Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1971 07 06 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL July 6, 1971 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco. III. INVOCATION Given by Councilman C. Miller. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, Oster. Absent: Councilman: L. Miller Others present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe Asst. Planning Director Pat Brown Ve PUBLIC 4 HEARINGS 1. 1971~72 BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF TUSTIN (cont'd. from 6/21/71) Mayor Coco announced that at the June 28 workshop, estimated revenue increases of about $55,000 were incorporated into the Budget. He declared the continued open hearing in session at 7:42 p.m. Mr. Richard Edgar, 13622 Loretta Drive, Tustin, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, referred to a letter he had directed to the Council, the main purpose of which was to compare the presently proposed Recreation budget with those of other cities in Orange County and Southern Calif- ornia generally. These comparisons show Tustin to be deficient in many areas. Mr. Grady Henry, 441 E1 Camino Real, Tustin, president of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in supportof imposition of trash collection fees on City residents as a means of eliminating sub- sidization.of this function by the business com- munity. He also recommended cuts in the Planning area, based on reduction in the number of permits and building activity. He stated that this de- partment has been understaffed in previous years, but appears to be overstaffed this year. There being no further comments or objections, Mayor Coco closed the public portion of the hearing at 7:48 p.m. Councilman Oster stated that he opposed charging a trash collection fee at this time due to the costs of the billing activity. He ~tated that the Building Department is currently understaffed but that no new hiring is planned; he also opposed any cut in the Planning staff. He cited increased in- surance costs, Police and Fire needs which had been restored to the preliminary budget, and higher cost of Police vehicles as factors contribu- ting to the "squeeze" in the City Budget. Council Minutes 7/6/71 Page 2 Councilman Marsters concurred, addinK that trash collection charges would cost the hom~owners three times as much as a tax increase would; that the Development Preview Commission is performing an important and useful function to the benefit of the City; that he would like to see a further cut in the Chamber Of Commerce appropriation to render the Chamber more self-sustaining; and that in- surance costs had increased. He felt that a tax increase, however distasteful, is preferable to a trash collection fee. Councilman C. Miller stated that he reversed his ~nitial support~of trash collection fee after further analysis indicated to him that there would be no netlgain. In view of Fire and Police needs, and the necessity of maintaining a minamum contingency fund, he felt a tax increase would be required. Mayor Coco explained that many functions of the Community Development Department had little to do with the building permits. He favored-a trash collection fee over a tax increase, stating that PADS might afford the City an acceptable billing system and that~"free" trash pickup has not proven to be an annexation incentive. A franchise scheme would be better, perhaps, than direct billing. Charging for trash pickup could mean a $107,000 addition to the City's reserves with no tax increase; a $.05 tax increase would add only about $54,000. He ... stated that the subsidy by the business community would have to stop eventually. Mr. Bill Moses, 649 South "B" Street, Tustin, questioned the increase in the number of City employees (from about 75 in 1968 to about 100 now) in proportion to population growth. He was not impressed with the "frugality" of a Budget increased by the Council over what the City Administrator had proposed. He felt that more thought was needed. Mayor Coco quoted the following figures: in 1964 there were 6.05 employees per 1000 popula- tion; there are Inow only 4.12 per 1000 population, among the lowest in Orange County. He stated that input from the Recreation and Maintenance Departments, for example, indicate that the current level of service cannot be maintained under the proposed Budget, and cuts in those departments' activities will be made accordingly. He again recommended trying the trash collection charge, stating that estimates indicate an $11,000 to $12,000 cost factor, while $~4,000 h~s been allocated for it. Councilman Oster pointed out that trash collection fees would not he deductible, while tax rate revenues are; that an other cities the trash col- lection fee as added on to a statement with other Charges; that he opposes both a tax rate increase and a trash collection charge; and that maybe a franchise operation would be satisfactory. Council Minutes 7/6/71 Page 3 Mayor Coco denied that trial of the tTash collection charge would be irrevocable and said that with a computer billing system, it doesn't matter how many items are billed. The amount of revenue the City can realize should be their only concern. In response to questioning, Mr. Gill stated that the new fiscal year began July 1. The Budget '~ should be adopted at this time. Essentially, this involves an adoption of expenditures, but not of revenues. The tax rate will not be set until August. Councilman C. Miller stated that the primary question should be what the level of expenditures and revenues should be per capita. Mayor Coco stated that there is no question of additional services, but how, many existing services the City can maintain or will be forced to forego. He opposed the existing "favored status" of the