Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1970 06 15 TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL June 15, 1970 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Coco. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco. IIi. ~ INVOCATION Given by Councilman Marsters. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster Absent: Councilmen: None Others Presen=: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk RlIth Poe Asst. City Admin.~Comm. Dev. K. Fleagle '= APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Oster that minutes of June 1, 1970, be approved. Carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARIIqGS 1. SPECIFIC STREET PLAN The eszablishment of a specific street plan for a public s~ree~ to serve the industrial area bounded by Warher Avenue, Red Hill Avenue, Valencia Avenue and the Newport Freeway. Said proposed stree~ is to contain ~0' right-of-way equally divided on the centerline between portions of Lots 95 and 96 adjoining portions of Lots 81 and 82 of Block 10, Irvine's subdivision as per map recorded in Bookl, Page 88 of Miscellaneous Maps, official records of Orange County, California. Said street extends westerly from Red Hill Avenue to a point ± 125' easterly of the rIght-of-Way of the Newport Freeway, culminating in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Fleagle. explained the location of this plan and presented the Planning Commission recommendation for approval. Hearing opened at 7:36 P.M. There being no objections or comments, the hearing was declared closed at 7:37 P.M. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 473, adopting Specific Street Plan, have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. 2. AMENDMENT TO MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS An amendment to the Circulation Elemen~ of the Tustin Area General Plan by adoption of a Master Plan of Arterial Highways conforming to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial High- ways, First and Fourth Supervisorial Districts, as shown on Amendment NO. 116~ adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 25, 1970. Mr. Fleagl~. explained that the Board of Supervisors, on Febru- ary 25, 1970, adopted amendment NO. 116 to the Master Plan of Arterial HighwayS, affecting Tustin City s=ree~s. Mr. Fleagle ~tated tha~ the City's Master Pl&n of Arterial Highways musu een~ezm ~o ~ha~ OE t~e county in oraer for the City Eo gain financial aid from the county for the improvement of such as First Street. By adoption of the plan, it still remains within the City Council's discretion no determine when, if ever, it is necessary ~o remove parking or acquire additional right-of-way to accommodate the vehicle traffic. The Tustin Planning Com- mission recommended adoption of the ~r/.o~:Q amendments with the City Council J3 & 6-15-70 Page 2 stipulation that a precise street plan be initiated to indicate to the property owners those instances where additional right- of-way would be re~.[uired and those areas where traffic could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Hearing opened at'7:44 P.M. '~"~ ~1 Mr. Robert Hall, 17452 Irvine Boulevard, expressed concern ~caDout Irvine Boulevard stating that professional zoning xs not com- patible with major highway system. Irvine Boulevard runs through to the ease where large areas of high density will develop. Fz. Hall said he did agree that First Street must be ~mprcveu. If the City does adopt these amendments, Mr. Hall state~ they could protect property by - 1) Agreeing to notinstitute hearings to remove parking until traffic count reaches 30,000 per day. 2) Pass an ordinance to restrict through truck traffic. 3) Mark street parking ~o help organize the parking and paint curbs back from driveways ~o prohibit parking too close ~o drives. Mr. John H. Seigel of 515 E. First Street and owner of properzy on Irvine Boulevard, stated he is opposed Eo physical widening of Irvine. Fir. Seigel stated that irvine Boulevard is a victim of geography with the Freeway on the West and irvine ~o the East. The Master Plan of Arterial H~ghways would have a. ~ .gnifican~ effec= on the balance of the highways in the City. Unless ratified, the City disqualifies itself from aidizci the counzy which would curtail capital improvemenzs. Mr. Se~gek suggested that the City consider this plan in con~ex~ ~o the ~n~ire city. Approve the plan and do whatever possible no protect affected property. Mr. Charles Greenwood, 366 E. First Street and owner of property on Irv~ne Boulevard, asked if adopted and the staff prepares precise plans, would those plans be heard at a public hearing. Mr. Fleagle stated that they would. Mr. Greenwood then asked if the recommendations of ~e Plam~ing Commission and staff would be a part of the Ordi~.