Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1971 12 06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL December 6, 1971 I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF 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 Asstl City Admin.-Comm. Devel. R. Kenneth Fleagle City Clerk Ruth Poe PRESENTATION Mayor Coco called upon representatives of the Roadrunners Club of North American Rockwell Autonetics Division and of the Tustin Chamber of Commerce to make presentations to Mrs. Isa Varela, 12302 Enramada Drive, Santa Ana, to be followed by a presentation by the City. Mr. A1 Lucic, 12711 Brookhurst Way, Garden Grove, and Mr. Dan Sheeran, 370 Milford, Orange, presented to Mrs. Varela on behalf of the Roadrunners Club a patch signifying her achievement of a distance of 5,000 miles. Mr. Grady Henry, 14601 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin, presented a certificate of appreciation to Mrs. Varela for outstanding service and distinguished achievement "as Tustin's Ambassador-At-Large in the Physical Fitness Program". Mayor Coco commended Mrs. Varela's many efforts to make Tustin the "Fitness Capital of the West", and for her work in.promoting hiking and biking trails, and he presented her with a plaque to "Mrs. Isa Varela, Promotion of Tustin, Fitness Capital of the West". After Mrs. Varela's words of thanks to all concerned, Mayor Coco announced that she would appear on the Jack LaLanne Show on Thursday, December 9 at 8:30 a.m. The Mayor also mentioned that radio station KEZR-FM (96.0) periodically features items about the Tustin area on Mondays at 5:00 p.m. The next program scheduled will be on Monday, December 13. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION. Term to expire 12/31/75. Mayor Coco stated that Howard Larnard had expressed interest in serving another term on the Commission, and asked whether any other applications had been received. The clerk replied that there had been no other applications. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:49 p.m. There being no comments or objections he closed the public portion of the hearing. Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 2 Moved by Oster, seconded by C. Miller that Resolution No. 71-81, APPOINTING HOWARD LARNARD TO THE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION, be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Resolution title read by clerk. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution No. 71-81 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L.M"~er, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: none. 2. PZ 71-126 - IRVINE COMPANY AND AMENDMENT TO TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN - cont'd from 11/15/71. On the motion of the Planning Commission, a prezone change and an amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan, from the Orange County A-1 (Agricultural) and A-R (Agricultural-Residential) Districts to the City of Tustin P-C (Planned Community-Residential) District. Subject properties are generally bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway to the northeast; Myford Road to the southeast; the Santa Fe Railroad main line and Moulton Parkway to the southwest; and the Santa Fe Railroad Venta Spurline to the northwest. Mr. Gill stated that there were slides taken on November 22 of the Roundtree development in Concord. Mayor coco announced that this public hearing had been continued from the last meeting in an open manner, and then, with the consent of the Council, asked that the slides be shown. The brief slide presentation illustrated such aspects as recreation facilities, one- and two- story elevations, sidewalk treatment, landscaping, children's play areas, and carports. Mr. Art Charlton, 460 West Second Street, Tustin, read a portion of a newspaper clipping titled "Noise Barrier Set For Irvine Tract", describing an unprecedented action by the Orange County Planning Commission imposing a 60-foot buffer between the Santa Ana Freeway and a proposed housing tract in the Irvine area, and citing a delay in development of the tract due to existing critical classroom shortage in the San Joaquin School District. Mr. Charlton then quoted Mr. Sam Whiting, General Counsel for the Western Developers Council who recommended that construction of communities which could serve as future c~ty centers be located away from existing congested urban areas; he then cited a news article "Santa Ana Annex of Airport Still One Man's Idea", com- paring this to the alleged "two-man idea" to annex Walnut Village West to Tustin. Mr. Charlton protes6ed that remarks favoring the annexation were made by non-residents at the Town Hall meeting of November 29. He requested a "no" vote by the Council on Walnut Village West in the best interests of the City. Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 3 Mr. DOn SaltareIli, 14702 Danberry Circle, Tustin, stated that the Mayor had tried to forestall a show of hands by those in attendance at the Town Hall meeting the previous week. He felt that the will of the people regarding this annexation ~s "abundantly clear". It does not constitute a good business deal; the City is not in good financial shape and a tax rate increase this year would have been justified. Taxes probably will have to be raised next year, he said, and he hoped that it would not be because of this annexation. If the annexation is denied tonight, the Irvine Company will probably come back without the town- houses; if they don't, he didn't feel the alternatives would be so bad or that the County building standards are much less than Tustin's. Mr. Grady Henry, Chamber of Commerce President, stated that he does not live in the City, but that businessmen do pay property taxes which go into the General Fund, and help to pay the costs of the homeowners' refuse collection. He stated that in speaking in support of the annexation at the Town Hall meeting, he was stating the views of the Chamber, which has many members who do reside within City limits. He hoped that the Council would make this decision in a statesman- like manner and not as politicians. Mrs. Lee Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, Tustin, stated that as a resident and business owner in the City, she felt that the annexation is a "godsend" to the City, and challenged Tustin Meadows residents to align themselves with the rest of the community in working for the best interests of the City. Mr. Fred Anderson, 1892 Brookshire, Tustin, urged denial of the annexation on the basis that the majority of Tustin residents oppose it, for the following reasons: a. The City is overbuilt with multiple dwelling units. b. Similar dwelling types, particularly apartments, are available and need tenants. c. Resale problems with townhouses exist, once equity has been built up. d. Proposed density would increase the overall density in Tustin, percentage-wise. e. Proposed development would add little or nothing to the City. He stated he would have no objection to annexation if all R-1 were being proposed. Mr. Jim Taylor, Director of General Planning Admin-. istration for the Irvine Company, stated that a report received by the Council reviewed the Irvine Company position on density in the townhouse development, traffic, amount of commercial acreage, location of the high density, environmental problems, City controls, effect of the development on schools, and phasing of development. In addition, a response has been submitted from the developer regarding second sales. Mr. Taylor noted that Tustin presently has 39% single family and 56% multi-family. The annexation area, which will be 80% single family Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 4 and 20% multi-family, would significantly reduce overall density, to 44% single family and 52% multiple. Mr. Taylor discussed the following points to illustrate that one overriding object- ion on the part of residents cannot be isolated: a. Density - Viewers of a similar project in northern California had indicated that it was aesthetically pleasing and had a feeling of openness; there was no objection to site planning of the project. b. Townhouses Development as viewed at Concord 5rought positive statements from opponents, who were impressed with the mixture of struc- tures and the low amount of land area actually developed with structures (22%). c. yiability - Economic information generated by the City staff in four reports indicates that this would be an asset to the City. d. Schools - Both School Districts have indicated at'~'~'~ere will be no problem accommodating the number of children ultimately generated by total development. e. Growth vs. Non-Growth - This apparently is not an issue; opponents have protested the land use plan, but not the annexation itself. f. Fear of Lack of City Control - The Council has indicated the type of controls that are written into the ordinance that governs this development. g. Type of People who will live in the community - The Irvine Company has chosen a quality developer to build a quality project that will reach a significant portion of the homebuying market-- those who cannot afford a home over $25,000 and those seeking a different life-style. A buyer profile of the Concord development supplied to the Council and verified by Field Research Corporation, indicated that 60% of the people living in this type of home will have average incomes of $12,000, and 40% will have average incomes of $15,000 or more. Mr. Taylor stated, in summary, that the land use plan constitutes a planned community that is in keeping with the Company's belief that developments should provide a variety in housing types and life styles; the community can and will be designed in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with surrounding developments; that the .plann.ed community will be viable; and that residents of the community will be an asset to the City. Mr. Ulf Eastman, 14771 Ridgboro, Tustin, questioned the density mixture, the percentage of single-family and multi-family units. Mr. Fl~a~le pointed out these areas on a chart of the land use plan. Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 5 Mrs. Margaret Byrd, 158 North "B" Street, TuStin, stated her opposition to the annexation because costs related to it will burden the City for a number of years before any return can be realized. Mr. Saltarelli, replying to Mrs. Wagner, emphasized that Tustin Meadows is not a negative community, and invited her and other downtown merchants to attend an Association meeting. One of their reasons for opposing the annexation is to protect Tustin businesses from a drain of expenditures to businesses in the new city of Irvine, which is likely to occur for geographical reasons, as well as "by design". Mr. George McHarris of Tustin Meadows stated that multiple development in area 4 would result in a small increase in population but an increase of 400-500 units in that area than if developed as R-l, and questioned whether that situation would be good for Tustin, inasmuch as low-cost, desirable housing now exists in the City. He felt that the Irvine Company plans to develop this area as multiples primarily to serve their aim of maximum profit potential, by increasing the profits 15% to 20%. Mrs. Aura McConnell, 15500 Tustin Village Way, Tustin, stated the she has lived in Tustin Village-I, a condominium in the City, for over nine years, and felt that condominiums and multiple units "are a far cry from apartments", and that she would prefer Walnut Village West being developed in the City so that proper controls could be exercised. There being no further comments or objections, Mayor Coco closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:29 p.m. Councilman Oster noted that continuances of this matter have resulted in such benefits as lower density, commercial acreage, and Irvine Company awareness of the Council's interest in the area. Economic input indicates that this would be viable. He felt that the overall density of the 459 acres is not high density, although the density in area 4 is probably higher than what would have been desired had this been the only parcel under con- sideration. A matter of foresight is involved in this; the density is palatable, with Roundtree being confined to one area, and an ultimate opportunity to acquire considerable industrial land for the City may be provided upon abandon- ment of the Marine Corps Air Station (Helicopter) by the military. Inquiries to the County had confirmed that this property would be developed in the County at a density at least equal to or higher than what is proposed,without City controls on it. Moved by Oster, seconded by Marsters that annexation be approved and zoning provide ~or conditions as specified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1240, modified to require a minimum of eight acres of commercial area to be developed, a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit in multiple areas, a maximum of 10.5 d. u./acre in area 4, with Council M~nutes 12/6/71 Page 6 remainder of areas proposed for residential development to be at a maximum of 5 d. u./acre as submitted on the Precise Land Use Plan dated November, 1971, that phasing of the development be controlled through submission of neighborhood plans, and that Ordinance No. 528, PREZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. PZ 71-126 AND ENDING THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN, have first reading by title only. COuncilman Marsters stated that the Council sincerely respected the interest and comments of the public and that through their efforts primarily a better package has been negotiated. He commented briefly on Tustin Meadows' importance to the community, in contrast to remarks made at the Town Hall meeting. Mr. Marsters emphasized Mayor Coco's dedication, and stated that charges of "improper decisions" by the Mayor ignore the fact that all five Councilmen must vote on any issue. He stated that all the Councilmen are dedicated to what is best for the City, and recommended giving this a good deal of thought before going "off on a tangent" with recall movements and efforts to block re-election of any Councilman. Councilman L. Miller responded to Mr. Saltarelli regarding a show of hands on this, stating that those who attend Council meetings generally are those who stand in opposition to a particular issue. Of the people with whom he had discussed this, the majority favor the annexation. Mr. Miller briefly discussed statistics on residents in Roundtree in northern California and information on resale of units. He felt that, after looking at all sides of the picture, his vote tonight would be in the best interests of the approximately 25,000 residents who do not come to the meetings. Councilman C. Miller stated that he opposed the annexation because the costs of services and maintenance will probably exceed projections; because the City's present size makes it personal and manageable and this character would be lost; and because future relationships with the military may be damaged by Walnut Village West residents'complaints about helicopter noise and requests for the City to intercede on their behalf. This, he felt, might jeopardize any possibility of annexation of the Air Station. He emphasized that his decision was not based on political expediency, but rather his conviction that the annexation might not be as advantageous as anticipated. Mayor Coco stated that he respected Mr. C. Miller's conclusions, and said that while he (the Mayor) may be making a mistake from a personal stand- point by his vote on this, he didn't want to make a mistake about Tustin's Future, and therefore he would vote in favor of the annexation. Mayor Coco, before calling for a vote on the motion, explained to the public the prerogative of a Councilman to vote affirmatively on a motion to read by title only, although he may oppose the ordinance itself, in order to avoid reading of the entire ordinance. Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 7 Councilman C. Miller confirmed this, and emphasized that he would be voting no when the ordinance comes up for adoption. Above motion to read Ordinance No. 528 by title carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: none. The clerk read the title of Ordinance No. 528. 3. U.S. MARINE CORPS - IRVINE ANNEXATION NO. 71-A Mayor Coco announced that this public hearing was continued open from November 15. He invited comments on this matter. There being no comments or objections, Mayor Coco closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:00 p.m. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Resolution No. 71-79, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN CERTAIN TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND DESIGNATED U. S. MARINE CORPS IRVINE ANNEXATION NOo 71-A, have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Title of Resolution No. 71-79 read by the clerk. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution No. 71-79 be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: C. Miller. Absent: none. 4. APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING UP 71-369 Council appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving the a~plication of Mrs. Maurice Enderle for a Use Permit to develop a 134 unit condominium, single-family, planned unit development on property zoned P-C, R-3 (Planned Community - Multiple Family). Site, consisting of approximately 9.8 acres, fronts approximately 324 feet on the east side of Yorba Street, extends eastward approx- imately 1161 feet and is located approximately 737 feet southerly of the centerline of Seventeenth Street. Mayor Coco announced that Hester Development' had requested deferment of this public hearing until December 20 in order to allow time for review of their plans with those of Western Mortgage Company on the commercial property. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:05 p.m. There being no comments from the audience, it was moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that this matter be continued in an open manner to the December 20, 1971, City Council meeting. Carried unanimously. Councilman Oster left the Council meeting at 9:05 p.m. Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 8 5. MASTER STREET TREE PLAN AMENDMENT On the motion of the Ptanning Commission, an amendmen~ to Section 23-9, Ordinance No. 283, as amended by Ordinance No. 295, to revise the Master Tree Plan List by additions and deletions of the authorized trees located on public right-of-way and specifications on parkway width required for specific species. Mr.'Fleagle stated that this had been initiated by the Planning Commission en the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission, because some trees initially proposed for street tree plantings had been found unsuitable for this purpose due to growth characteristics, width Of trunks, and inability of some species to adapt to our climate. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:07 p.m. There being no comments or objections, he closed the public portion of the hearing. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that the Master Street Tree Plan Amendment be approved and the City Attorney be directed to draft the necessary ordinance. Following a brief discussion among the Council, it was moved by C. Miller, seconded by Coco that the Master Street Tree Plan Amendment be adopted with t~e deletion of #2 and #33 (purple leaf plum and bottle brush). Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: none. Absent: Oster. 6. CHAPTER 27 PROJECT 71-3 - CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON NEWPORT AVENUE AND ON MAIN STREET. Mayor Coco announced that the hour had arrived for the hearing of objections or protests to the construction of certain improvements pur- suant to Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911" in the locations set forth in City Council Resolution No. 71-75 and asked the Clerk if due notice of the hearing had been given. The Clerk stated that Notices to Construct Missing Improvements, setting forth a time and place for hearing thereon, were duly and regularly posted and mailed, all as prescribed by law, and affidavits showing such compliance are on file in the City Clerk's office. Mayor Coco inquired whether any written protests or objections had been received. The clerk stated that there had been no protests received, but a letter had been received from Southern California Financial Corporation in support of the action. Mayor Coco asked whether there was anyone present who wished to address the Council about this matter. There being no comments, he closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:15 p.m. Council Minutes 12/6/71 Paqe.9~ At the Mayor's request, the clerk read the title to Resolution No. 71-80. Moved b~.L. Miller, seconded by C. Miller that further reading be waived, and that Resolution No. 71-80, ORDERING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 27 OF THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911 (CHAPTER 27, PROJECT 71-3), be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Mill?. Noes: none. Absent: Oster. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 15, 1971 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $83,279.10 3. DENIAL OF CLAIMS OF DAN JONES, RACHEL JONES AND ESTHER ELLIOTT, DATED NOVEMBER 24, 1971 - as recommended by the City Attorney. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that all items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Carried unanimously. Councilman Oster absent. VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 529 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING THE ANNEXA- TION OF "NISSON-RED HILL-MITCHELL ANNEXATION NO. 72" TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA. Annexation consists of approximately 7.8 acres located on the east side of Red Hill Avenue between Nisson Road and Mitchell Avenue. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 531 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, PREZONING PROPERTY PURSUANT TO APPLICATION NO. PZ 71-128 (E-ADVERTISED) OF FIRST WESTERN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Prezoning of property from the County E-4 (Residential Estate) District to the City of Tustin PC (Planned Community-Single Family Residential) District, to develop a 29 lot single-family subdivision. Site is located on the east side of Prospect Avenue approximately 182 feet south of Theodora Drive. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 532 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, PREZONING PROPERTY PURSUANT TO APPLICATION NO. PZ 71-131, INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 12/6/71 Page 10 Prezoning from County R1 District to the City Pr District to permit development of a medical/dental building. Site fronts approximately 297 feet on the northwest side of Red Hill Avenue, and approximately 300 feet on the northeast side of Irvine Boulevard. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 533 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 3, MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOP- MENT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER CORPORATION PROPERTIES. The establishment of a specific plan for a 34 acre parcel with lots and street layout to. create and serve an industrial park. Said plan provides for 15 interior cul-de-sacs serving interior lots, and rail spur lines. Subject property is located on the westerly side of Red Hill Avenue, bounded by Valencia Avenue to the north, Bell Avenue to the south, and the railroad line to the west. 5. ORDINANCE N0. 534 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE N0. 157, AS AMENDED, RELATIVE TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR ZONE BOUNDARY WALLS. An amendment to Section 5.11(c), Zoning Ordinance No. 157, as amended, by the addition of a section that would authorize waiver or modification of perimeter zone wall require- ments. At the Mayor's request, the clerk read the titles of Ordinances 529,531,532,533, and 534. Mr. Gill announced that Humble Oil Company had confirmed by telephone at 5:00 p.m. that day that they had agreed to assume bonded indebtedness as a property owner in the Nisson-Red Hill-Mitchell Annexation No. 72 (Ordinance No. 529). Written evidence of this should be received by mail in the next day or so. He suggested that it would be appropriate for the Council to have another first reading of the ordinance with the clause re-inserted relative to two-thirds of the assessed value assuming bonded indebtedness on the property. Replying to questioning, Mr. Rourke stated that if the Humble Oil Company failed to follow through on their verbal commitment, the property would not be subject to bonded indebtedness; in this event, if the Council did not want the property in the City without that proviso, they could repeal the ordinance, which does not become effective for thirty days after its adoption. In reply to Mayor Coco, Mr. Warren Finley, representing Mr. Roy E. Daly, a property owner in this annexation, stated that development on this property must be commenced by December 31, and building permits cannot be obtained before annexation takes place. Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 11 Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 529, with insertion of the following clause, "Whereas, the written consent of the owners of more than two-thirds'of the value of the territory of the sukject annexation has been hereto filed with the City Clerk, agreeing and consenting that the property within the annexed territory shall be taxed to pay indebtedness and liability of the City con- tracted prior to, or existing at, the time of the annexation," have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. The clerk read the title of Ordinance No. '529. Following discussion regarding the urgency of this matter, it was moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters, that Ordinance No. 529 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. The clerk read the title of Ordinance No. 529. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Ordinance No. 529 be adopted as urgency measure. Carried. Ayes-: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Noes: none. Absent: Oster. Moved by Marsters, seconded by C. Miller that further reading be waived and that Ordinances 531, 532,533 and 534 be adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller. Noes: none. Absent: Oster. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION None. IX. RESOLUTIONS . None. X. OLD BUSINESS None. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST OF SUPERINTENDENT, TUSTIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, FOR WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STANDARD STREET LIGHTING FACILITIES AT RED HILL-SYCAMORE SCHOOL SITE. Mr. Lynn Lee, 1722 Mitchell Avenue, Tustin, a member of the Board of Directors of Tustin National Little League, inc., spoke concerning the construction of the park at First and "C". Streets, stating that the completion date has been set back from April 1 to May 6, 1972, with the possibility of further delays. This time frame is unacceptable to the Little League. His understanding was that a conflict between the City Council and the School District con- cerning street lights had caused a thirty-day Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 12 delay in development. The Board of Directors voted unamously to oppose development of the park until July. Mayor Coco stated that he understood that this date, December 6, was the last possible date for the School Board to act upon the City's acquisi- tion of the site without affecting the development schedule. He was not aware that it was already too late. He questioned the connection between the Red Hill-Sycamore School and the First and "C" Street park site; any such connection, he said, was an artifical one drawn by the School District Staff. Replying ~o questions by the Mayor, Mr. Gill stated that five votes are .required for the · School Board to approve the sale of the property; as Rowland Day is not present at the Board meeting this evening, the sale cannot be approved. An increase in construction costs of about $8,000 to $10,000 could be expected from a delay until July. Mr. Lee stated that the Little League faces the problem of splitting the League three ways, with accompanying loss of canteen profits, on -which their budget is based; the 400 players could not use. other fields which are filled to capacity. He pointed ou~ that Little League constitutes 50% of the people who use the park. Fir. Bill Sommerville, president of Tustin National Little League, Inc., stated that he realized that the delay would cost the City money, but contended that the City has no assurance that the School District will pay the $1,500 appraisal fee, and more time may be wasted. Mayor Coco sympathized with the Little League's problem, but explained that the School Board has had this before them for their last three meetings and failed to act on it. The Council has done its best to get across to the Board the importance of the situation. Delay in construction would not only incur additional costs, but would be unfair to others anxious to use the park. Councilman C. Miller asked the feasibility of a course of action in which the City would go to the School Board tonight, offer to pay the $1,500 while emphasizing that the marbelite poles are a separate issue, and if they don't have a .. full Board there, and are willing that we acquire the park under those circ~unstances, the City would then file condemnation for immediate possession. T This would bypass the necessity for advertising for three weeks and things could get underway possibly in a few days. Mr. Rourke stated that this cannot be done with a park site. A default judgment can't be taken .against them for thirty days, so the City would not be=~le to g~t immediate possession. Mr. Bruce Snyder, manager of the Chamber of Commerce, asked about the possibility of the Board holding a special meeting. Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 13 Mr. Sommerville stated that he was told by Mr. Currie, Assistant Superintendent, that a special meeting could be called in the event that all five Schoo~ Board members were not in attendance at this evening's meeting. Following a short discussion, Councilman Marsters noted that Mr. Somerville had apparently gone back over to the School Board meeting, and suggested a return to this topic when he returns. Councilman L. Miller read a portion of Orville Myers' report for the information of the audience, and further clarified the distinction between the two issues. Mr. Somerville returned and reported that the Board was in executive session, but that he had spoken with Mr. Currie who had advised him that the Board intended to meet on Monday, December 13, at 7:00 a.m. to decide the issue. In reply""to question by Councilman C. Miller, Mr. Jack Harrison, City Recreation'Director, stated that the bids on the project are good until December 29. Mr. Gill stated that if this is resolved, the City could probably move its contractor onto the site during the advertising and escrow period. Mr. Rourke concurred. Councilman C. Miller suggested adjourning for a few minutes to go over to the School Board to discuss the matter. Councilman L. Miller agreed. (Jack Harrison left the meeting at this point to find out if the Board was still in ekecutive session.