homeowner at the expense of the City and the business community, and favored a "user-p~y" situation. Councilman Marsters stated that he was reluctant to increase per capita costs, citing $24.00 vs. $3.75 increased cost to the owner of a $30,000 home by way of a trash collection charge or a 5% tax rate increase, respectively. In answer to questioning, Mr. Gill stated that as it now stands, the Budget would provide $96,000 General Fund reserve, including the $27,000 which would result from a $.05 tax hike. He added that supplemental budgets can be adopted throughout the year. Moved by Oster, seconded by Marsters that the 1971-72 Budget, as proposed, be adopted, that the Assistant City Administrator obtain information from PADS relative to charges for trash collection billing apart from City staff, and that Staff.be directed to determine whether any adjustment to the Budget revenues or expenditures should be made in order to maintain the present tax rate. Councilman C. Miller suggested another approach: that of eliminating $25,000 from the Budget now, making arbitrary cuts in Certain areas, such as Planning, Engineering, or Public Improvements. Councilman Oster suggested deleting those items which the Council had added. He said that the Staff had apparently been satisfied before with a-$45,000 reserve. Mayor Coco disagreed, stating that the Staff has been outspoken in its dissatisfaction with reserve funds. He opposed making any c~ts at thisI meeting, feeling that he had thoroughly and conscientiously reviewed the compromise Budget. Counci%man Marsters concurred. Above motion carried. C. Miller voting no. L. Miller absent. Council Minutes 7/6/71 Page 4 Mr. Rourke stated thaE the intention ~f the above motion was to adopt only the expenditure portion of the Budget document, that xs, what would be adopted and approved by Resolution No. 71-35. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Resolution No. 71-35, ADOPTING THE CITY BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING REVENUE OF THE CITY FOR THE 1971-72 FISCAL YEAR, be read by title only. Carried unanimously. L. ~iller absent. Resolution title read by clerk. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Resolution No. 71-35 be passed and adopted. Councilman C. M~ller stated that he would vote against this as~he objected to adopting expendi- tures without khowing the consequences. He favored adopting something lower with the pos- sibility of raising it later. He didn't believe the reserve should be lowered. Above motion carried. Ayes: Coco, Marsters, Oster. Noes: C. Miller. Absent: L. Miller. 2.- MEREDITH ANNEXATION NO. 69 Property located on the south side of Seventeenth Street, fronting approximately 489.17 feet west of Prospect Avenue, and approximately 661.65 feet easterly of the centerline of Prospect Avenue. Mr. Rourke stated that a court order has been obtained which vacates the temporary restraining order served onethe Council last week; Mr. Jones was served with~the new order by 4:00 p.m. on this date. TheqCouncil can proceed with the protest hearing. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing a~ 8:53Ep.m. Mr. Robert Humphries, Attorney, 1500 Adams, Costa Mesa, represented Mr. Jones, one of the two Owners of p=operty in this annexation. He requested a continuance of the protest hearing to July 16 an order to afford him reasonable time to preparena protest, on the basis that he had received.no notice until a few hours ago, by way of his client, that an order to vacate the stay order ~ad been issued. July 16, he ~aid, is also t~e date of the hearing set before Superior Court in Department TWo on the decision of the Local Agency Formation Commission approving this annexation~ A continuance would give Mr. Jones time to prepare a substantial claim that he is the majority property owner by reason of the fact that t~is property has different zoning under the County Ordinance, in that different segments of thi~ parcel are zoned differently. The cumulative ~ffect of the different zoning is a higher assessed valuation than that of Meredith's property. He f~rther stated that denial of the continuation request would deprive Mr. Jones of Council Minutes 7/6/71 Page 5 substantial property rights without reasonable notice or reasonable opportunity to be h/eard, in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Rourke stated that the sole purpose of the protest hearing is to accept, at any time until the hearing has been closed, the protest--in writing--of any owners of property within the area proposed to be annexed, and thereafter the determination by the City Council as to whether the written protests which have been filed con- stitute the one-half or more of property ac- cording to its assessed valuation as shown on the last equalized Assessment Roll. While any- one may be heard on the matter, it is only the written protests that can be considered in deciding whether a majority protest has been made. This hearing was set 50 days ago; it is required by law that it be held not less than 40 nor more than 60 days after the annexation was initiated, which was on May 17. Notices have been published in newspapers and given to Mr. Jones and to the other owner of property in this territory. He did not feel that any evidence had been presented which would provide a basis in law for a continua- tion of the hearing. Mr. A1 Enderle, 33662 Carmel, Santa Ana, began to speak in support of Mr. Jones' position, and was interrupted by Mr. Humphries. Mr. Humphries asked for a ruling on the continuation repeating that he was not given sufficient time to prepare the case, and that unless there was a ruling at this tim~ he would have no alternative but to withdraw from the hearing. In response to Mayor Coco, Mr. Rourke stated