~ adopting the amendments. Mayor Coco explained that the Council has an oz~ ._~.ce before it thaE does not incorporate suggestion. The .~c~cions were that the Ordinance be adopted and that then pr~I~jxse plans be initiated. This will be discussed along with ~r. H~.li's recommendation not to go along with it until zhe uraffic warranEs it. Mr. Greenwood said that he agreed that when you get a major arterie~l for primary purposes you defeat the pur~osc of a nice office complex. He suggested that if these ame~nen~s are passed, some definite guidelines be puE in the nilluLes. Plans could be set up which are not to take effect until'absolutely necessary. Mr. G. Smith, NewporE Beach, also a property owner c~ Irvine Boulevard and 17th Street, stated that pares of the sEreezs were dedicated and developed by the properEy owners. i~.parking is taken off the streets, the proper~y on adjoiningsEr~ezs should be purchased by the City for parking purposes. Mr. Jokn Watz , 105 E1 Camino Real, stated that'h~"bad attended a conf~=rence where this arterial plan was explained. It appears if it ~.s not approved, the City will lose any cia~m 'co funds from the county and would then be unable Eo develop First Street, wkich is crucial and will eliminate part of the=traf±ic on irvine. The City would still have control of City szree~sand approval g~ves chance for developmen~ that is sadly needed. There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 8:05 P.M. In answer to questioning, Mr. Fleagle said the City does not implement any no parking until the Council determines the necessity. Adoption of the Plan does not guarantee the City will receive anything, but if the City does not adopt it, it will guarantee they will not receive anything. The funds are usually on a matching grant given on a 50-50 basis. AS to the quc .~ion of weight limitations on maDor hig~ways, Mr. Rourke said it was doubtful if you could without providing alternate routes. Mr. Fleagle further stated that it has been the philosophy of the City Administrator and City Engineer in approaching this problem that they would hold back asking for aid and shoot for one big proDect such as First Street. They now have a claim that we have not received this money for several years andF there- forer it is of prime importance. If this were adopted this evening, the recommendation would go in this fall and would be in the 71-72 budget. Mr. Gill stated that claims are approved in December and allo- cated in the coming fiscal year. As to the amount -- this would come about through discussions with the county. We would get some feeling in meetings with the county committee. We are talking about approximately an $800,000 project on First Street and hope to see something in the neighborhood of $400,000 from the county. In answer to further questioning, Mr. Fleagle stated that there is a TNT subcommittee on general plan and a special circulation element that would designate truck routes has been one of their thoughts. As to adopting the Ordinance tonight, incorporating items such as alternate truck routes and not to eliminate parking until necessary, etc. Mr. Fleagle recommended that the Ordinance be adopted approving amendments and that other consider- ations be a separate item to advise the staff how to proceed. Moved by Oster, seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 471 have first reading by title only and the minutes reflect that until such time as specifically authorized by the Council, there be no implementation of no parking, and direction be given to the staff to study and reporu at the next Council meeting as to what action can be taken by the Council regarding weight limitations of commercial vehicles on Irvine Boulevard. Councilman L~ Miller requested that whenever any hearings may be instituted regarding any change, the local press be advised to enable either TNT, Chamber of Commerce and other interested parties to be aware of it in advance so they can attend.' Above motion carried unanimously. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance 471 have second reading by title only. Motion failed uo carry unani- mously and Ordinance 471 was read in its entirety. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Osner that Ordinance No. 471, amending the Tustin City Code relative to the Master Arterial Plan, be passed and adopted as an urgency measure. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: Marsters. Absent: None. RESOLUTION 70-28 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, Cali- fornia, INFORMING THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE STATUS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS. 6-15-70 Page 4 Moved by ost~F~I~a~"lB~L. Miller that Resolution No. 70-28 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by L. Miller, secondedby Oster that Resolution 70-28 be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. 3. APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE TUSTIN, PLANNING COMMISSION. announced that t~e.f~to~wing lapplic~"~had been James B. Sharp DOnald S. Fowler Warner L. Owen Norman A. Halus LOis B. Robbins Hearing opened at 8:35 P.M. M~. Don Fowter and Mr. Warner Owen introduced themselves and expressed ~heir qualifications and interest ~n serving on this Commission. Mr~ Larry Webster.spoke on behalf of Norman Hatus. There being no further comments, the hearing was declared closed at 8:40 P.M. Councilman C. Miller-~stated he would appreciate it if this ma~er were continued and the Council have the opportunity meet with Mrs, Robbins, Mr. Fowler and Mr. Owen who the Council is not well ~cquainted with. The CoUncil Would then be ~n a position~o make a better decision. It was the consensus of the Council that they should meet with these applicants and decided on June 22 a= staggered intervals of thirty minutes, starting at 7:30 P.M. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that this matter be deferred pending interviews June 22 and be reconsidered at the regular meeting of July 6 as a Closed hearing. Carried. 4. APPEAL - UP-70-342 Appeal of the decision of the Tustin. Planning Commission denying application of ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY for a Use Permit (UP-70-342) zo establish an automobile service station. Site fronts approximately 123 feet on the north side of 17th Street and approximately 113 feet on the east side of Carroll Way. Mr. Fleagle explained location reasons for Planning Commission denial, staff report and showed video ~ape of the proposed site. Hearing Opened at8:50 P.M. Mr. P. D. Lippert, 1786 W. Lincoln, representing Atlantic Rich- field, stated that architecture will match that of the existing shoppxng .center; some landscaping on 17th will be removed, but replaced in planters; they have no objections ~o Fire Code regu- lations or the City's Service Station Minimum Site Developmen~ Guide. Relative to traffic congestion, Mr. Lippert said that this is not freeway oriented and will no~ draw traffic from there; a large majority using the'station-will be local resi- dents living east of the freeway; shopping center customers will be their customers and, therefore, there will be flow from the center; this is a signalized intersection; traffic on 17th is created from dense residential arearand this szation will no~ increase the traffic. Mr. Jim Christenson, 3410 W. Third Street, Los Angeles, repre- senting Federated Department Stores dba Ralph's Grocery Company? stated that under ZC64-133 and UP 64-182 the plot plan submitted showed the service station anticipated, and it was understood with the property owners that they would be lessee. At that time they were asked for street dedication and did tens Of thousands of dollars of improvements on 17th and Carroll Way. It would be a hardship to go back to the landlord now for more dedication. Mr. Christenson stated he hoped the Council would not demand additional 10' dedication, but if required, would appreciate further stipulation ~hat the City bear cost of ' inheren~ improvements. Mr. Norman Halus, 13662 ROsalind Drive, stated that at that time he was a member of the Planning Commission and Architectural Com- mittee and remembered this as one of the first attempts at Planned Commercial as the developed area was over 5 acres. It was the feeling then that there was no need for a service station on this corner. Due to the increas~ ~ ~ffic in this area, Mr. Halus said he sees no need, no requ~Eement and no d~sire a station here. Mr. L. Webster, 13532 Loretta Drive, stated that if this is a ~roject for Planned Community and if right-of-way is required, then this application may not be heard as it does not conform and under Planned Community requires precise plans. This station will make two Richfield stations within two blocks which would seem redundant. Traffic flow with curb cuts located as they are in this plot plan, two of the driveway locations are near the corner and anything causing additional turning motion would not be in the best interes~ of the community. If this application ~s to be granted, Mr. Webster suggested that station be reversed so that the building only would face 17th Street and the curb cuts could further be removed from the corner and pum~ islands would be an interior. Mr. J. Christenson questioned how people outside the realm of economics and corporate finance can say what ~s economically feasible. As to safety, the plot plan will show a person leaving or entering the center has a possibility of four streets ~o do so on. Mr. Thomas Heins, 712 