Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1970 03 16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL March 16, 1970 CALL TO ORDER ~eting called to order by Mayor Coco at 7:3~PM~? II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Mayor Coco. II. NVOCATION Given by Councilman Cliff Miller IV. ROLL CALL Present:' Councilmen: Coco, Marsters, C. Miller, L. Miller, Oster Absent: Councilmen: None Others Present: City Administrator Harry Gill City Attorney James Rourke APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that the minutes of. March 2~ 1970,=be approved. Carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE VII. OLD BUSINESS 1. TO CONSIDER CHANGING DESIGNATIONS OF EDINGER STREET AND NAVY WAY TO MOULTON PARKWAY. --- Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that this matter~ be continued to the next Council meeting until further infor- mation is received. Carried. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 457 - second reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED RE- LATIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PREVIEW COMMITTEE. Movedby L. Miller, seconded by C. Miller that Ordinance No. 457 have second readingby title only. Carried. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 457 amending the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 157, as amended relative to the Development Preview Committee be passed and adopted. Carried. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 458 - second reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. ZC 69-200 OF ROBERT HALL ON BEHALF OF WILFRED TAYLOR. (Rezoning from R-1 to PC Distric _. Site fronts 2~ ft.onthe north Side of Main Street, 300 ft. on the west.'sideof Pacific and 220 ft. on the south side of Third Street. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller~thatOrdinance No. 458 have second reading b~ title only. .Carried. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Ordinance No. 458 rezoning property on application No. ZC 69-200 of Robert Hall on behalf of Wilfred ~aylor be passed and adopted. Carried. Councilman Marsters abstaining. 4. ORDINANCE .N0. 459 - second reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, PREZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO. PZ 69-121 OF WILLIAMS AND Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 2 CLEGG, ON BEHALF OF ASSEMBLIES OF GOD. Site fronts approximately 284 ft. on the northwest side of Browning Avenue and is located approximately 290 ft. southwest of the center line of Nisson Road. Moved by Marsters, seconded by Oster that Ordinance No. 459 have second reading by title only. Carried. Moved by Marsterst seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 459 prezoning property on application No. PZ 69-i21 o~ Wllli~ms and Clegg on behalf-of Assemblies of God be passed and adopt, Carried by roll call'. Ayes: Marsters, L. Miller, Coco. Nayes: C. Miller. Abstaining: Oster. 5. ORDINANCE NO. 460 - second reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 6 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO PERMIT FEES FOR SEWER CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER WORN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No.460 have second reading 'by title only. Carried. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Ordinance No. 460 amending Article V of Chapter 6 of the Tustin City Code re- lative to permit fees for sewer construction and other work on private property.be passed and adopted. Carried. 6. ORDINANCE NO. 461 - second reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ESTAB- LISHING REGULATIONS. FOR MOBILE X-RAY UNITS. Moved by Ostert seconded by L. Miller that Ordinance No. 461 have second reading by title only. Carried. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Ordinance No. 461 establishing regulations for mobile K-Ray units be passed and adopted. Carried. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 70-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MEDIAN CURBS AND STREET WIDENING ON FIRST STREET, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS. CouncilmEn C. Miller stated that at the last meeting he had requested installing more tree wells on this plan and nothing had been done. Mayor Coco responded that the representatives had indicated that there was a narrow sidewalk which prohibited the install- ation of more tree wells. Mr. Gill added that a 3' x 3 'tree well would leave only 2 feet for pedestrian traffic. Mr. George Argyros, 17411 Irvine Blvd., Tustin, asked if the Council was advertising for bids for the center islands and what was the approximate cost of the islands. M~yor ~O_ClQ s~a~ed that the combined cost was $5,000 for widehing Mr. Argyros stated that the Council should give serious con- sideration to making a more precise program of priorities and should hold off construction on the center islands as these are not that important. Moved by Oster~ seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 70-1_~2 3/16/70 Page 3 be read by tit CaI Moved by Oster~ seconded by C. Miller that Resolution No. 70-12 approving plans and specifications for construction of median curbs and street widening on First Street, and s a d e Mayor Coco stated that the Council appreciated Mr. Argyros's remarks and was considering priorities. At the Special Council meeting last Tuesday the Council stated that there were priorities that might postpone a popular cause. This particu- lar resolution had been considered before as a prio,rity. Mr. Argyros stated he was not criticizing the Council, but that he wanted to stress the importance of priorities. B. APPOINTMENT OF TWO MEMBERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ONE MEMBER TO THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS. Mayor Coco e~lained ~hat at the last Council meeting a s~- comittee consisting of Councilmen L. Miller and-Oster was fQrmulated tO interview interested persons and to get the feelings of the Development Preview Comittee concerning the appointments to that co~ittee. There is a prelimina~ report from the s~-Comittee but then he requested that any action be deferred until the next Council meeting so that they may c6ntabt 'c0~i~t=ee meters as authorized. Councilman oster stated that he would like to imediately implement one partrOf their preliminary report pertaining to the provision. recomending that the Council proceed to advertise the'c0mittee openings. He requested that the Staff contact the Tustin News and ask for interested appli- cants to write letters. Councilman L. Miller,asked if ~y of the openings were li~ted to occupation, as ~is should also be specified in the paper. Mr. Fleagle stated that both positions were for alternates - one was for a landscape architect and the other one for building and developing. trades was not restricted to any profession. Councilman L. Miller suqgested, then, that the notices specify these allied fields. Mayor Coco stated that' Co~cilman L. Miller's suggestion was a good idea and that as long as the structure of the CoEttee itself will be discussed at the next Council meeting there would be no need to stress whether the openings were for alternate or principle positions. He then directed the Staff to develop some means whereby~ this information gets distri- bution in the local newspapers. 9. NEWPORT AVENUE OFF-RAMP Mayor coco - As you ali know we had a special Council meeting Tuesday night to discuss the recent developments, including the recent appraisal of 'the property. We heard from various meters of the comunity, all of whom indicate~ support for the off-r~p.- There.were, as far .as I know, no negative remarks on the existence of the off-ramp per se. The only arguments pro and con were involving the priorities and involving the initial outlays, whether or not the~city could borrow money, what the= condemnation proceedings would be in terms of friendly or unfriendly, and matters/of this nature There were no negative' comments on the .fact that an off-ramp would be beneficial. We have a report in your folders from Mr. Gfll %hat is a good historical re-cap, who did what to whom ~0~ ~h~ last ten= ~ears and why in mos~ e~ses. I tr~st you ~i~, ~%~8 h~ ~ Cha~de- to ~0vie~ ~ha~, Tn~ i~ a Q~ Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 4 additional pieces of inform&tion. We have the folder which includes the appraisor's report and two 8½ x 11 pieces of paper stapled together regarding long-term financing. The matter was continued from that Special Council meeting and the Staff had been directed to get just such an appraisal report as you see before us. At this time Gentlemen, I'll ask what's your pleasure. Councilman C. Miller - Mr. Mayor, I'd like to have an explanation of these two agreements that we have in front of us now. As I read this proposed agreement, it seems different than what'we were lead to expect we would receive and what is the relationship to the one draft dated 3/3/70 and the one dated 3/10/70. Does the 3/10/70, is that pre- pared by the State? Who prepared the other one? Mr. Gill - You have two agreements in draft form which have been ~eceived Friday from the State. Both of these agreements would be executed or both of these types of agreements would be executed in this matter. The Cooperative Agreement dated March 3rd would be the one where the City and Sta~e would cooperate jointly in the acquisition of necessary right-of- way. It would be proposed that the State would do the final formal appraisal and acquire the property with the City re- imbursing for our share. The draft of the agreement dated March 10th relates to the freeway itself and this is the structure between Newport and Carfax-both sides of the total freeway right-Of-way in that area. So one is an agreement for acquisition of property, the other is for the design of the actual structures. NOW these are in real draft form; they have not been reviewed in detail by myself or the City Attorney somewhat pending action on whether we go ahead on the off-ramp or not. I~m sure there'~s a lot that we would like to see that is not contained herein or some changes to be made. These are strictly draft as received by the State and no City review at this point. Councilman Oster - Am I correct that these were received from the State as such. Mr. Gill - Yes, as is. Councilman Os*ter - I note on the draft of 3/10/70, the freeway agreement, on page 3, paragraph 7, lines 23-26, "!the State and City will continue serious discussions toward" and I note the word "and will execute ~a revised freeway agreement .' Are they back to wanting some sort of "agreement"? Mr. Gill Well, none of this would predicate - and this is why we have to re-work these agreements so that isn't the case. We did agree that, yes, we would and Which we have been doing for a period of time, that wewould talk about the future freeway system within the City and this is only natural because we'll certainly have a lot of interest what the State wi~I do and vice versa. That's all the intent of this section. The fact that the word"execute" is in there--there are things that we really will probably make some serious changes, in fact we would like to have all of this input if there are any serious points here. Mayor Coco - As I read this, Mr. Oster, these are not con- tingent sections; they are just declaratory sections. Councilman Oster - It agrees that we will at some point execute - Mayor Coco - At some point un-named at this time.