Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1987 06 22 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA JUNE 22, 1987 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Edgar, and the Invocation was given by Mayor Edgar. II. ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Richard B. Edgar, Mayor Ursula E. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem Ronald B. Hoesterey John Kelly Earl J. Prescott Councilpersons Absent: None Others Present: William A. Huston, City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Christine Shingleton, Com. Dev. Director Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police Robert S. Ledendecker, Dir. of Public Works Royleen A. White, Com. & Admin. Srvcs. Dir. Suzanne Atkins, Deputy City Attorney Approximately 60 in the Audience RECESS - CLOSED SESSION - RECONVENED The Mayor announced that the City Council will recess to a Closed Ses- sion pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a} to confer with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the City is a party. The title of the litigation is Tustin Unified School District vs. Tustin, et. al. At 6:31 p.m., the Council recessed to a Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) by unanimous informal consent. The meeting was reconvened at 7:16 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. III. PUBLIC INPUT Joseph Herzig, 1751 Rainbow Drive, was requested to defer his comments on Annexations No. 139 and No. 140 when Council would consider same under Old Business. He was also informed that others would be per- mitted to comment within reason. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The Mayor announced that Council would consider each Consent Calendar item separately. 1. FINAL TRACT MAP 12763 - RESOLUTION NO. 87-64 {Continued from June 15, 1987} The Mayor stated that a critical item of subject resolution is a site reservation agreement. As of this afternoon the City has had dialog with the Tustin Unified School District. He read modifica- tions to Exhibit "C" of the final draft agreement for the record as follows: Page 3, Paragraph 2, will read - "Use of Property. City and Dis- trict, as the case may be, hereby covenant and agree to use the property for the duration of these CC&R's exclusively for public park purposes as more specifically delineated in Section 3 below which uses shall be planned in a compatible and cooperative manner by City and District in accordance with the provisions of these . CC&R's." (The balance of the paragraph has been deleted.) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 6-22-87 Paragraph 3A, last sentence, will read - "Provided however, that after recordation of the termination notice, Parcel A may be used for recreational purposes other than as specified above upon mutual agreement by City and District." (A few words have been deleted.) Paragraph 3B has been deleted. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kelly, to approve the site reservation agreement between the Tustin Unified School District and the City as modified; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same. Carried 5-0. 45 87-29 It was then moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kelly, to adopt the fol lowi ng: RESOLUTION NO, 87-64 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP 12763 (Sectors 10 & 11, East Tustin Specific Plan) The motion carried 5-0. 99 2. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ASSESS- MENT DISTRICT 85-1 IMPROVEMENTS ON TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND MYFORD ROAD - RESOLUTION NO. 87-67 {Continued from June 15, 1987} This project provides for the construction of street and utility improvements on Tustin Ranch Road and Myford Road between Bryan Avenue and Irvine Boulevard. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kelly,, to adopt the follow- ing: RESOLUTION NO, 87-67 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF lUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 85-1 IMPROVEMENTS ON TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND MYFORD ROAD AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Carried 5-0. 25 3. EMERGENCY WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 87-74 The proposed area of work is located on Hewes Avenue between Fair- haven and a point approximately 900 feet southerly of Fairhaven. The project involves installation of 900+ lineal feet of new lO-inch water main to replace deteriorated'pipeline at a shallow depth which has experienced numerous leaks. It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by KellJ/, to adopt the follow- ing: RESOLUTION NO. 87-74 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THAT PUBLIC INTER- EST AND NECESSITY DEMANDS IMMEDIATE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY TO SAFEGUARD LIFE AND HEALTH The motion carried 5-0. 107 V. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION None VI, ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION None. VII, OLD BUSINESS 1. ANNEXATION NO, 139 - EVENINGSIDE/RAINBOW ANNEXATION; RES, NO, 87-71 & 2. ANNEXATION NO. 140 - LA COLINA/BROWNING ANNEXATION; RES. NO. 87-72 Mayor Edgar invited persons wishing to speak on subject matters to come forward. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 6-22-87 Joseph Herzig, 1751 Rainbow Drive, requested that a letter dated June 22, 1987, from Rutan & Tucker (law firm representing annexa- tion opponents) which was delivered to the City Clerk this date, be entered into the record. The City Attorney responded to Mr. Herzig that he would provide him with a copy of the list of protest signatures which the Registrar of Voters certified "sufficient." "" Mr. Herzig spoke adamantly in opposition to the City Attorney's ! recommendation that the Council find less than 50% but more than 25% protests were filed. Speakers adamantly opposed were: James Wilson, 12542 Charloma Drive Tommya Cosco, 12742 Red Hill Chad Ohanion, 12552 Kenwood Lane Guido Vinehart, 15552 Windsor Lane Arnold Kluender, 12901 Eveningside Drive, spoke in favor of setting the matter for special election in November. Russell Abbott, 12540 Wedgwood Circle, spoke in favor of setting the matter for special election in November. He requested that NTMAC work with the City and County on preparing a factual informa- tion sheet for annexation area residents. Additional speakers in opposition were: J. C. Brandt, 1532 Windsor Lane Ralph Alexander, 12621 Red Hill ,_ There were no other speakers on subject matters. As recommended in the inter-com dated June 16, 1987, prepared by the City Attorney, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kelly, that the City Council find that less than a majority but more than a 25% protest has been filed, confirm the annexation, subject to approval of the registered voters residing within the annexation territory and set the matter for a special election by the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 87-71 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING EVENINGSIDE RAINBOW ANNEXATION NO. 139 SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION OF THE VOTERS, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL ANNEXATION ELECTION FOR EVENINGSIDE-RAINBOW ANNEXATION NO. 139 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO BE HELD IN TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION ON TUESDAY, THE 3RD OF NOVEMBER, 1987, AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE CALL AND CONDUCT OF SUCH SPECIAL ELECTION AND PRO- VIDING FOR THE FILING OF ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS Councilman Hoesterey reiterated his belief that petitions dated prior to May 9, 1987, should be valid. He stated that the situ- ation was more the City's responsibility than that of the annexa- tion area residents. Therefore, it would be found that more than 50% protests are valid, and the annexation would be terminated at '-- this point in time. Councilman Prescott was supportive of the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy stated that she was not at all persuaded by speakers against the City. She did find it very persuasive that the City made the error upon which the confusion rests. She was grateful to County residents who are pro-City. Beqausethe publi- cation error was the City's, she could not support the motion. Mayor Edgar was informed by the City Attorney that the District Attorney's office would have authority to review the accuracy of arguments pro and con to a city measure. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 6-22-87 Mayor Edgar saw merit in having professional, legal counsel on retainer who is very familiar with campaign fraud and literature to guarantee that if something improper occurs, appropriate action can be taken. Councilman Kelly voiced his views on annexation and spoke in sup- port of the motion. The motion carried 3-2, Hoesterey and Kennedy opposed. 24 It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kelly, that the City Council find that less than a majority but more than a 25% protest has been filed, confirm the annexation, subject to approval of the regis- tered voters residing within the annexation territory and set the matter for a special election by the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO, 87-72 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING LA COLINA-BROWNING ANNEXATION NO. 140 SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION OF THE VOTERS, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL ANNEXATION ELECTION FOR LA COLINA-BROWNING ANNEXATION NO. 140 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO BE HELD IN TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION ON TUESDAY, THE 3RD OF NOVEMBER, 1987, AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE CALL AND CONDUCT OF SUCH SPECIAL ELECTION AND PRO- VIDING FOR THE FILING OF ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS The motion carried 3-2, Hoesterey and Kennedy opposed. 24 Mayor Edgar requested that staff agendize for the July 6, 1987, meeting the hiring of an elections attorney to guarantee that the annexation elections are conducted fairly. 24 VIII, NEW BUSINESS 1. APPOINTMENT OF JAMES HAYES TO THE AVIATION NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to appoint James Hayes to the Aviation Noise Abatement Committee, to replace Donald Belveal who recently resigned. Carried 5-0. 101 IX, REPORTS None. Xo OTHER BUSINESS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT At 8:09 p.m., it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kelly, to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, July 6, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.