N. Bedford Drive, Beverly Hills, formerly director of Real Estate for Ralph's Industrie~ stated that at the time of original hearings on this developmenu the service station was shown on all plans and the use permit was City standards, principally for architectural control. There being no further comments or objectmons, the hearing was declared closed at 9:10 P.M. In answer to questioning as to conformance with existing zon~ng~ Mr. Fleagle stated that after careful scrutiny of past actions he fou~nd that the property is zoned as a "C" District, not "P.C." The eastern por-tion is zoned PC, C-2 and R-3. This portion meets all the minimum requirements of the code for the permitted use and the use permit is the proper application procedure. Councilman C. Miller stated he was on the Planning Commission an~ then the Council of 1963 and sat through many hearings on this property. AS he remembered, the Commission and the Council had a great concern that this whole development be of high quality and aesthetically pleasing. The site plan also showed a bank and other developments. PreciSe plan~ were approved and he stated he did no'c ~eel the Council made any co~itmen~that they were approving a bank or serviOe station ~r~ly~ or ~nything else except what was shown on the · preci~ p~ans. It was ~r~l~ a black~Ut On the c~rner that .. city council J /a 6-15-70 Page 6 Councilman. Maf~e=rS~ st~d%he also was on the Planning Commission at that time and was one of the proponents for the cenzer, but was never a supporter fora service station on the site and now due Eo the pocket of congestion is even more against it. Moved by Marsters, seconded-by L. Miller that the Council deny UP 70-342 of Richfield Company to establish a rvlce station 5. 1970-71 City Budget Mayor Coco stated that the Council on June 9 had held a work- shop on the 1970-71 budgeE. Atthe time of the workshop there were several items amountin9 to $10,000 that had been in the delete column that members of the Council felt should be added, an additional amount was added for a survey. With the additions and the deletions as discussed in the workshop, we have approximately $18,200 in balance at this point. The possibility tonight is that we can conduct a public hearing, revise the resolution draft and adopt the City ~udget. Hearing opened at 9:05 P.M. Mr. Norman Halus, 13662 Rosalind Drive, Tustin, stated the following concerns regarding the budge~: Only a maintenance program with no provision for capital improvement and even as maintenance budget is unrealistic. The reduction in fees from the Building Department permits and No annexation or special elections indicate a no growth situation, This is in conflict with another statement in the budge~ which states "One method of raising revenues is to encourage new development". The Council must consider the impact of the new Irvine City, a city of 430,000 people and 53,000 acres. There is nothing in the budgeE to allow Tustin to be a leader and maintain and improve on the reputation established. He'did not believe that citizens desire the Red Hill Center divider at $22,000 more than they want a parks program. The budget makes no provision for land acquisition. The budget should allow the City to grow in a proper manner including police and fire. The emphasis in the budget is not placed in the right areas. Mayor Coco stated that the Council does have before it a capital equipment program. The Council will look at methods of financing that. There wasno intention in the operating budget to include these items of capital equipment or acquisitions. The Council realizes that there are large amounts of money involved here and that other sources other than property tax and the normal annual sources/will be needed. Mr. Larry Webster, 13532 Loretta Drive, read excerpzs from the budget prologue relative to the need for some services and the ' difficulty in meeting growth needs. Mr. Webster questioned if having the lowesE tax rates inthe county is necessarily that which will do the job. There are certain interesting caEegorles= The majority Of increases are in salary increases. Sixty per cent of monies spenE are in the area of salaries, and yeE have lowered personnel by Ewo people. Mr. Webster also commented on what appears Eo be a 10 per cenE drop in projected population growth in this year, the fact that commercial and aparEments contract for trash and residents do not. He felt users should · pay for services which are. obtained. H o 1 d 1 n g the line on the tax rate and users services cannot be in the best interest. A center island at $19,000 seems ouE of place when the budget is $18,000 out of line. City Council There being no further comments or objections, the hearing was declared closed at 9:40 P.M. Mr. Gill explained that of the $19,000 for the Red Hill divider, $14,000 is gas tax monies, $4,000 is beautification money and $1,000 traffic safety. Gas tax money must be used on select systems streets. Mayor Coco said it appears that the City could use about $1,500 of this money for other items in the budgeE. it is possible that sign maintenance and striping could be billed to the traffic __ safety fund and $500 could come out of beautification for street tree maintenance, but the rest of the $19,000 is encumbered. As to capital budgeting, the City is about $5 million away from all the capital acquisition and improvement. There is no way to include it in the operating budget. Five million would have to be bonded some way. Councilman C. Miller stated that in the capital improvements that are projected to equal $5.7 million translated into tax rane, that would essentially increase the tax rate by another dollar per hundred, assuming it went no bonding. Mayor Coco stated as to encouraging new development that there could be increased allowance of commercial and industrial development as long as it is a compatible development and does not interfere with the residential area. In answer to Councilman C. Miller's question as to what he thought would be an acceptable tax increase, Mr. Halus stated that he did not believe the tax rate ~o be the proper way to go for capital improvements. Mr. Webstex stated he would be willing to pay half again as much in city taxes if shown to be of some effect in the City. He did not feel anyone woui~=[ be unwilling to pay more_ in taxes if it is for a meaningful program with a goal and will not still be a maintenance budget. Mr. William Moses, publisher Of Tustin News, stated he did not agree with Mr. Webster as to a tax increase. He also stated he was not in favor with what appears to be an overall 26 per cenz increase in total pay. Nor was he in favor of more center islands until we obtain more sidewalks. He agreed Tustin will have a problem with and could be the doormat for the new Irvine City. Mr. Moses said the City will know more about what capital outlay ideas are when we know more about the Civic Center Site and Water Company acquisition, etc. He could see no reason for raising taxes and thought a good case could be made for cutting them. Councilman 0ster stated that salary 1ncreases show an overall increase of 10 per cent and With the steps probably is close to 15 per cent and believed that some a~jus~ment can be made in this area and it seems to be one area that is out of balance.. Councilman C. Miller stated he would like to have the Council consider a maximum 5 per cent total increase distributed among the various classifications as most equitable. Some positions are not paid adequately while some are. Mayor Coco concurred and said he has been very strongly against the kind of spiral that comes about from looking at other cities. AS soon as you attempt to meet the median of other cities, you then become the data base for the next year and there is no way to stop the increase spiral. On the other hand, he stated the City has a lean staff and a hardworking staff and we tend to 10so ~ne good peeple first. The cost of living has been around the · ' City Council 6-15~ Page 8 7-1/2 per centlevel ~nd~w, more like 11 per cent. The City wouldn't be~keeping up with the cost of living at 5-1/2 per cent, but would have a fighting chance at 7-1/2 per cent. The departments are lean and this is good cause for the 7-1/2 per cen~ increase. T h i s increase rather than that recommended would result in a $25,000 difference. This would -cover the $18,200 deficit plus an additional $7~ Councilman Marsters stated he was concerned with deletions ~n all areas, but particularly with that in police and fire. He concurred with the 7-1/2 per cent increase with a recommendation back from the City Administrator as to how this should be ~lloca~ed. Councilman-L. Miller concurred. Councilman Oster concurred with the added condition that there be no new positions established in the coming year without express approval of the Council. It was the consensus of the Council that the amoun~ of $13,000 for management auditbe deferred to later in the meeting and if approved, the amount~be considered from the reserve funds. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters, that the budget as submitted with the revisions incorporated and the addendum be adopted for the current fiscal year. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Resolution 70-29 adopting the 1970-71 budge~ as submitted be read by title only with the following revisions: l) incorporation of budget workshop notes in the amoun~ of $18,191 a n d t h e replacement of general reserve for management audit. 2) No new positions be added without express approval of the Coaneil. 