that notices were mailed in excess of 20 days prior to the hearing, including copies to Mr. Jones and.Mr. Meredith, and publication in two news- papers. The City Clerk, Mrs. Poe, confirmed this. Mr. Rourke went on to explain that at the Council's discretion, they may, after the pub- lic hearing, grant a continuation, but ~s not required to do so during the public hearing. Mr. Humphries may speak on behalf of Mr. Jones, or file a written protest, or withdraw from the proceedings if he desires to do so. Mr. Humphries announced that he would withdraw from the hearing and left the Council Chambers at that time. Mr. Enderle asked the Council to consider con- tinuance of the protest hearing if it will not damage the City's right to annex at a later date. There being no further comments or objections, Ma~or Coco closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:05 p.m. Council Minutes 7/6/71 Page 6 In response to questioning by the MayQr, Mrs. Poe stated that no written protests had b~en received prior to the hearing. Mr. Rourke explained, in answer to Councilman C. Miller, that Qnly the values set in the last [1970-71] equalized Assessment Roll may be con- sidered. If this proceeding were delayed, there may be new value~ set forth in the next equalized Assessment Roll. He added that the requirements for a writing sufficient to constitute a protest are minimal: a statement by the owner or his authorized agentistating that they protest the hearing and giving some description of the property sufficient to determine from the Assessment Roll which piece of property he owns and is protesting. In response to COuncilman Oster's question, he stated that the Writs, etc. w served upon the Council would not be considered written protest. Mr. Gill stated that according to the 1970-71 equalized Assessment Roll, the assessed value of Mr~ Meredith'S property is $41,680, o~-52.83% of the total value of the area proposed to be- annexed. Mr. Jones' property has an assessed value of $37,210, or 47.17% of the total value. Councilman Oster stated that the writs and stay order appeared tQ him to be a last minute effort to avoid a matter that was known to be taking place on this date. He felt ample opportunity had been given f6r preparation and saw no reason for continuance, unless the City Attorney thought it would serve some useful purpose to continue this to later in~the week. Mr. Rourke stated that no purpose would be served by such an action. He said that if the facts were different: if Mr. Jones had filed an action earlie~ than what appears to have been the last m~nute ~robably so as to interfere with the orderly processes of the annexation proceeding, and so as not to afford the City opportunity to be heard in court; and if he did have a majority ownership interest, or there were other people owning property, whose views were uncertain, and he needed ti~e to contact them to gain addi- tional support; if circumstances were different, he would think a~continuation of the hearing in order. He said that a written protest by Mr. Jones Could easily have been prepared. He recommended adoption of a resolution finding that a majority protest has not been made. Moved by Oster, seconded by C. Miller, that Resolution No. 71-36, FINDING AND DECLARING THAT A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS NOT BEEN MADE TO THE MEREDITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 69 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, be read By title only. Mr. Rourke stated that, in his opinion, protest had not been made by s majority of the property owners. Until t~e Ordinance is.adopted, the Council may decide to proceed with the annexa- tion or to hear from Mr. Jones, although he may not file a formal written protest. Council Minutes 7/6/71 Page 7 Above motion that Resolution No. 71-36 be read by title carried unanimously. L~.'"Miller absent. Resolution title rea~ by clerk. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 71-36 be passed and adopLed. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marster~, Oster. __ Noes: none. Absent: L. Miller. Moved by Oster, seconded by Marsters that Ordinance No. 512, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY, DESIGNATED "MEREDITH ANNEXATION NO. 69" TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Ordinance title read by clerk. Mayor Coco commented that the City has done everything it can to pursue this legally, and that Mr. Meredith also has a right to an orderly process of hearing at the specified times, 3. ZC 71-225 ALPINE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Request of the Alpine Development Company to rezone subject property, located on the south side of Irvine Blvd., between "B" Street and Prospect Avenue, from the E-4 (Residential Estate) District to the. Pr __ (Professional) District. Mr. Brown described the location and nature of the request, and explained that the Planning Commission at its June 14 meeting, had unanimously recommended approval of this zone change. Mayor Coco opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:18 p.m. There being no comments, he closed the public portion of the hearing. At the request of Councilman Marsters, Mr. Brown briefly reviewed the street situation as reflected in Staff reports. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that ZC 71-225 be approved subject to the conditions set 'forth by the Planning Commission and that the City Attorney be directed to draft the necessary Ordinance. Carried unanimously. L. Miller absent. AT 9:25 p.m., Mayor Coco called a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:38 p.m. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 21, 1971 Regular Meeting and June 28, 1971 Regular Adjourned Meeting. COuncil Minutes ~l I~ ~ ~ 7/6/71 Page 8 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $55,205.01 3. EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR CERTAIN SOIL TESTING SERVICES AND ROAD MAINTENANCE - as recommended by the Ci~ ~hgineer. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 113 FOR HAROLD LINDGREN - con- cerning mo~el development' at First and "C" Streets, as recommended by the City Engineer. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Consent Calendar Items 1-4 be approved. Carried unanimously. VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 510 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of TuStin, California, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO.157, .AS AMENDED, ADOPTING THE EL CAMINO REAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. l). Moved by Oster, seconded by Marsters that Ordinance No. 510 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Ordinance title 'read by clerk. Moved by Marsters, seconded by. Oster that Ordinance No. 510 be adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: L. Miller. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 511 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, Calif- ornia, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED, RELATIVE TO DEFINITION OF DAY NURSERIES, NURSERY SCHOOLS AND DAY CARE HOMES - CHILDREN. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters, that Ordinance No. 511 have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. Ordinance title read by clerk. IX. RESOLUTIONS 1. RESOLUTION !NO. 71-27 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ENDORSING AND URGING COMPLETION OF TRANSFER OF CAMP PENDLETON PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC RECREATION PURPOSES. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 71-34 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, RECOGNIZING THE ORANGE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL AS THE REGIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING BOARD. Council Minutes 7/6/71 Page 9 Mr. Blankenship, Assistant City Administrator, explained that as of July 1, Orange County was designated a separate Planning Region by the California Council on Criminal Justice. Mayor Coco commented that he has attended several meetings of the Orange County Criminal Justice Council and was impressed with its operation and the manner in which it determines priorities. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 71-34 be read by title ox~ly. Carried unanimously. L. Miller absent. Resolution title read by clerk. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Oster that Resolution No. 71-34 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Cocor C. Miller, Marsters, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: L. Miller. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Resolution No. 71-27 be taken-off calendar. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, Oster. Noes: none. Absent: L. Miller OLD BUSINESS None. XI. NEW BUSINESS None. XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. TIPPLER'S TAX (A.B. 1617) It was the consensus of.the Council that a Resolution should be drafted in support of this Bill. Councilmen Marsters and Oster announced that they would telephone Senator-Dennis Carpenter to try to enlist his support. After Mr. Rourke had drafted the Resolutionr it was moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 71-37, SUPPORTING APPROVAL OF LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE TIPPLER'S TAX A.B. 1617, be read by title only. Carried unanimously- L. Miller'abSent. Resolution title read by clerk. Movedby Oster, seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 71-37 be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marstersr Oster. Noes: none. Absent: L. Miller. 2. CHANGE IN TAX BILL FORMAT -- Mr. Gill suggested that Mayor Coco be authorized to bring this item up at the League of Cities meeting of July 8, 1971. * Ma~or Coco said that he would try to bring it up. The Deague members may want to consider a resolution opposing the change. * Note: Mayor Coco and Mayor Wilson of Costa Mesa introduced topic at League meeting of July 8. Resolution opposing change carried unanimously at. that time. Mayor Coco also requested Supervisor Clark on July 9 to bring matter back before Board. Council Minutes 7/6/71 Page 10 3. ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO PROHIBITION UPON REMOVAL OFTREES It was the consensus of the Council that this proposed ordinance be distributed to the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and the Development Preview Commission for their study. 4. RESIGNATION OF DON CHRISTESON Staff directed to draft Resolution commending Don Christeson for his work on the Development Preview Commission. 5. MEETING WITH HESTER DEVELOPMENT City Councilmen rand Planning Commissioners, and Mr. Yeaman of the Enderle Gardens Home Owners' Association will meet with representatives of Hester Development Co. on August 9 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, to discuss development of parcel at Yorba and Seventeenth Streets. 6. TREE RETENTION - ANDREWS DEVELOPMENT The Council concurred with the Development Preview Commission's recommendations as out- lined in July 1 letter to Jay Andrews. 7. ABANDONMENT OF YORBA Mr. A1 Enderle was given a copy of the City ~ngineer's June 29 report on this matter. He agreed to conducat a title search. 8. VANDALISM IN CITY PARKS Staff directed to study the feasibility of posting warning signs in parks and to explore other means of decreasing vandalism. Sprinkler heads along pathways also need attention. XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no f~rther business, Mayor Coco adjourned the meeting at 11:13 p.m. MAYOR