- I would suggest that rather than g~ into the details of either of these agreements that we have a ~ther substantial hurdle to ~um before we even ConSider agreements and that is the Of Councilman C. Miller - Well one other question about the Council Meeting ~d 3/16/70 Page 5 agreement, shout~n~j~e~condemnation proceedings and then not be able'~'7'~m~l~a~agreement, what will our situation be? Mr. Gill One. of the things that the City Attorney and I have discussed about ~heseagreements is that we have stepping nes throughout the process. Itmay be tha~ we may agree cooperate Wi~h the State for acquisition ;~Icompletion of their appraisal ~ctivity,it may be that we have hit another stepping stone that would change our thinking. Asthey move through that process, maybe it goes accordingly, maybe it doesn't, there woUl'db~ another s~epping stone. These guarantees built in that we could certainly be flexible in what_we do. These are not necessarily built in these drafts right here but these are the things that we would want to · nsure that wehad some control over the whole situation. In other words,, once we execute then the State could run away. with the store. That's what we want to protect against in the agreement Councilman C. Miller -On page two, lines 2& 3 of ~he agree- ment dated 3/10, there's a provision that says "the temporary ramp will be closed~at such timeas the ultimate interchange between State routeS5 and 5~is constructed or at such time as in the opinion of the State Highway Engineer the continued operation of the ramp will result in unsafe conditions on the freeway." I think that last part is really unacceptable s~nce he may consider that this ramp has become unsafe when we get into difficulties with the agreement for the next portio~ of the =freeway. It'sa lever that could beusedagainst us. Mr. Gill - Mr. Miller,thiswas part of the original recom- mendation of the.State Engineer as it went to:the Highway Commission in December and this was something that was dis- cussed before at'the hearing. This recommendation that the State Highway Engineer made to the Commission at the December hearing, the reason for this particular condition is that if 5 or 6 or 8 years from now there is such an unknown hazzard involved there that'tkeState Highway Engineer would have the right to close the ramp if it became necessary. This ~s the same right that they do exercise on all the freeway system, it's just that the agreement is spelling it out, but they wanted to make sure that this was the option available to the State. I don't believe that the State would use it as a lever orsomething like that -~I wouldn't think. I think this is based on honest engineering determination. Now it may be that we could phrase it somehow sothat we could have-some sort of in formal review of it. But this would be something typically held by the State Highway Engineer. If there were an unsafe condition we'd probably want it closed as much as the State, but this was something allthe way back to their original recommendations; this is nothing new in this case. Councilman C. Miller Well maybe I~m just unnecessarily suspicious then. Councilman L. Miller -" I.notice in the audience-there's a number of people from 'the~Chamber of Commerce and the Down- town Business Association and I understand Mr. Greinke has been working all day on this matter and indicated~that he had input to the Coundil, but he's not here. Mr. Flin~, is Mr. Greinke coming this evening? Mr. Flint - He's on hi~ Way. Mayor Coco - I had breakfast with Mr. Greinke this morning ~nd he was going to address himself to the financial aspects of it. I understand he did get in touch with you Mr. Gill as I suggested today? We do have a report that is, as far as I know, a joint piece of work with the City Administrator and Mr. Greinke. However, I'll be more than happy to delay this, i know how hard he's worked on it. Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 6 Mayor Coco - Very timely Mr. Greinke. We were just dis- cussing delaying this portion of the meeting until your appearance; this no longer will be necessary. Mr. Greinke I apologize for being late, I anticipated being here earlier. Mayor Coco - So far,for your information,what we have dis- cussed are the new inputs that the Council has. We have the appraisor's report that we asked for at the special meeting. We have the two-page document having to do with financing. I;m sure you're familiar with this - this is what you and Harry worked up during the day today. We have a report from our City Attorney that I neglected to, mention earlier on the same subject, viz. financing. And we also have copies of two agreements that have come from the State, one of which has to do with right-of-way acquisition and the other one which has to do with the actual construction of the freeway off-ramp. So at this point I think we are certainly ready to hear from you, I know how hard you worked on this. Mr. Gill Mr. Mayor, Mr. Greinke has not had the opportunity ~o read this and maybe he'd like to take a minute to look at this. I may just review a little bit in part if you would like .for the benefit of the Council and the audience. Mayor Coco - Would this be helpful for you, Mr. Greinke? Mr. Greinke - Yes it would, sir, I have not read this letter yet, Thank you. Mr. Gill Last meeting, our special meeting, the matter came up about the possibility or feasibility of some form of long-term financing and as outlined in my statement and also the City Attorney has submitted a statement tonight~ In essence the City is prohibited from entering into long- term borrowing other than leases which cities can do. There s no' such thing as a leaseTpurchase agreement for cities, indefi- nite bonding, etc. which private industry can 0o. I've stated forth here a few points and I may just run through them briefly. We can lease equipment indefinitely and this would be just on an annual-more or less-rental basis. This is where there is some property that can be leased. We can borrow money in anticipation of tax revenue, such as borrowing during one fiscal year for taxes to be received during that year and paid for by the end of that year, but this cannot go past a one year period. We can lease properties or equipment with an option to buy and there's no committment on the part of the City to continue the lease, though. At the end of a number of years and you do have the option, if you keep continuing to pay for the option or have the option agreement to buy sQmething at the end of that period of time. We cannot make installment purchases,, loans that would be interest only or things like that. This is something that the State Consti- tution prohibits us from doing. I may just read for the bene- fit of the group what the Constitution does say: Article II, Section 18 of the State Constitution "No City shall incur any expense or liability in any manner or for any purpose ex- ceeding in any year, than income or revenue provided for su~ year, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified ele< That means that the only way you can borrow money, past one year, is by vote of the people for bonds, two-thirds majority. Mayor COco - Thank you. Any agreement to lease the p~operty Would, I assume, presuppose the willingness O~ the owner to e~er l~ ~e ~ease~ Weuld ~t n~t? Mr. Gill - This could be true, I suppose in certain situations you could do this. The thing here, though, as shown in the draft agreements and would be a requirement, is that the pro- perty that is acquired would have to be deeded to the State no~ just even for road purposes, but they would have to have th title to the property for construction of their freeway facili- ties. So there is no value to anL~<,~ody else. in other wor~s, th Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 7 City nor a Bank or ~ ght be, that property would actually be given to the Stateon which they would construct the off-ramp. Mr. Greinke - The one questiOn'that I have that we brought ;~j~today in our disCusSions'- wehave assets// the new Civic I~Cehterinthe viCihi~y 0f'$250-$B50,000. Wh!~i'~ould like to have fully pursued to everyone's satisfaction if there's no way of leasing this or dealing this to a non-profit organization 'within the City who in turn could hold it for the City and use these.funds for ~ight-of-way acquisition such as the City ofiAnaheim has done with their municipal stadium. CoUld we not'in effect accomplish this, H~rry,'is this - - -. Mr. Gill - Yes, the Civic Center property could be sold. It could be sold to .a-private party for cash. It could be sold to a non-profit,corporation, who inturn, would lease it back tO the City.with option, if sometime in the future we wanted to acquire it. This could be done. Mr. Greinke - So this could be a method Of achieving the neces- Sary cash so we wouldn't have to divert cash from current budgets, so that'it could be diverted into the off-ramp? Mr. Gill.- Unless, I may just add one thing though, unless you form some form of a corporation that would be willing to lease the whole facility as wedid when we bought this site and as we're doing with the sites We're buying down off of Red Hill ~venue. We purchase parcels at a time and that's the only parcels that we can do anything with. The remaining parcels which are under option to us, ofcourse, are notin our title and we cannot construct ~anything on it or do anything with it. It's just not our property. Mr. Greinke - The forming=of this non-profit organization would just be a matter of simple, of forming a non-profit' corporation, would it not? Mr Gill - We have Mr. Tom Woodruff with us tonight who is sitting in for Jim Rourke for a brief period of time here. I might let Tom explain this, too. He's the City Attorney of Fountain Valley. Mr. Woodruff Mr. Greinke, one of the problems of course, is you can set up the corporation, the technical aspects of setting up the corporation wou~d be nominal, but again, if the City were simply to take the civic center lands and lease them to the corporation or in some way obtain funds, I think a very serious question would once again be posed is this just a ,sham" in which it could be subjected to attack on a taxpayer's basis. If there were no other purpose or function of a non- profit corporation than to simply take title and then use the revenue that the City Would pay to,in effect, buy the freeway lands, it probably wo~/ld' be seriously questioned. Technically there would be very~nominal.problems, but I think mn substance you would be - something would have to~take some very serious and very complex planning to qualify. Mr. Greinke - But itis an approach and a fairly honest approach and I think other citfes have done this. How did Anaheim, the non-profit organization which generates their funds to put a multi-million dollar package together. Mr. Woodruff - Well t~i~ lease-back type of financing is fairly common and is absolutely legal; there's no question about that, it's done by municipalities throughout and Anaheim, of course, has two glowing examples of that without regard to their success financially. There's?no question that it can.bedone but, again they have a basf~s on which they're paying off bonded in~@~@~ ~hrough rental payments from the California Angels ~Ommit~ments otherSban the City just l~asfng. As they say, Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 8 think it would be rather complex. If there were some financial arrangement that could be made so that the non-profit corporatie could make a profit and use the profits to buy the right-of- way, perhaps fine. Mr. Greinke - Well, if there's a will there's a way, if we want this off-ramp, gentlemen, I think we can put Ithis package together tonight. We've found some steps that can be taken in form of a non-profit corporation. The technical aspects of putting it together is something else that we would need further legal assistance on. I believe it is in ~he interes~t~ of the City to pursue this and to approve the purchase and c ~- demnation of this property. We have the media .and I think ~ should act on it. Mayor Coco - Thank you Mr. Greinke. Do you have any other alternatives, perhaps? Mr. Greinke - No, one of the interesting sidelights, I unfortu- nately ran out of time today. We had all day meetings; it seemed like one from another. But one of the other areas I would like to have calledto your attention is, if we do have an off-ramp, this would open up Newport Avenue tca tremendous opportunity to attract a rather large development that would be in the area of Bayshere Lumber area, the Toxo Spray (Graves & Howley)., the Sunkist Cathedral (Southern Pacific) and the area that Mr. Prescott owns, I think. Collectively we have a very large, large parcel of land which would attract either industry or a multi-leveled hotel or something of this nature to help our tax base along Newport and also to attract more traffic to this street. It's an opportunity, gentlemen~ that we can open up that area and make it too unattractive for this property to remain as it is now. It would be too valuable to continue to use it in its present form ana it would force the owners to utilize their property more. It would be just too valuable to let it set. I think they would all be in concu] rance with this. Mayor Coco - Thank you Mr. Greinke. Councilman L. Miller - I'd like to ask Mr. Greinke before he sits down, are there any other property owners tentatively, say, committed that indicated a desire to this goal? Mr. Greinke - yes,last Thursday night-I didn't have time to pursue this to the fullest today-but last Thursday evening one of those major property owners did express a tremendous desire to work together in unison with the other two property owners. But one of them,of course, is the railroad company and they do tend to take a little time to move in those large corporations. But definitely did expr~ess an interest that they would like to work with the other two companies towards a major development of that site. Councilman L. Miller - Thank you. Mayor Coco - This is not a public hearing but I think we should hear from anyone who wishes to be heard. Mr. Greinke was kind enough to offer one alternative, the lease-back agreement for a possibility. If anyone has any other kinds of alternative~ the Council, I think, should be willing to listen to them a this point. We have some other alternatives, some of them were mentioned last Tuesday, the paying of interest only, the paying of interest plus some part of the p~inCipal, and other s~hemes ~ha% we ha~ h~ in ~ e~ Rs, ~ ~e~nei~ can make ~eeisions en ~he Basis ef wha~ it has in E~ent o~ it and wha~ it hears tonight as well. So if there's anything which you think we might not have considered, might not have in front of us, might not have explored, .please feel free to come up and give us a suggestion as Mr. Greinke has. Mr. Argyros - Unfortunately I was out of town last week and was not able to make the Tuesday night meeting; however, I have been brouqht up-to-date by Mr. Frank and this fine report Council Meeting~ 3/16/70 Page9 that Mr. Gill di'~'~ n~-=is outstanding. I think Mr. Greinke and the Chamber of Commerce and all the fine people that have really worked very hard onthis ofT-ramp are certainly to be thanked on behalf of every one in the ~I~y. I don%t think, as ~ou mentioned, t~at~l~.