3) In lieu of recommended salary increases, there be a 7-1/2 per cent increase"allocated by the Council upon recommendation of the City Administrator. ~yor Coco called a ten-minute recess to enable the staff to present new figures in budget accounts as shown in Resolution 70-29. Meeting reconvened at 10:35 P.M. ~ayor Coco read corrected and new accoun~ figures. Resolution 70-29 as corrected read by title only. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution 70-29 adopting the 1970-71 City Budget be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco~ C. Miller~ MaEsters, L. Miller, ester. Noes: None. Absent: None. VII. OLD BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE NO. 465 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, CHANGING ZONE ON ZONE CHANGE PROCEEDINGS NO. Z.C. 70-209. Proper~y located at the southwesterly corner of San Juan Street and Red Hill ~venue. Ordinance changes the~northerly 149 feet 'to PC-C-1 and the southerly 470 feet to the PC-C~2 all with certain resurictions. Moved by.L. Miller, seconded by ester that Ordinance No. 465 have second readin~ by title only. Carried unanimously. C~ty COun~ Moved by L. Miller seconded by Oster that 0rdjnance No. 465, ~hanging zone on Zone Change proceedings No. ZC 70-209, be passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster- Noes: None. Absent: None 2. ORDINANCE N0. 469 - second reading An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO REGULATE MOTOR VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY- Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 46~have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously- -- Moved by Marsters, seconded by L. Mille[ that Ordinance NO. 469, amending the Tustin City Code to regulaLe motor vehicles on private property, be passed and adopted. Carried. A~es: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: None. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 470 - second reading An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODETO REVISE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Oster that Ordinance No. 470 have second reading by title only. carried unanimously- Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Ordinance NO. 470, amending the Tustin City Code to revise the membership of the Parks and Recreation Commission, be passed and adopted. Carried by roll call. Ayes: Coco, C. Millerr Marsters, L. Miller, Oster. Noes: None: Absent: None. 4. APPOINTMENT OF ONE MEMBER TO THE DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMITTEE AND ONE MEMBER TO THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS- Cont'd. from 6-1-70. Mayor Coco stated there had been a suggestion to retain alternat for just two of the positions being architect and landscape architect. Councilman L. Miller stated that the City Attorney had rendered an opinion that the 'Development preview CommissiOn and the Building Board Of Appeals cannot be incorporated into one committee and that the matter of alternate appointments on Development Preview Commission be held in abeyance until such time as Council is able to find qualified people. Moved by 0ster, seconded by C. Miller that Richard B. Smith be reappointed to the Building Board of Appeals. Carried. Moved by 0ster, seconded by Marsters that John H. Seigel be reappointed to the Development Preview Commission as alternate if satisfactory with him. Carried. Councilman Oster stated he would contact Mr. Seigel. VIII. NEW BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE N0. 472 - first reading An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT LITTERING. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by C. Miller thau Ordinance NO. 47!~ amending the Tustin City Code to prohibl6 littering, 'have firsu reading by title only. Carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 70-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AMENDING THE 1969-70 GENERAL CITY BUDGET Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that ~esolution NO. 70-27 ~'e read bU ~itle only. Carried unanimously- · .. city council 6-15-70 Page 2. RESOLUTION NO. 70-27 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, AMENDING THE 1969-70 GENERAL CITY BUDGET. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters t~at Resolution NO. 70-27 be read by-title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Resolution No. 70-27, amending the 1969170 General City Budget, be passed and ... adopted. Carried. Ayes: Coco, C. Miller, Marsters, L. Miller, ester. Noes: None. Absent: None. 3. QUITCLAIM OF LAND IN CITY OF ORANGE (Portion Of Fairhaven Ave.) Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Oster that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized. to execute quitclaim deed for certain property to the C~ty of Orange. Carried. 