goals should be to launch a study in the southern area and this will require the participation of everyone in~he room. Councilman Ring referred the people to the School Board's feeling that if people could generate interest in the southern area we would get more schools. Moved by Ring, seconded by KlingelhOfer, that the Tustin City Council adopt the General Flan as outlined with the following conditions: 1) immediate study into southern area defined as heavy density, 2) coordination with both School Districts be fostered at the same time. Motion carried unanimously. Five minute recess called by Mayor Mack. Meeting reconvened at 9:45 P.M. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 329 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 157 AS AMENDED, TO PROVIDE A MOBILEHOME PARK DISTRICT. Hearing opened at 9:45 P.M. Mr. Supinger explained the background and staff study and presented the recommendations of the Planning Commission for approval. There being no objections or comments, the hearing was declared closed at 9:48 P.M. Through questioning and suggestions by Councilman Coco, the following changes were made: Section 4.63, Par. 8, Line 6 to read: "Maximum height of three (3) feet unless greater height is specifically approved .... " Council Minutes 11/21/66 Pg. 6 Section 4.63, Par. 9, Line 1 to read: "An enclosed area screened from view shall be provided for the outdoor drying of clothes ..... " Moved by Coco, seconded by Klingelhofer, that Ordinance Noo 329, as corrected, providing a Mobilehome Park District, have first rea6ing by title only. Carried unanimously. VI. OLD 1. ORDINANCE NO. 327 BUSINESS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, PREZONING PROPERTY OF FREDRICKS ON APPLICATION PR 66-101. Councilman Ring asked if the letter had been received ~overing agreement for 117 units. City Attorney Rourke said a letter had been received but not an agreement and that he has advised the developer that it is necessary for an agreement to be submitted. Councilman Ring suggested that in light of the failure of the developer to submit agreement, the Council should consider dropping the entire subject. Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Coco, that, as the agreement has ~ot been submitted, this matter be tabled until such time as the agreement is forth- Coming to the City Attorney. Upon questioning, Mr. Dixon Garner stated that he was only now aware that a specific agreement was to be prepared by an attorney, but that he would get on it first thing in the morning. Mr. Rourke said that he had received a letter and had the next day advised a Mr. James that a letter was not satisfactory. Above motion tabling this matter carried by Roll Call. Ayes: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco Noes: Miller, Ring. Absent: None. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 328 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, LICENSING THE TRANSACTION AND CARRYING ON OF CERTAIN BUSINESSES, TRADES, PROFESSIONS, CALLINGS, AND OCCUPATIONS IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING MUNICIPAL REVENUE, AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF. In answer to questions from the Council, Mr. Gill explained that when a contractor comes .into the City he is required to obtain a business license, but that State law regulates that he =annot be required ~o pay more for license than gross receipts and that there is no license required for anyone under gross Council Minutes 11/21/66 Pg. 7 receipts category grossing under $1,000 per year in the City. Mr. Gill also explained that the Building Department requires a City license before issuing a permit and that the Police Department does utilize part of one man's time policing business licenses but as far as stopping solicitors, this is done mostly through complaints. Councilman Klingelhofer stated his hopes that we see the time when we can eliminate business licenses. On questioning by Councilman Coco, Mr. Gill explained that the reason for the request that this Ordinance be passed tonight as an urgency measure is so that it will be in effect for the issuance of all 1967 business licenses. Moved by Ring, seconded by Coco, that Ordinance No. 328 have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Ring, seconded by Miller, that Ordinance No. 328 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Miller, seconded by Ring, that Ordinance No. 328 l'f~ensing the transaction and carrying on of certain businesses, trades, professions, callings and occupations in the City of Tustin, be passed and adopted as an emergency, urgency measure. Carried by -- Roll Callo Ayes: Mack, Klingelhofer, Miller, Ring. Noes: None. Abstained: Coco. Absent: None. Councilman Klingelhofer stated that the City should be sure to really enforce for all City businesses so that the people in the City carry their full share. Mr. Gill stated that a business license tends to enhance local businesses. Local people pay a modest fee and outsiders tend not to buy a license in every city. VII. NEW 1. RESOLUTION NO. 848 BUSINESS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 682, DESIGNATING INDIVIDUALS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN FOR AND ACCEPT SURPLUS FEDERAL PROPERTY. Moved by Miller, seconded by Coco, that Resolution No. 848 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Miller, seconded by Ring, that Resolution No. 848, repealing Resolution No. 682, designating individuals authorized to sign for and accept surplus federal property, be passed and adopted. Motion carried. Ayes: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Miller, Ring. Noes: None. Absent: None. 2. STATEMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL POLICY - Tustin Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Charles Greenwood spoke of the work done by the Chamber of CoE~merce Business and Industrial Committee on this Policy which they hoped was a definite step Council Minutes 11/21/66 Pg. 8 to improve the business districts in the City. It was their ~ope that a Policy along these lines could be adopted and would encourage this type of architecture or a style compatible. Moved by Kiingelhofer, seconded by Ring, that this Architectural Policy be submitted to the Planninq Commission for study and subsequent recommendations. Carried. Councilman Miller said the City has one tool to implement this Policy - the ~chitectural Committee - and hopes that it is not a rigid policy as early California architecture is, at times, hard to define. Mr. Greenwood said he would like to see a Chamber member on the Architectural Committee. 3.ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS IN TRACT NO. 6200 AND EXONERATION OF BONDS. ~oved by Ring, seconded by Klingelhofer, that the improvements in Tract No. 6200 be accepted and the bonds be exonerated. Carried. 4.ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS IN TRACT NO. 6134 AND EXONERATION OF BONDS. ~oved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Rinq, that the l~provements in Tract No. 6134 be accepted and the bonds be exonerated. Carried. 5. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Moved by Klingelhofer, seconded by Ring, that demands in the amount of $22,285.79 be approved and paid. Carried. VIII. REPORTS & 1. Mr. Gill explained the basic recommendations of the OTHER Advisory Commission for a Program for Intergovernmental BUSINESS Reform and the fact that this could take any reviewing agency such as the City's Board of Appeals out of local jurisdiction and Mr. Gill recommended the adoption of a Minute Order in opposition to these recommendations. Councilman Miller said he had been following this ~ational Building Code development for years and stated he did not feel we have some of the problems that other areas do as most communities in California have adopted the Uniform Building Code or something similar to it. He would support Recommendations 1,'3, 4, 5, 6~ 8, and 10, and oppose 7, 9 and 11. Moved by Coco, ~econded by Miller, that the City Council go on r~ord opposing certain Recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental. Reform, dated January 1966~ specifically Recommendations 7, 9 and 11 relating to Building Codes: A Program for Intergovern- mental Reform. Carried. Council Minutes 11/21/66 Pg. 9 2. Moved by Ring, seconded by Coco, that expense accounts for League of California"Cities Conference in San Diego be approved as submitted. Carried. 3. Moved by Ring, seconded by Klingelhofer, that necessary expense money be authorized for the City Administrator to attend the Computer institute fo~ City Managers in San Francisco January 22nd through 27th. Carried. IX. CORRES- Correspondence received - no action taken: PONDENCE 1. City of Santa Ana re~ local control of alcoholic beverage licensing. 2. Orange County Board of Supervisors re: water reclamation plant. X. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned to a Personnel Session. Present: Mack, Klingelhofer, Coco, Miller, Ring, City Administrator, City Attorney and City Clerk. Moved by Ring, seconded by Miller, that meeting be adjourned. Carried. b~YOR C~TY CLERK -,