~ has been anyone here that hasn?t been for the off-ra~pinCluding ourselves and as you know, several years ago when We became owners of a lease-hold estate on the propertywe pursued the possibilityof apossible off-ramp on the site. We're still in favor of an off-ramp. The problem that we have, as I think Mr. Frank pointed out, is the word "temporary" and I think that's of major concern and should be to the City and as well to every taxpaye~ in the community. The ~ording on page 2 Of Mr. Gill's r~port ~re where the Highway Commission in December 1969 states that it~s a temporary off-ramp. I think that should be emphasized, and what they're talking about as I understand it is anywhere from 8 to 12 years pos- sibly} iS that rightMr~ Gill? And then, further on down, it reads, "BEIT FURTHER IRESOLVED THAT a temporary =ramp will be closed at suchltime:~as'the ultimate interchange between State Highway 5 and 55 is constructed or at such time as in the opinion of the,State Highway Engineer the continued operatio of the ramp would-result inunsafe conditions on ~the freeway." I think that, and Cliff you'hit upon it before and I know ~t's wrong perhapsto thinksthat the State would necessarily use that as a lever, but then again, I think as one agency dealing withlanother, I don't think its any different that an individual dealing with a City and even in the fine City of Tustin, we've had ourSproblems on what We thought was the intention. I think that the wording certainly could be clarified much further before this body should take such a step financially as con- demning the land and, in addition to that, I would certainly like to see something pursUedto the effect that this word "temporary" be taken out'. I think that one of the real problems here is that you're going to alleviate temporarily a condition that we have in the downtown area by having this off-ramp come inand then ten years from now you,re going to create another kind of a problem. And the other kind of a problem is going to be is that you're changing the traffic flows once again, and the downtown area isback where it is except it's ten years later and probably a lot worse off. In addition, although I would hope that perhaps someone would be willing to come in to the town for a period of ten years, I don't think any major concern would be nieve enough to come in without checking thoroughly the lasting possibility of an off-ramp in that situation and when you're talking about major tenants, you're talking about a great deal of expenditure and ~hey're pretty thorough. I think that there'd have to be a lot more than just the off-ramp, certainly~ to attract it. I have asuggestion that perhaps isn't what everyone would like ~o see, but I think it would help what the real problem is and what you're trying et the off-ramp for and rather than spend the money, let's.say $250,000 for round figures at this point, for the possibility of the land acquisition and damages, etc., perhaps the money would be better spent if you could improve upon your traffic flow in the downtown area now and what I'm talking about is for instance, the possibility of acquiring the necessar~ right-of-way and the alignment of joinin. Prospect and E1 Camino Realm direCtly. Now we've been talking about this and I really don't know if it has been broached be- fore the Council before o~ not and that wouid bring the traffic flow south out of the north mor~directly into the older down- town area and that could be, I think, realistically done by joining Prospect and'E1 Camino Real somewhere in the vicinity between First and Fourth. Perhaps that would=be a more permanen' solution to the problem that we have andsthat is that we need more stimulation for t~e downtown area and'the commercial businesses in our City~ I think that it would be not in the best interests if you ~reated a temporary solution with this type of money that you're talking about. I think the money woul, be better spent if yourcould do something more permanent. We're very disturbed o~er the word "temporary" and it's too bad there isn't something we could do to obtain a permanent off Council Meeting 3/ /v0 Page l0 and on ramp or interchange at Newport Avenue. Thank you. Mayor Coco - Thank you Mr, Argyros. Mrs. Wagner, would you please come forward? Mrs. Wagner - I'm not here for the Tustin Downtown Business Association; I'm here for myself. I would like to point out one thing to people that the people on E1 Camino Real realize that if the off-ramp went in it would probably do more good on Newport than it would on E1 Camino Real and this is some- thing I can't seem to get across to people. We're more con- cerned with Newport. than we are with our own street. We see to be doing pretty well down here. We would, of course, li~ to see the area developed; I think we all would. As far as the temporary bit ~s concerned,and I think you've all watched this all through the State of California, when the State says ten years, it may be 30. As you know this could go on and on~ I would very much like to see this off-ramp come in, not for E1 Camino Real only, I mean for the whole community. I don't think that changing the flow of traffic from, as M~. A~gyros said, around Prospect to E1 Camino Real is going to help Newport at all. If you drive through that horrible, and Mr. Greinke and Mr. Leu Gerding and I came througlh there this afternoon r~ght at 5:15, through that horrible mess on Red Hill, you could understand what the problem is. The traffic is absolutely fantastic and it's the only way, coming in from that way, to get into the City. I know it's a lot of money; I realiz that as much as you do but I also realize that we're talking some $450,000 on First Street and if we can develop First Street which is only going to benefit a portion of the City that it would seem to me that we could invest in the future of Tustin by the off-ramp. Thank you. Mayor Coco - Thank you Mrs. Wagner. Mr. Greinke. Mr. Greinke - There are two additional points that I would to make certain of the Chamber of Commerce position. We're interested in the overall good and development of Tustin, nc just the downtown and.Newport. We're interested in First Street we're interested in assisting the TNT Committee in any method that they can come up with to make this a better place to live and to work.. We do not propose to divert any funds. In all of our efforts today," we have tried to initiate our own methods of financing in generating ~ncome so that we're not taking from First Street and E1 Camino or any other areas. We wish to generate these funds within the City and the assets that we have. We have three great projects that we can g0 on after we decide ~Q put this off-ramp in. ~e have three areas that we must attack as a City. We have the development of Ei~st Street; we have E1 Camino and we have a Civic Center. Perhaps maybe an overal.1 bonding and looking at this collectively as a total unit we could attack this problem much better. I do not propose, nor does our Chamber of Commerce propose to divert these funds. So please make certain that we are not competing -for funds from one area to another. The second point I wish to make and reiterate is what is the true net cost to the City? Is it $150,000 or $200,0'00 or what is really the cost of the loan or investment or the lack of income that this City would really have from this $250,000 which is really Dust setting there at the present time. This is the true cost, if the temporary offeramp would be closed. If the off-ramp is not closed then we are looking over amortizing this cost of $150,000 on up over an indefinite, infinite period. If the State chooses to exercise its option and make it a temporary ramp after 10 ears then o~r costs have to be amortized over of borrowing the money not o'f the purchase price, because the State has agreed to reimburse us for this and I'd like to make certain that the Council is aware of the true net cost of this- I don't know if I expressed myself that clearly last Tuesday or not. Mayor Coco - When you say borrowing money, are you using it in 'the conventional ~ense of borrowing money or appropriating money from whatever scheme happens to generate the money and Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page ll Mr. Greinke - Appropriating the cost from the Civic Center to a non-profit o~g~hfZation. This money cOUld also in turn be used to other advantages so you would have in essence, the charge back, the cost of this; it would be in essence the City - ing the loan to the non-profit organizatio aS such. This = ld be your net cost; much are younot using 'tha~ mo~y;during that~ten year peri0d~h0t the cost of purchasi~ or acqumr!n9 that property, whatever that-cost would be. Mr. Argyros I hope you understand that I'm for it just as much as anybody. The thing I really object to and I'd like to ask Mr. Gill. Has ~verythin9 possibly been donp,to elimin- ate the word temporary in the ramp? Is there anyway that we could somehow focus the attention to get this stigma of a temporary deal off Of this? Mayor Coco - The word ~'temporary" was the Only rock'bottom position that the State has held all along in the 10 years that we have discussed this with the State and in ohr last, what we thought was successful, hearding of the lf0n up in Pomona in February of '69. The condition that the freeway would ultimately he widened was a fall-back position on their point from which they"~ere not about to retreat. The widening of the freeway necessitated at'least another lanestoward the north of the Santa And Freeway and it was pointed out by engineers at the time ~'that even consideration of an off-ramp hy the Commission was a complete waste of the',Commission's time because the widening of theSanta=Ana Freeway was inevitable and if you agreed it was inevitable Mr. Commissioners -then there was no possible way to entertain any thoughts from the City of Tustin toward this off-ramp. Well, we brought some political pressure to ~ear~ We had a lot of good people up there and talked with them and we thought we won that particula~ argument by getting the foot in the door and allowing or agreeing to temporary use. Were it not for that agreement, we wouldn't have even been scheduled. We wouldn't have been on the agenda in the first place. It was a recommendation of the Staff that we not be on the agenda to the Commission. As you know, we didn't come away from that as well as we thought, because not only did we have to agree to the temporary nature of the off-ramp, we had to agree to the ultimate widening of the Santa Ana and Newport Freeways throughout the city limits. That has since been ameliorated somewhat, but as far as the temporary nature, yes, we have been pushing for an off-ramp there, a permanent off-ramp, but at least to have the Commissio~ hear us, we had to agree,to that as a minimum condition. Now if you're asking if we've gone back to the..State since then and push the possibility that this now not be a temporary off- ramp, I would have to answer that the thought never occurred to us. Mr. Gill Two things, Mr. Mayor, if I may in response. Number ~ne - has all been done that could be done and I've become more and more a believer of political process of what can be done if enough people get interested in it, so I couldn't say that-all has been don~, no. As far as the temporary nature of this, in the last proposal of the local Los Angeles office prior to going to Mr. ~egarra in Sacramento, was that the only kind of ramp we could have would be one which would involve an estimated $~.6 million in City money to acquire r~ght-of- ways so we could get access at Newport. Of course, the local division District 7 at that time had recommended against this off-ramp as we have un'der discussion now, but that if the City really wanted to have access which would permit still the widening of the freeway and that access would be of a permanen~ nature and would cost uS this $1.6 million. .Mr. ArgyroS - Would thethe an ultimateinterchangelfor the future? Mr. Gill - That would be the. type of access at Orange and Lagu~a'~Oad which wO~l~ be basiually a Newport area off-ramp ~'~ ~l~imate Width. Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 12 Mayor Coco - It would be compatible with the ultimate widening, but am I not correct that this would then be the only off-ramp into the City of Tustin, we would not have the Red Hill off- ~ ramp? Mr. Gill That looks like the way it would be proposed be- cause they would probably have some access at Browning although that wasn't guaranteed. Mayor Coco - So we would be back to the one off-ramp situation. I want to clarify my remarks after thinking about them. It seems I might have given the wrong impression. I don't mean to imply when I said the thought never occurred to us of goih~ for the temporary, that anyone on the Staf~ or Council is unimaginative and that it didn't occur to d~, but knowing the background of how we even were considered by the Commission for a hearing that that was their rock-bottom condition and must be temporary. Realistically looking at it there was no way to go back. As'you know we have pushed very hard and very long by a great many people to get where we are right now with the State and the State isn't our biggest problem at this point. Mr,Argyros - What is the priority that the State has for the improvement of the interchange of what is the Newport and Santa Ana Freeways, 5'and 55? Mr. Gill The State uses an eight-year projection program. This is not scheduled on their eight-yea~ program which then puts it past the eight year poiht. So for discussion purposes, we've been saying 10 years before they get down to re-constructi: the interchange etc. However, the way that interchange is today, at least at the local District 7, they feel it's one of their most critical problems, the ~act that it's no~ on their eight-year program~ They have been known, and they are doing every year, putting projects on the eight-year program maybe in the fourth or fifth year that were never even on the eigh year program due to the emergency character of it. So I cou__n' say for sure; it's just not on the eight-year program now. That' all we know. Mr. Argyros Would it be possibl~ to fight for a permanent resolution to this whole problem that would encompass the ultimate in fr~ew~y there so that yo~ could live with it in the future? Wouldn't it be better to know that a ramp would be in there within four or five years or seven or eight or nine years that would be permanent, that would solve the problem permanently and not just temporarily? Is that possible at all to work with the State? Mayor Coco - The State has been willing to entertain two possibilities for the off-ramp. One is the Newport Avenue off-ramp of a temporary nature, and the second is the one that would be compatible with the ultimate widening, the one tha~ was previously mentioned at Orange. We're talking not about $200,000 but $1.6 million. Mr. Ar~yros ~ However, would it be possible to work with the State so you can come up with a plan that you want and let them do the acquisition? Mayor Coco - The whole idea behind all of this effort has bee'- to have an off-ramp now and the City needs it most desperately. I think we're talking about ultimat~ acquisition a' good number of years into the future unless I'm missing the intent of your question here. We'dhave to convince the~State that we needed that particular off-ramp at Orange AVenue as soon as we need a temporary off~amp in the ~ext ~le of years and come up with Mr. Argyros - I'm not talking about the City acquiring it, I'm talking about negotiating with the State and working for an off-ramp at Newport or between Red Itill and Newport that will permanently solve the problem. If you have the temporary ramp, does that mean that another ran~p' ~ill come in at Orange Council Meeting ~ 3/16/70 Page 13 eventually? ~:~'~'~ ~!'~'~ Mayor Coco -When the Freeway is ultimately widened, there will be anoff-ramp. ~he Red Hill Off-ramp won't exist either when it's widened. It depends on the point". Do you , w the ultimate boundaries'of this freeway~ idening that re contemplating~now for the next ten to-'~fe~'~'n ~ears? Mr. Gill- Wellthe=bOundaries of that would be everything wl'I'~the City limits is what they're.talking about on the ultimate freeway because the. Newport Freeway and Santa Ana Freeway both will have tO be reconstructed. The work that is presently under construCtion on the Newport Freeway is still of an interim nature. Mayor Coco :- How far to'the south and east wouldit have to be widened? Are we talking about all the~way to E1 Toro, MissiOn Viejo, San Diego? Mr. Gill They're proposing a twelve lane system, ~he way I understand it now, to the Newport Freeway on the Santa Ana Freeway and then 10 lanes from the Newport Freeway:easterly. All I know is that it will go at least to Browning Avenue and, of course, past"that is out of the City, but on =he original proposal there would be a re-construction Of the interchange at Red Hill with no ~urther access in the City. Then the proposalshownthat we could'get access into the City near Newport Avenue which would involve'this additional expenditure of monies because it would cause quite a bi~ of acquisition of property. So both of these at the first brush and as we've looked a~ them didn't seem too acceptable, the expenditure of $1.:6...million to get that access. Mr. Arqyros - One more:queStion and you'll have to pardon me for this long dissertation. Perhaps the City Attorney can answer this. :What happens in the event the City. files con- de'mnation action on the property and then somewhere down the line they don't get this agreement worked out with the State satisfactorily? Mr. Woodruff - As I see it-there are three possibilities. One, the City will own some property and they won't have a freeway on it. Two, the =condemnation action could just be written off by the property owners and said fine, no harm. On the other hand, property owners could claim loss to the City if they held it for any length of time under threat of eminent domain and precluded, perhaps, development either alleged or factual. The'~City could, of course/be responsible for those damages. Mayor Coco - Thank you Mr. Argyros. Councilman C. Miller - It seems to me the best suggestion that's been made perhaps is that the ramp be financed through the sale of the proposed Civic Center property. On the other hand we do have a considerable maintenance operation and use Of space and land the~e~ If the City were to sell that land, where would that operation go, Mr~ Gill? How much space would we have to have somewhere else? Mr. Gill - The City is presently acquiring property down at Red Hill and the Flood Control Channel for the future Fire Sub-station and operations yard. There are certainly no facilities there at the present time. It is raw land, but it=is a site and by the end of this calendar year we will have acquired the last'parcel=of that site. There is no other space available in the City. As you know we are constructing a temporary office building and there'sjust no=other City propert We are certainly gettihg more equipment in if you've notic&d down there. In fact we had three vehicles delivered today and it is getting very'crowded. Now that raw land down by the Flood Control Channel could be used for this but we would have to ~~ ~Ome Eacilities. council Meetin 3/16/70 Page 14 market value of that site? Mr. Gill - No. I have understood that we would certainly get our money back and at'a profit if we went to sell it, if there's a buyer. As you know we acquired the property at the time we bought it a bit below the going value. Our appraisal was higher that what we made the final purchase for. Mayor Coco - Could you make an estimate, since thi~sis obviously going to be discussed at some length up here. $200,000? Mr. Gill - The purchase of the property, as I remenber, was around $230,000 Mayor Coco - Would you estimate a 10% increase, 20%. Can we talk about $300,000 as a round figure? Mr. Gill - The property was purchased for a dollar a square, foot. The net acreage around there is something around 5.2 I believe. Councilman L. Miller - We have two real estate people in the audience, perhaps Mr. Greenwood or Mr. Argyros would be in a position, not to commit yourself, but give us an opinion of what the appreciation could have been. Mayor Coco For purposes of discussion let's just assume that if we were to sell that Civic Center property that the money could be taken in thousand dollar bills and given to the owner of the property, if he's willing to sell and the freeway off-ramp right Of way could be bought with the Civic Center property. Let's just establish that. It may be more or a little less depending on the ultimate appraisal of the land and the sale price of the Civic Center property. Now where do we go from here? Councilman Marsters - I want to ask Mr. Gill a question. you been approached at all by anybody for that civic site as a potential purchase? Mr. Gill - No. If I may just add one thing to this if I could. As you know the property was purchased for the construction of the Civic Center. It would seem that the termination of the use of that land should be determined maybe prior to taking action to do something with it before we decide, and you do have certainly a report in front of you from the TNT Cemmittee. One of the reasons we have not started architectural activity on t~at property is for the final determination of what and where and how the Civic Center Will be. After that's determined or re-evaluated then:'.theproperty would.be subject to sell. At the present time the property is in use as our public works yard. Councilman Oster - Mr. Gill, do you have the building permit valuation on the "Sizzler Steak House"? Do you have any idea what they declared the value to be? Mr. Gill - Yes, the permit value of the building is $41,712 and then with additional architectural, grading, etc., we __ estimate somewhere in the neighborhood of $55,000 as the value of the property. Some 10% to date of that value is installed, about 3-4% of the physical work is installed or maybe even a little less than that. But you consider various services have gone into it, about 10% value has been committed and about 3% cf the physical plan. Councilman Oster - Procedurally, if tomorrow morning we were to decide to instruct the City Attorney to commence condemnation of this property, what's our ]time table as far as money goes and availability as .we go along? Mr. Gill - Condemnation action could be taken this week in Court which would file with the Court notice or intent to acquire the property of eminent domain. We would not at this Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 15 point in time stop work or anything like that on the property, but the developer wo~ld be on notice that there was a strong possibility that we Would proceed with this~ Once all of our agreements have been worked out with the State, the State ,,,' en Would move into formal appraisalof the roperty. further w~th that, there willbe design hearings and things. We anticipate about one year's time for the acquisition of the property. At the time they s~art w~th acquisition activity possibly right even starting on the appraisal, but at least by the time westar~ the acquisition, the State would require half of ~he estimat&d appraisal'cost as adorn payment on the part of'~he City. No~ until last Friday, as I mentioned to you, the State had been using the figure of $75,700L Our half share approximately would be $40,000 which would be due now. In conversatiOn las of Priday night with the State, and they have ~reed wi~h our ~ppra~sor on this new figure, it looks'lik~ ~!a!f amount down payment would be~the new figur~ because their rule of ~humb is half down and the figure that they use in the poin~ in time they move in acquisition would be the figure ~ha~ we would have to pay half of. The balance of tha~, then, wouldbe due upon completion of acqufsiton or a year from now. Councilman Oster- Then immediately upon their appraisal we.!d have to come up with $87~500assuming a $175,000 appraisal ~r. Gill- If ~his is the figure tha~ ~hey~re~going to use, yes that is-true° Councilman Oster- Now!we ha~e how much allocated at the presen~ ~or that? Mr. Gill - By June 30~h we'll have $55,000 in monies in gas Councilman Oster - O.K., then a year from then we'd have to come up with an additional $87,500? ~r. Gill The acquisition could be more or less time than a year. A year fs what the State feels would be a comfortable figure if everything went very wetl~ f~ could benfne months maybe ff ~hfngs wen~ ~ery~bad. ~f~hCour~ action, e~c., f~ could be longer ~han ~ha~ Of course ~he ~o~al cos~, ff ~he~e~s a lo~ of Court-ac~ion~ e~c., would add ~o f~, bu~ ~e way we see i~ now i~ ~ould be half down no~ and half in a .Councilman Osier - Where would you ~f~hfn a year from no~, I kno~ you've given us'some figures, ff a year from no~ ~e had ~o come up wi~h $87,500. Do ~e have enough ~o acquire Red Hill Fire S~a~ion? ~r. Gill - The ~cquisi~fon of proper~y for ~he Red Hill Fire S~fon ~ould be from General Fund revenues. The monies ~e're ~alkfng abou~ here would~ypfcally come from your S~ree~ Pur- pose Funds ~hfcb ~ould be primarily g~s ~ax. ~e do have some T~affic Safe~y money, 'e~C. ~l~hough we like ~o ~rea~ ~hose ~he area of general government e~enses because ~hey're more flexible. The money ~a~:we receive approximately $13,000- $14~000 ~ month fn gas ~ax money ~fll be used:for ~hfs purpose. If ~e use soley g~s ~ money ~e ~ould ~hen h~ve'~o defer some projec~s, ef~herdefer some ~Urren~ ye~r. or~due ~o curren~ year budgeted pro~ec~S~ cu~ back pro~ec~s for nex~ year in ~he gas ~ax ~rogram. In o~her words, ~he ~cqufsf~fon of ~he off- ramp is ~n ~he neighborhood of ~ou~ one yea~ff s~ree~ ~mprove- merits are curtailed. Councilman Osier - ~d ~ha~'s ~he ne~ effect? ~r. Gill - Tha~ would be prfmarfly ~he ne~ effect. ~e could use o~he~ monies~ e~c.;~ bu~ some~hfng's go~ ~o give and ~h~ Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 16 Mr. Gill - We would have some monies for emergency activity etc., and certainly have to and, of course, a portion of our gas tax money presently goes into the maintenance of public rights of way, but I~m making reference to new construction such as some of the things we talked about tonight, possibly the First Street activity, any major work there, or Prospect and other projects we have throughout the City. Councilman L. Miller - You're stating that it would have to be curtailed but if, for example, the proposed Civic Center site over on Centennial Way was closed and/or sold, basicall~' these funds could be diverted because I believe our Civic Center problem is alleviated at least for a 2 or 3 year peric~ with the purchase 6r lease of this new building we're receiving. So would not the additional funds made available from the sale of this land, whether it takes us a year or a year and a half,. be ~ble to be diverted into this without having to curtail any of the budgeted items presently? Mr. Gill If I understand your question, yes,you c6uld sell the Civic Center property, put 'that money ~n the off-rampS' not defer the gas tax projects - Councilman L. Miller No, use the gas tax for the $56,000 immediately. We'll have approximately another $20,000 or $25,000 we'd have to come up with. But within, then, the next year if we were unable to secure additional gas tax or other diversion of monies, there should certainly be a way that we could raise the money without stating that we're going to have to cancel any remaining budgeted improvements in streets. We'd only be looking at possibly a third of the Civic Center money to get the freeway at that point, assuming we could get $300,000 for that site today. Mr. Gill Well, as I say, the way I understand your questior' then, we would sell or do something with the Civic Center property and our existing structures as we've anticipated wi] last, say, three years, but then two years from now we'd be faced with the situation of what to do one year later after that point. Councilman L. Miller - But if we received, say, an appreciation on the ground price basically we'd be at a break even point. That would give us perhaps, one year set back on the Civic Center development but at least we could have the site. I think the key thing that TNT and the other groups have said is pick the Civic Center site so that the community can build around it and not necessarily build a civic center. like tomorrow. Mr. Gill Are you proposing sale of the property? Councilman L. Miller - Yes,,if that is not to be the site of the Civic Center. Mr. Gill - Well, then we'd be faced a couple years from now or something like that of purchasing a site or renting or what- ever we'd do'. We have in~our estimate, of course it may run more or less time than that, but we have facilities that will probably last us a couple or three years. We're saying three years. It takes a while, of course,'even if we proceeded tc ~y~ it would take about this long to move into a new structure. It could be done. About three years from now something would have to be done in the way'of a'permanent facility. - This, Of course, depends upon the growth off and not proceed at the same rate it has been ~'n the last few years then the problem is farther away, isn't Mr. Gill Yes it is. We didn't project this type of growth forever, of course. When you consider we've moved .from 12,000 to 18,000 to 26,000 in a two year period. No, we've not pro- jected that in saying our present facility will last us 3 years or that we'll need X space 20 years from now. Of course, as w~ get cl,lr;e i tl'-~ tiptoe n ~ ' ned on n~-- 3/16/70 Page 17 ~2 F~ calculations. Councilman C. Miller- I think there's another aspect to this perhaps that we should consider if we're in the discussion about ~he site at Centennial Way and tha~ is a portion of that money and we don't know how much, would have to go to ~make up the facilities that we would be losing there. As ~!~:example, if you move the corporation yard ~i~ities down II~ Red Hill,= we'd have to do paving and construction of facilities, shops, offices, etc. We don't have any idea what that investment might be. Another thing to consider is that I think this site here could very Well be large enough with some small additional acqUisitionsto be the ultimate Civic Center site. But we would or should perhaps! use a portion~Of the fundSlthat would result from the sale to do those acquisitions here. I think it's a pretty complex question and there is that option that Len mentioned that we would have a year~t0 make the decision or find out whether we. have to sell, or we could sell, or we come up With the money from the other street projects and defer things. And I assume that we're~deferring the things like the signals that are scheduled to be put in jointly with the County down on Red Hill Avenue at Nisson and Walnut and Mitchell and some other things that are really~prettyvital. Mr. Gill - Mr. Miller,?I would suggest there are some of these on that program that were presented to you a couple weeks ago that I think we just must do and those Red Hill sigmals, the drain by the Nelson School and a few Others, these would be what!Iwould term the emergency or critical pro~cts that should be done. We would be deferring other things but I think that those hold pretty much of a top priority, those four signals on Red Hill. But there would be some that other areas of town, etc. which may be as critical to the people there, but those (si~n~is) I think are important and they are budgeted thisyear. Councilman C. Miller - Well would they have to be deferred? Sorry, I didn't bring.the list of projects that we had at our two previous meetings. Mr. Gill - I may mention one other thing, Mr. Miller, in line with what you were saying, it's been proposed and we've had some discussion that the.facilities down on Red Hill would be some joint facility with the School District and Maintenance, etc. SO if we in the next year or so, construct anything down there it probably would most likely be of some temporary nature because as the school develops down there, the shops and things like this, it looks very feasible that the City'and School District would combine on some structures for joint Shops. This is still in the discussion stage and it may turn out that we won't do this, but it looks like'it probably would be the best route to~go. Councilman L. Miller- I'd like to ask, without having again to cancel any priority-item, I believe we had an offer of a possible loan at one point, below prime interest. WoUld that still be available? Mr. Greinke-- I'm told it's illegal to do this. COuncilman L. Miller -~Could we borrow it on a one year basis? Councilman C. Miller - It would be due June 30th, this year. Councilman L. Miller -.I was going to say that i~ we could borrow it, say for a l~ month period, and then decide if we're going to sell the old Civic Center site or What other items~ Councilman C. Miller -~We would have to pay it back on June 30th. Coun~il~an~L, Miller - It cannot go 12 months from the date o~an? '. Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 18 Mr. Woodruff - Mr. Mayor, it has to be the budgetary year. If you take the loan out on June 20th, you have 10 days. The basic rule is you can only commit yourself to expend monies which you have previously budgeted for receipt in the same year. Councilman Oster Mr. Gill, the Fire Station on Red Hill. Where does that stand and where do we get the funds for it? Mr. Gill - I wish I could say we've been saving money to build a Fire Station; we have not. These are all issues tha~- I think, frankly, we'll be getting into some very serious discussion in budget season. And as TNT is getting more involved and there have been discussions with the COmmittee of the possibility of how do we finance some of these things, and certainly one way to finance anything is bond issues~ Bond issues tendto be the cheapest way that government can go. It gets you your facility now and you pay it off over a long period of time~ but these are decisions that have not been made. We do not have currect capital as an example sufficient to go out and build a Fire Station and to equip it. We're talking about a ladder truck of some $80~000, a regular pump at $45,000 and these kind of things plus the structure. We just do not have that kind of revenue. Councilman C. Miller - We're talking about almost the same capital cost to build and equip the Fire Station as the off- ramp. Councilman L. Miller - The factor would obviously be there are certain items that can obviously be diverted to a later date on priorities and obviously if we do not make a decision on this at this time, we'll never get a second swing at the bat,with the construction starting. Councilman Oster - I think we've sort of done what we can. I have a few suggestions. One, I would like to get an appra al of the Civic Center property. I think we're talking about something again; we don't know how much it.'s worth. A lot of my decision will be based upon how much on a sale we could get of that property, assuming the highest and best use and the zone that would, in effect, be compatible with the other zoning.. I think at this point that it would be premature to have an immediate condemnation or instruct the City Attorney to immediately institute condemnation action. I would suggest that after we get an appraisal and then I would request either a letter appraisal or as quick an appraisal that we can possibly get on that Civic Center property. We will kn, ow at least better whether we're talking about losing the Fire Station or having some funds for that. I figure that ~he cost of the building is $60,000, if we wait another month or two when they'll have the building completed. Then if we buy the building, we'll buy $60,000 worth of building. If we amortize the cost of a $60,000 building over again another period of twelve years which everyone's talking about, it's going to cost us $5,000 more a year to have waited awhile. I think in the long run the waiting awhile; I know it's going to be before us again and I'd like to make it go away just as much as some of you. But I don't have the facts now to really do it. I am in fav,~ at this point of working out a sale of the Civi'c Center prop utilizing a portion of the sale of the Civic Center property for the payment of the off-ramp, the getting of the Fire Station in the south Tustin area. I think if I had a Choice of prioriti i'd probably take the Fire Station first. The area needs a budget apart to have the off-ramp, yet I'm saying I would like to have an appraisal of that Civic Center property so that I know what we're talking about. I also note that the legislature in the material we got this evening and Mr. Greinke might be interested, in the Legislative Bulletin indicates an Assembly Bill 350 setting up a lease-purchase commission which is going to, I assume it hasn't been passed yet, which establishes a California Lease-Purchase Commission to provide for State-wide regulation of lease-purchase agreements by local agencies. Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 19 Specifies membership, powers ~and duties of the Commission and provides that any lease-purchaSe agreement made by a local agency which is not approVed by the Commission is contrazy to the public policy of this State and isvoid. ~s goes to your:idea of_having the non-profi~ COrporation ~ing around that way. I think if you wan~et together and the Chamber should get together'with the CityAttorney and try to worksomethingout where a proposal forlus if we can get it. Iamin favor of theoff-ramp. I am in favor of going as high as $170,000 or whatever the figure is but I am not in favor of seeing everything. else get ripped apart. I haven't heard anything tonight that would convince me that we're not going to have chaos if we voted t~is evening. I've seen no proposa~ tonight or last Tuesday night that Would indicate a legalmeans of getting the money to do it. The only proposal~We have is the sale of the Civic Center property. I'm not prepared tonight to employ a broker to sell the property~ I think the answer probably is !et's get an appraisal of that; we should have some type ofletter appraisal by next meeting~!I also think that in the interim period there will~be~some construction taking place; it's one of the risks that we're going to have to live through. I think, %n the interim period, I'd liketo see a proposal as to where everybody expects us to get the money, and I haven't seen it yet. The' only solution is the sale of the Civic Center property and maybe that's a recommendation. I know lateron the TNTCommittee has some recommendations which we're ~oing to have to consider. Mr. Gill I have just~one point. I did discuss Friday with the appraiser we have been using and I just won't be able to ge~ in two weeks, t'dOn't believe any further activity because I did discuss a couDIe other matters with him. I think we're very lucky and that itl's: fortunate on our part we were able to get the service wedid on'this off-ramp and we certainly could use another appraiser although this particular appraiser is the one that made the appraisal for us originally. It certainly would be wel~if we could use him again, but I think two weeks might be just ahair shy. I'll certainly talk to him in the morning if this is the direction that you want to go. CouncilmanMarsters It might be good to talk to someone else. Mayor Coco I'd like to talk some more about the sale of the Civic Center property. Councilman ester - I do-too, but I'd like to know what we're talking about. We're talking about a piece of property that wedon't know the value of. Mayor Coco - I think what I have to say doesn't really depend that much on the exact dollar figure. A couple of things occurred to me today, one,of them just recently that are kind of funny and amused my sensibilities. I don't think Len Miller will mind thiS,, at least I hope he doesn't but it just occurs to me that his suggestion that theltemporary office space will~be sufficient until we can sell the Civic Center property ~amused me no end, because at the time we were dis- cussing getting those temporary offices, I think it was Len Miller that fought against it because somedays, someone would come along and-say it's sufficient and we should sell the Civic Center property or that we shouldn't develop the Civic Center Property. The other thing, Iwas reading in one of the Mayor and Councilmen's magazines or National City or something tha~Mayor~erry of Williamsport, Pennsylvania, talked about the three biggest-problems that any city has. The three biggest problems that any city has are money,~finances and revenue and I think thisiS just kind of a facetious way of sa~ing 'that a Geuncil ~an really come ou~ and be a hero if there ~m~ ~!e~e ~ ~~,eve~ybody. ~rankmentioned'~hat he's not advocating diverting hny of these funds or competing with any other projects'and~I appreciate what's in hi~ ~ind, but Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 20 as far as I can see, maybe I'm a little limited on this', but as far as I can see we have to compete, by definition. Anytime we have money at our disposal, there are just a certain number of ways that we can dispose of it and if we decide on one over another then it's de facto competition and it's diverting from one project to another. We have budgeted items~ we have the signals at Red Hill; we have the drain at Nelson School. These are budgeted and maybe they will have to be deferred and maybe they won't, but what really concerns me are the unbudgeted items and all four of them, I think, have been mentioned tonight too. We are talking about $400,000 on FirSt Street, especially if the Chamber re -n-~. mendation to go Plan C, which is the ultimate, is taken. E1 Camino Real could~and, in my opinion, should be improved. Maybe the re-routing isn't the ultimate solution for everybody on E1 Camino, but I certainly think we ought to think about it. We've got the Civic Center development to consider; we've got. the Red Hill Fire Station. These are all unbudgeted items, ladies and gentlemen. Even the budgeted items are going to suffer. Can you imagine what the unbudgeted items'-status is going to be? It's also been mentioned that we're not talking about the initial price, we're talking about amortizing over 8 to 12 years, whatever we come up with. It seems to me from what I've learned about business, that a businessman considers the present worth of his monetary investment and I guess the Council has to consider not only the monetary return but the aesthetic return as well. I agree with Mrs. Wagner that Newport Avenue is really a mess. It's an eyesore of the com- munity, of course, most of the mess is in the County, but we have a monetary and an aesthetic return to consider. I havenYt been shown tonight, at the Tuesday meeting or previously to that, that the investment at this time or even the amorti- zation over 8 to 12 years of.thiS particular project which we were all for when it cost $40,000-$50,000. I haven't been shown that we are going to have such a monetary and aesthetic_ return to justify the investment at this time. Now maybe you say I'm not forward looking enough, not vision~'y enough to have the imagination to see that this return is coming through. I was told today by an individual that I was afraid to spend money. That's kind of refreshing after all of the criticism for spending meney that has be'en going on the last six years, but it's not really accurate. The law gives me the power, with my collegues, to ,allocate you~ money and it's all of your money, not just the people in this room. but the money of all the citizens of ~ustin and it just occurs to me and I have to live with this is that I'm obligated to spend it in some 9rderly sequence ~f priorities. It's fine to talk about seIIing ~his piece of property or borrowing that much money,but it all comes down to the-fact ~hat whatever scheme we take or whatever appraisal we get, whatever cookies we sell, we're going to wind up with X number of dollars that the City Council has to dispose of somehow~ maybe we'll get an appraisal and maybe w~'ll continue this discussion;rmaybe we!li go two weeks and maybe we'll go two more months but it comes down to the fact that some day, through some circum- stance or some scheme, we will come up with some $.250,000. It's a pile of money; it's in fives and tens and twenties or whatever denomination there is. Now the Council has to decid_e what do we do with it. That's the problem, money, finances and revenue. What do we do with that money? Do we put it i the off-ramp. What's our return for the off-ramp? Or do we buy the First Street widening, the E1 Camino improvements, the Civic Center or do we buy the Red Hill Fire Station? Do we ~onti~ue with som~of the budgeted items. I'm not ready no matter wha~ people come up with, that the Newport Avenue off-ramp has the top priority and if you gentlemen agree at this time, then I suggest that we go ahead with whatever schemes have been suggested to come up with that amount of dollars. Councilman L. Miller -I'd like to clarify one point. A few weeks ago whe'n we"d~'scussed ~he Civic Center site, I'was very strongly in favor of the Council actually determining where Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 21 to enable the community to expand and build around that site. .I was also, at that time, definitely in favor of starting construction on the permanent building rather than a temporary one of~uch permanent nature, it's air-conditioned etc., that basically appeared to have the high cost to it, We now have this struCture~which basically is going to, in my I~,~nion, take' Care of the problem for at lea~=~ or three y~ars.- As fa~ as ~Heoff-~amp is concernea,'f~'~ are going to be looking towards an~off~ramp to the City which we do not have, an additional'$~0,000 or whatever we've~been talking about is going tO"be a c~nsiderable amount of_money. As far as the off-ramp is,concerned~, we've basically gone out to ~he ~0mmun:ity~and .~aid~e want an off-ramp at this time.and we want your support, and we've got their support and basically they'~e all delivered from the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Association, Senator Schmitz and everyon~ else that's been involved~ith this. We now have achieved our goal and the object of finan~in.g and money was not the question; it was g=et the State to revise item 4 f~om the cOmmittment that they gave to the C~ty. Now that w~'ve gotten what We wanted, there's a~other barrier.'~Mr. Gill, I'd like to ask, you stated before that without scraping someof the projects that we do have $56,000 in gas tax revenue Which means that we really would only be $25,000 .approximately o!ut of pocket this year, is that correct? In~ ot~'e~ WOrds, if the figure is, say $175,00 half of that wouldbe~the $8~,000 figure and we ha~e $56,000 which would not take away~any of the priorities for this year, is ~that correct? Mr. Gill - We'll have $55,000 by June 30th. We don't have all of that right now.