4. CONSTRUCTION OFMEDIAN ISLANDS IN FIRST STREET, AND WIDENING OF FIRST STREET AT THE S/W CORNER OF PROSPECT AVENUE - Acceptance and authorization of payment. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by ester that the workon construction of median islands in First Street from Prospect to Centennial Way and'the widening of First Street atthe S/W corner of Prospect be accepted and payment in amount of $9,882.68, which is 90 per cent of the contract amount, be made to R. J. Noble Company and the final 10 per cent be paid on the approval of the City Engineer, 35 days from this date. Carried. 5. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT #107 FOR 1062 LAGUNA ROAD (UP 69-332) ... Moved by Marsters, seconded by C. Miller that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute agreement with Male, incor- porated, for the'installation of street trees in conjunction with Use Permit No. 69-332. Carried. 6. REQUEST FOR 4TH OF JULY STREET CLOSINGS AND USE OF CENTENNIAL PARK Following requests received: 1)Closing Of Laurinda Way from numbers 13502 to 13552, July 4 from 6 to 10 P.M. 2) Use of Centennial-Park 'July 4 and 5, 1970, for special events sponsored by Tustin Meadows Homeowners Community Association. 3) Tustin Meadows July 4 parade. In answer to questioning regarding request for use of Centennial Park July 4, Mr. John Sauers stated that Tustin Meadows Associ- ation understands that this is a city park and has no intention of closing the park facilities tO the public. Mr. Sauers stated they do have a cleanup committee and would like To request the possibility of getting an ex=ra trash pickup on Monday morning. Moved-by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that requests for street closings and use of Centennial Park be approved as requested, subject to final-approval by Police and Fire Departments. Carried. 7. AGREEMENT WITH THEODORE BARRY AND ASSOCIATES, CONSULTANT, TO CONDUCT A MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS REVIEW OF PUBLIC SAFETY ACTIVITIES OF THE CITY. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized zo execute agreemenE with Theodore Barry Associates at a maximum cost of $13,000. Council concurred that this report must be completed two weeks prior to the Council meeting of August 17 and the setting of the City Tax ra~e. Mr. Gil_ ~ to ascertain earliest date of completion. Motion carried. 8. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that demands in the amount of $218,647.98 be paid. Carried. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 70-29 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND DESIGNATED "NEWPORT-EDINGER ANNENATION NO. 65." Moved by Marsters, seconded by Osier that Resolution 70-29 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Resolution No. 70-29, annexing certain uninhabited territory designated "Newport- Edinger Annexation NO. 65",be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. IX. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Assembly Bill 2421 Requlring City Certificate Before Recording of Deed Splitting and Existing Parcel. Moved by Marsters, seconded by C. Miller that a letter over the Mayor's signature be senE to state representatives in support of A.B. 2421. Carried. 2. Matters of Council concern - reports received: l) Sidewalks Report received for review. 2) Offer to Negotiate Property Exchange Administration to acknowledge receipE. 3) Population projection - Requirements for Civic Center Site After Council discussion on population of areas and basis for good planning for determining ultimate requirements for a Civic Center site, the staff was instructed to proceed with study uslng a figure of 60,000 population. 4) Users are LOsers Pamphlet Staff to see if schools would share cost of distribution to s~udents. 5)'Report on Amaganset Way Drainage 6) ~gn Enforcemen~ 7) Flashing Sign~ - McFadden and Tustin Village Way 8) ~ight Ref!ectio~ - Standard Station - 14501 Red Hill 10) Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks (Newport Avenue) 11) Center Islands (Irvine Blvd. and Yorba) 6~15-70 Page 12 3. Capital Improvement Program Taken under advisement. 4. CrossWalk Survey by San Diego Councilman L. Miller suggested that this survey be brought to the attention of the school districts and~rents. 5. Residential Overlay for Commercial and Residential Zones TNT Committee action deferred. 6. Seminar on Government Coordination Mayor Coco stated he would be attending and would be happy to relay any thoughts of the Council. 7. Reminder of League General Meeting - June 25, 1970 8. Utt Park Dedication Postponed ~o Saturday, June 20, 11 A.M. X ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned to a personnel session. / j v Mayor