½. MaTor Coco stated that this discussion with the Board tonight should include the following points: 1) the possibility of a meeting date earlier than December 13; 2) emphasis that equity would be served by separating the two issues mentioned above; and 3) the lack of equitability in expect- ing the City to pay the District's $1,500 appraisal fee. Mrs. Lee Wagner addressed the gentlemen representing the Little League, suggesting that they exert pressure on the School Board, not the City Council. She also pointed out that delaying development until July would interfere with Pop Warner football scheduling, and development can't be postponed indefinitely. Mr. Harrison returned to the meeting and reported that the Board was still in executive session, and that he had given a note to Mr. Currie to be delivered to the Board advising them of the Council's request for a meeting with them this evening. Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 14 After further discussion between Mr. Sommerville and the Council, Councilman L. Miller suggested that the matter of the waiver of street lighting requirements be resolved at this time. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that the request for waiver of requirements for the installation of street lighting facilities at the Red Hill-Sycamore School site be denied. Carried unanimously. Councilman Oster absent. 2. APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT. Councilman C. Miller announced that he would abstain from voting in this matter. Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Miller that Clifton C. Miller be reappointed as the City's representative to the Orange County Mosquito Abatement District for a two-year term ending December 31, 1973. Carried by 3-0 vote. Councilman C. Miller abs'6ifned; Councilman Oster absent. 3. CONSIDERATION OF PARK NAMING POLICY Moved by L. Miller, seconded by C. Miller that .the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission relative to a park naming policy be approved in principal. Mayor Coco objected to the inclusion of a large number of categories which will probably never be used, and felt it should provide more guidance. He stated that he would be inclined to go along with the motion with the proviso that the Council's comments regarding guidelines be relayed to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Above motion carried. Councilman Oster absent. 4. PROJECT 21 - REQUEST FOR FUNDS It was the consensus of the Council that a letter be directed to John Lawson, President of Project 21~ explaining that due to the City fiscal position, the City will be unable to contribute funds. RECESS During a brief recess called at 10:42 p.m., Mr. Currie of the School District staff informed the Co~l that Mr. Harrison's note had reached the Board and that they had agreed that Arv Bolleson and Jack Mallinckrodt would meet with the Council after their executive session this evening. He also explained that Monday, December 13, was the earliest possible date that the Board members could get together for a special meeting. XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. SANTA CLAUS ARRIVAL BY HELICOPTER Councilman L. Miller inquired about an evenn scheduled no take place at Larwin Square on Saturday, December 11, in which "Santa" is to land in the parking lot via helicopter. Mr. Miller was concerned about safety factors. Council Minutes 12/6/71 Page 15 Mr. Rourke stated that there is no ordinance prohibiting this. 2. LETTER RE: WIDENING OF FIRST STREET The Council briefly discussed a letter received from Dr. Henry Eastman, 661 East First Street, and his associates expressing various concerns about the practicality of widening First Street, and recommending i~stead elimination of on- street parking in order to minimize destruction of private property. It was the consensus of the Council that a reply be directed to Dr. Eastman advising him of the Council's established position on this,which is to widen and upgrade First Street and make full · restitution to any property owners who are affected by it. Mr. Rourke reported that contacts would be made within the next two weeks concerning dedication of right-of-way, and final approval of the design is expected this week. 3. LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING Councilman L. Miller stated that he would attend the Executive Board Meeting of the Orange County League of Cities on Thursday, December 9. 4. TUSTIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL EXPANSION It was the consensus of the Council that a response be directed to the Administrator of Tustin Community Hospital advising him- that while the Council lacks the technical knowledge to decide the value of each of the additional services proposed, they would generally favor any additional facilities or services that would better serve the co~tm~nity's health care needs. 5. COMMENTS FROM MR. NORM COLE Mr. Norm Cole, 131 Hall Circle, Tustin, suggested that the Council change their schedule of meetings in order to allow them to attend the School Board meetings which are held at the same time. XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Council, Mayor Coco at 11:07 p.m. declared the meeting