~ Councilman L. Miller - So the only item we would have to scrap out of our committed~budget would be approximately $26,000 of funds. Mr. Gill - I suppose, maybe $30,000, something like that, yes. Councilman L. Miller - It seems to me, then, if We're really on looking at $30,000 that this is a figure that is-minimal as compared to waiting a~other two weeks, three weeks or a month with the construction ~ncreasing far above that point unless we acquire it. It wouldalso'seem to me that'we've gotten the State to concede to th~is~ point, that if we did start condem- nation, perhaps work as closely with Mr. Argyros in trying to convince the State that the word temporary is going to perhaps create a further barrfer to the public for financing or re- financing projects'of theirs, and they've conceded this far, they might go one step further. But it would seem to me that we're really only looking at $30,000 and we're not going to be looking at the complete scraping of priority items, such as street lights and fi're stations and items of this nature that are there. councilman oster - Mr. Mayor we are=looking at $87,000 the next year; that's the only problem~ Mayor Coco - Not only that, Mr. Miller, I don't think it's necessary to engage~in adebate. I think we are really on the same side of this thing, but I'd be very reluctant to leave anybody with the impression that it's only $30,000 that we're looking at. YOu sayw~thout scraping projects, well of course you'd probably scrap the projects that are worth $30,000 but those are the budgeted projects that will only suffer to the ~une of $30,000. Atethe ~isk of repeating mYSelf~ I have look forward to theu~budgeted projects and these are by far orders of magnitude more expensive and more costly, but I hope more worthwhile than the budgeted projects we have. So the $30,000 'figure tha~ you arrive at is a very Valid one if we neglect the fact that there is another b~dget year coming up and w~ ~e~lly have no way to pay f~r %hOs~ additional un- budg~g pEO3~S a~d ~hey wilt fa~'~ ~hy ~ven~ for Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 22 but it really is, if you'll forgive me, a little bit simplistic to talk about a $30,000 question or decision to be made here when we really have so many unbudgeted items that.have to take our attention. Mr. Webster - Mr. Mayor, I was going to comment to that point. You're discussing an immediate outlay of funds within this fiscal year to cause a situation to begin not to complete one. Secondly, you have an appraisal which was developed on your set of criteria I am sure, by the appraisor, which they are prone to do for the client. I would also re-emphasize to yo~-- what was made abundantly clear at the Tuesday meeting that the condemnation action were initiated by the Council, it wo~ be contested. If it were contested, the appraisal ~hat you have may be your submission, but not the only one and the final determination of what the severance damages and acquisition of right of way costs and other items to be included in that, may or may not be your figure. In condemnation actions it is not unknown that the condemning agency is not the winner, if there is a winner, in the price game. So it is, in my mind, very simplistic to back off with certain numbers to arrive at a now cost and then attribute that to the entire project. I think yourre looking at much more than the difference of $55,000 of available gas tax revenue as opposed to the differential for a half down to create a beginning. You're looking at much more and to point out Mr. Gill's comment at certain other things. If you, in fact, commit yourselves to the sale of eertain things~ before you,ve decided alternative solutions to those problems, you may have solved one problem, and again as Mr. Argyros has pointed out, temporarily,but you may have created for yourself a far greater problem immediately. Mayor2'Coco - If there's any further discussions, this would be the time to hear them or anyone in ~he audience, might as well come up and make your feelings known. -- Councilman Marsters I might comment on one thing, Mr. Oste: s thought about appraising the Civic Center site is probably a good idea, however, I think I feel a little bit like you; I dOp't think in my mind it will prove anything except the value of the property. I think we would have to think of what uses we might put to th6Se dollars that if we did make a profit, so what; we will use them on some of these other i~ems which are more important to us perhaps than the off-ramp. I think the off-ramp's important and I fought for it too, but I cannot feel that, as a businessman, would I put up $150,0~0 or $200,000 or a quarter of a million dollars in hard-earned cash for something that may only lastseven years, or ten at the most and I canndt feel in my heart that it"s worth it. If it's $40,000 or $50,000 I'm for it, $75,000 I'd go that but I have a mental block over that figure and I just can't feel that it's worth all of this. I agree with some of the discussion tonight that it's probably not going to really help the.flow of traffic generall~in the old downtown Tusti~ area. I think it will help the Newport obviously on that s~rip and perhaps we will develop some strip commercial there from it, but I don't think that it's going to have .the overall benefit that we all feel it will have. I can call an end to it tonight. Councilman C. Miller - I'd like to ask Mr. Marsters a questi~ and anyone else who feels they have experience on this can answer also. What is the possibility of a temporary traffic generator like this developing any permanent property develop,- ment of major value? Councilman./Marsters - In my situation, I haven't been con- fronte~ Wi~ ~he problem but generally speaking I khow if loan or any majo~ improvement near this p~oposed o~f-ramp tha~ may be only temporary in nature. I think any appriasor would dig out the facts and he would penalize the property accordingl~ So that would be a point of concern to anyone that would want to improve the property ~oth to the owner and the lender. -~. ~,~¢ Council Meeting ~7~ 3/16/70 Page 23 Mr. Argyros -~ What experience that we've had with lenders and also tenants,'I "think it's always very easy or it's a not there today, but any time you present something negative, certainly, it's really nota help. to the area at all. You may be able to be 'sUccessful in developing some commercial uses that are not of a permanent nature. But anybody that's going to be in there with any kind of an expenditure certainly is going to check it out 'and the minute that the chance of the traffic patternI_being changed - it's going to lessen your chances of Successon that~location~ I might also add that in most leases with major corporations of any substance they'll have a provision in there generally to the effect that if, in the event;, any. of the major traffic arteries are changed etc., that they have an escape clause. Now there ~ay be a cancelation andthe~ PaY X dollars, but they want the right- to get out and this is quite common among major companies. Councilman 0ster ~ I don't think this is fair eithe~ to the Chamber orthe property owners or to us, I'm.going to make a motion probably. I'think we should at this ~'point write a letter to the State thanking them for their cooperation in the matter and adyising~them that based upon the appraisal given to us, we are unable to~ within our budget limitations, have the off-ramp as proposed!. I think the letter should include some of the background material that has. been given to us here, including the original estimates, the additional.estimates and the final appraisal that we have received. I also think the letter to the State~should also indicate that due to the temporary nature of the off-ramp, we find the expenditure over three times, well it will come out to probably four times the original estimate givenby the State is unreasonable. I'm making this motion justzbriefly to once and for all to take ineffect all of the people who have been working on it and apparently we don't-have a-solution. I've heard from no land owner in that area who.apparently has given us any specific and concrete proposal for their property and I also believe that by the time we get a Civic Center property site appraisal and having listened to my fellow Councilmen, the ultimate widening of the freeway will have taken place and I would there fore move that a letter insuch formbe sent to the State. Councilman Marsters -~I"'lI second, for purposes of discussion. Mayor Coco - You all heard Councilman Oster,s motion. It has been seconded. Isthere further discussion? Councilman L. Miller - One question. You mentioned something about the Civic Center appraisal. Is that part Of your motion? Councilman Oster - No, it was not part of the motion. I see we have a TNT report later On and at that time, I don't want to throw this in the motion at this time. I think we do need an appraisal of that but not in this motion. Councilman Marsters One thought. ~.wonder, Mr. Oster, did you mean ~o include a~copy of the appraisal for the State? Councilman Oster ~. I think they should at least have the apparently the appraiSor didn't want us to release the backup material.' I think the first two or three pages of the appraisa would be sufficient. Councilman L. Miller ~ But then if we do do this, it's basicall2 scraping,then,the offeramp. Mayor Coco - No, not necessarily. This does not obligate us to refrain from listening to any other concrete proposals. If Southern Pacific werelto come in and say the off-ramp would i~@~ b~in~ abo~t the razing of SunkiS~ Cathedral and ~ the impetus Ee~/eu~ buiXdin~ in here. 2,~ quite certain that at least one of the Council would attempt.to ~?in~ ik~ before the rest of the Council for decision. All we're doing now is informing the State that with great regret, because of the increased cost and the selection of other alternatives, that the City cannot at this time go ahead with this proposal. Is there further discussion? Councilman C. Miller If the vote is to approve this motion, I think one other thing the letter should include is a statement that will back up what you ]ust said, that we wish to not close the matter in a final way. Mayor COco - Is this agreeable? CouncilmanOster - That was the intent of the letter. Mayor Coco - If there is no further discussion then those in favor please signify by saying "Aye." (Ayes: Marsters, C. Miller, Coco, Oster) Those opposed. (Nay: L. Miller) Motio~ carries with one negative vote. Mayor Coco - Well I think there's no doubt that this has been given a thorough hearing. I hope it's been a fair hearing. We have called for inputs from all members of the community and those in the audience. We have waited patiently while those decided whether or not they would speak. The matter as you've heard discussed here is not ended. If other inputs should come up to indicate that the return would, in fact, be a better return than some of the alternative proposals. At this time i'll declare a 10 minute recess. Mr. Rourke arrivedat 9:30 PM.- VIII~ NEW BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTION NO. 70-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, PETITIONING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CANCEL TAXES Mr. Gill explained that this resolution would cancel taxes on certain pieces of property within the City territory. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Oster that Resolution No. 70-13 be read b7 title onl7. Carried. Moved by L. Miller, seconded b70ster that Resolution No. 70-131, petitioning the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to cancel taxes, be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE PARKWAYS ON FIRST STREET, BRYAN AVENUE, AND RED HILL AVENUE. Mr. Gill suggested that the Council omit the last line of the minute order reading "and the Surety Bonds to be exonerated at that time." Council agreed. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that the City Council accept the work on the construction of concrete parkways on First Street, Bryan Avenue and Red Hill Avenue and authorize payment of $4,681.98 which is 90% of the contract amount, to the contractor, Markel Cement Contracting Co., with the re- maining 10% to be paid in thirty days. Carried. 3. EXECUTION OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - PUBLIC AGENCIES DATA SYSTEMS. .Mayor Coco. stated that Mr. Blankenship and'Councilman Oster were the city representatives to the Organization for Computer Planning and that they agreed to the joint powers agreement and the by~l~ws propo~ed~ By-Laws for Pub~]ic Agencies Data ~y~t~-,ins. 'Carrie~. Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 25 4. TNT COMMITTEE REPORT - CHARLES GREENWOOD, CHAIRMAN Mr. Greenwood explained= that there were three recommendations, two from'the Town Center:Sub-Committee and one, in two parts, from the General-PlanSub-Committee all unanimously approved i the TNT Committee. The first recommendation concerned ~st Street. Plan "C" was recommended as th~y,~decided it would be better to adopt the ultimate plan and proceed as fast as possible as available' funds Would permit. They also recom- mended application to the Board of Supervisors for a contri- bution ofconstruction costs and listed priorities of project implementation. The seeond recommendation concerned the location of the Civic Center site. Ultimate acquisition o2 part of the school site was suggested using the proceeds of the sale of the present. Civic Center site on Main and Centen- nial Way. This would be a combination park and community center. Also, the administrative offices of the City should be on'a long-term lease~rather than owned with only the Fire and Police Departments on City property at the present site. The third recommendation concerned the Goals and Objectives for the Tustin City Proper and also policy statements for the implementation of these Goals. He stated that the Committee would appreciate approval of these recommendations so far. Councilman Oster asked in.relation to the=leasing of office spaces whether the Committee envisioned some type of a separ- ation of functions of the Administration and Police and Fire. Mr. Greenwood stated that the Committee felt that the present site would be better for-the downtown Tustin area. If there was a projection on the amount of office space needed by the City, bids Could be put out like anything else and a private enterprise could build and'lease to the City for a term of years. The exaction location would be up-t~} the Council. The Committee didn't think the location of the Administrative office .would need to be with the Police and Fire Departments. Councilman Oster asked where and what they envisloned..the Community Center to be. Mr. Greenwood explained tha~ it would be either on the present site or on the new school property. The library might be included as well as a park, and council chambers. Councilman Oster asked, in regard to First Street, whether any correspondence or approach had been made to any property owner on First Street as to dedication. Mr. Greenwood stated that the Committee would like to see the Council adopt the p!an//then engineer the plan and at that time there should be a public spirited group that would take over. and try to help get that right-of-way. Councilman Oster stated that he was certain that everyone wanted Plan C, but that~he hoped there would be no cost problem. Hewould liketo see an-appraisal on the proposed engineering Costs and righ~of-wa~. Mayor Coco asked whether ~t would be feasi~ie to go ahead on a step by step basis as suggested by the TNT Committee and would it be possible~O determine the right~of-way needs now and then determine how much would be voluntary and how much would need to be purchased. This would enable_the City to find out what its position<is in regard to incurring expense. Mr. Gill stated that there were different ways. One way would be to determine the type of ultimate development wanted on the street. Once this is khoWnand after it is engineered, then attemptto acquire as mueh as possible at no cost, and of course, the remaining could be appraised. One problem may be that the matter would be delayed or would not be desireable, etc, Anothe~ W~y WoUld be to~.appraise it al~ now and then see what coU18 Council Meeting 3/ 6/v0 Page way needs should be known so that the engineering could take place. Councilman Oster asked what the first step should be, and when should the County be approached. Mr. Gill stated that AHFP money, possibly, would be available as First Street is an arterial highway. The first step would be to make a determination as to which plan will be pursued by the City. During discussions, the County could be contacted. CoUncilman Oster stated that the City should not obligate itself to Plan C, unless the actual cost is known. Mr. Gill agreed and said the steps would be to first determine the desired plan, then the engineering, discussion with the County, acquisition of free right-of-way and appraisal and dedication of remaining right-of-way. As these steps are taken the actual cost will be determined. The actual cost cannot be determined until the engineering has been costed-out. Councilman C. Miller stated that what the Council really needed was a project schedule and a project budget to include the cost of engineering, appraisal, acquisition, right-of-way agent, etc. The Council needs to know the whole project cost from beginning to end. He asked whether the economic consultant had mentioned the development of First Street as a top priority. Mr. Greenwood stated that one of the consultant's recommendations was to improve the downtown area. TNT decided that First Street should be done first as well as E1 Camino Real. Mr. Gill stated that the consultant's report suggested converting 1/3 of the town center area into new facilities which would improve the economic condition. -- Mayor Coco stated that the Council agreed that the Staff shot ~ put toget~e~ a project schedule and budget which included the cost of steps. Plan C was the ul~imatefgoat, the only question was the cost and approach. Councilman C. Miller stated that it should be necessary to have a public hearing and notice to gather,.input from others, such as those property owners along First Street. The.cost needs to be determined before all. Councilman Oster stated that the Staff should accept Plan C for preliminary discussion. Moved by Oster, seconded by C. Miller that the Staff prepare a preliminary analysis for review by the Council as to a time- table and budget estimate for the engineering, acquisition of right-of-way, and for the obtaining of appraisals for Plan C. The Staff should also verify with the County of Orange as to availability of any funds from the County for the construction of this project. Carried. Councilman Marsters abstaining. Moved by Oster, seconded by L. Miller that the Staff be directed to (1) obtain an appraisal of the present Civic Center proper/j} (2) that the Staff enter into preliminary discussions with t? school board so that the Council knows of the availability o2 the property; and (3) that the Council have this repor~ at th~ earliest possible moment and be advised as to when they might anticipate an appraisal of the Civic Cente~ property. Carried. Ma~ ~eee s~a~e~ ~ha~ ~he ~i~d ~e~emmen~a%ion ~om TN~ had tO do with the General Plan Goals and Objectives for the Tustin City proper. Councilman Oster asked iE this matter could be continued due to its broad nauure. Mr. Gill stated that these recommendations had not be reviewed by the Planning CommissiOn. Council Meeting ~2~"~' 3/16/70 Page 27 Mr. Fleagle s'tated that this general plan could be developed insrages. If the Planning Commission could take it and schedule a public hearing, then the plan would gain community acceptance as.a foundation. ~or Coco. statedthat he'was not certain of ~s~e~of the specifi~ f wording, whether=it should go into a public h~aring. or'discus- slon in this stage. He agreed that it should go to the Planning Commission. " Councilman Oster State~"that he would like to review the plan before it went to the Planning Commission. Mayor Coco asked each Councilman to look over the G6als and Objectives as proposed by the TNT Committee with the idea of ultimately referring the plan to the Planning Commission. By the next Council meeting each Councilman should come back with his own version of what should go on to the Planning Commilssio] 5.' APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Marsters that the demands in the amount Of $63.,982~18 as submitted be paid. Carried- IX. OTHER BUSINESS 1. GENERAL PLAN Mr. Woodr~ff, chairman of the TNT General Plan sub-committee, explained that n~ither of the committees had anticipated that these Goals and Objectives as submitted tonight would be the generalplan for theTustin City area. The in%ent of the committee was ~o come back at a later date with a recommendation for a loca!~zed ge~er'ai plan which would need a public hearing. The real purpose 0f~these~Goals and Objectives was to give the committee a starting pointto undertake the ultimate general plan. Mayor Coco stated that while these Goals and Objectives were directedat the Tustin City Proper, he would like to see the committee give some of their feelings on the overall general plan and how it compares.~ Mr. Woodruff explained that there was no disagreement with the General Planin the Goals and Objectives and it is not limited to the existing City boundary line. 2. MISSION BELLS Mr. Gill stated that the Downtown Business Association had bresented two plans as ,to where to locate the 12 bells on E1 Camino Real. Councilman Marsters suggested studying this matter later and asking the Association I~o submit one plan. Councilman L. Miller stated that they should make the decision. -- Councilman Oster suggested writing a letter asking for one plan unless there is a minority=report. Council agreed. 3. LEAGUE OF CITIES DINNER Mr. Gill asked what personnel should attend the League of Cl~'~inner to be hosted by Tustin on March 26, 1970. Mayor Coco stated that most of the Staff, Department Heads, Planning Commissioners,. P~rks & Recreation'CommisSioners, Development PreviewCommittee~members as well as the Council should be invited, along'with the City Clerk and City AttorneY- Council agreed. Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 28 4. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ORDINANCE NO. 326 Mr. Gill stated he had areguest from Jack Harrison stating that the Parks.and Recreation Commission had adopted a motion recommending that the City Council amend Ordinance No. 326 to provide for the expansion of the Commission and additional representation from the Tustin Elementary and High School Board, and a High School stUdent~ Councilman C. Miller suggested that before the Council take action, the Commission should ask the Board if there are any' interested members. He stated it was an excellent idea if interested members could be found. Councilman L. Miller stated that when he was Chairman of the Parks and Recreation"Commission they had tried this unsuccessful] but that the stUdentsat that time were not paid which could make a difference. Also, contacts with the Board were made informally. He stated it was an excellent idea and.should be tried again. Mayor Coco stated that the Council would then direct the Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission to contact those members of the Elementary and High School Board that may be interested and to attempt to find out if there is a teenage member also interested. The Council is willing to try this arrangement again and would like to have some positive expres- sion of interest. Council agreed. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 70-14 ENDORSING PASSAGE OF THE SEWER BOND ELECTION MEASURE REGARDING SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Marsters that Resolution No. 70-14 be read in its entirety~ Carried. Moved by C. Miller, seconded by Oster that Resolution No. 70-14 endorsing passage of the Sewer Bond Election measure regarding Sanitation District No. 7,be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. 6. ANIMAL CONTROL Councilman C. Miller stated that he had received many'complaints from Tustin Meadows on the matter of dogsin the park. He asked if the Staff could check into the matter of enforcing the ordinance that wouldprohibit dog~ in the park. He stated he was interested in the cost and what ~roblems would be involvedin enforcement. He suggested contacting the County Animal Shelter. 7. LETTERS TO BE SENT Councilman L. Miller suggested that a formal letter be sent to the Chairmen of the TNT Committee~ who have put so much time into the Committee. AlsO, he suggested that individuals participating in the off-ramp should have recognition, especiall] the Chambe~ of Commerce and oth;~ associations. Council agreed. Mayor Coco stated that copies of the letter to the State High' way Commission concerning the off-ramp should be sent to Senator Schmitz and Assemblyman Badham and other people invoL ~d 8. AIR POLLUTION Mayor Coco presented a letter and a copy of a resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of the Saddleback Junior College District opposing air pollution. He had agreed to submit this to the Council for their comments. CouncilmanL. Miller'stated that he believed everyone was ~gai~st air pollu~i~: B0% of the B~il~ ~0r~ th~ State ~gis- ~tre eS~ern~8 ~8i~h~iS~ ah8 6 [e].t ei~ ~o0 m~ny bills approval as opposed to a~other resolution Council Meeting 3/16/70 Page 29 Mayor Coco stated he had~already indicated an approval ~ in his return letter _to t~e Board and that perhaps that ~-~d be sufficient. CoUncil agreed. ~ +~ 9 ~ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. Flint stated that the-Chamber would be making other arrange- ments for another Candidate'sforum. A conflict of meetings was responsible for=~he lack of audience at the last forum. " Following correspondence received: 1.. Report by Ken Fleagle=.on the City of Tustin. 2. Letter from the TustinChamber Of Commerce endorsing Plan C for.the improvement of First Street. 3/6/70. 3. Financial Report ~nd City Treasurer's Report for February. 4. Building Department report for the month of Eeb~uary. 5. Report on recent Park and Recreation Conference from Jack Harrison. 3/6/70. 6. Letter of appreciation from Jack La Lanne 3/5/70. 7. Letter from Westminster requesting a copy of Tustin's coun=cil Policy Manuel. 8. Letter from Woodlake requesting a copy of Tustin's Demand Analysis study. 9. Letter ~rom Carson~reqUesting a copy of Tustin's Classifi- cation Plan Study. 10. Letter from Culver City requesting a copy of Tustin~s Employee Rules and Regulations. 11. Letter from John Storer, Chief of the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement reporting on the training of Officer Fred Krasco. 12 Letterof appreciation to Officer Deiro from Mrs. F. R. Titensor, leaderof L.D.S. Church Guide Patrol, Tustin II Ward. 13. Letter from City of'NewpOrt Beach expressing support of S-3093 before Congress. Meeting adjourned. MAYOR CLERK