Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/1957 - Adjourned Regular MeetingStatement of Polic . In view of the fact that the Council had met in special session on the or CClty Co�unc morning of March 18, 1957, and had instructed the City Attorney to proceed re annexat on with legal steps to appeal from the decision of a Judge of the Superior suits. Court, County of Orange, State of California, in regard to the suits in connection with Newport Beach's "17th Street Annex" and Costa Mesa's "Mesa #2 Annex," it was thought wise at this time to read a Statement of Policy of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. Mayor Hill read the following statement: ' "The City Council of Newport Beach today made a . decision that it would rather not have been - called upon to make. The City Council decided it was morally and actually obligated to proceed to exhaust all of its legal remedies to complete the annexation to the City of Newport Beach of the so- called 17th Street - 65 acre annexation. "The Newport Beach City Council feels that it is obligated to appeal the decision rendered by a single Superior Court judge in order to discharge the obligations of the City to those who sought to affiliate with it. "In our opinion the City of Newport Beach took proper and legal actions in each of its steps in the 17th Street annexation. First, the City of Newport Beach received and made public the individual requests of property owners within. the area seeking annexation to the City. During the course of the court case it developed that Costa Mesa had received letters which it did not read at council meeting nor make public. There- for, the City of Newport Beach had no way of knowing that those letters existed from residents seeking annexation to Costa Mesa. "Second, Costa Mesa had the opportunity to exclude the 65 acres under annexation to Newport Beach from its 250 acre annexation before the election. "Third, prior to the election, it appears from substantial reports, false information was given to residents within the area by Costa Mesans. "The City of Newport Beach therefore suggests to Costa Mesa that the interests of both cities would be best served if both cities cancel all annexation proceedings relating to the entire area and establish a proper basis for new proceedings which would take into account sound planning principles and the desires of property owners and voters in the area." Statement from Council- The City Clerk read a statement from, and bearing the signatures of', men of t e City o Claire M. Nelson, A. L. Pinkley, Bertren Smith, A. H. Meyers, and Bruce Costa Mesa. Martin, Councilmen of the City of Costa Mesa, which had been received at 7:25 P.M. on March 18, for the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, in words as follows: "I am in accord with the Findings of the Commissioners on the proposed joint water project, but our eagerness J J March 18, 1957 Regular adjourned The City Council of the City of Newport.Beach met in adjourned regular session. session in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Roll call. The roll was called, the following members being present: Councilmen Hart, Wilder, MacKay, Stoddard, Higbie, Ridderhof and Hill. Re ort from Commission- Mayor Hill stated that a Report had been received from the Commissioners oon�nans and terms of the City of Newport Beach, on the plans and terms for the joint acquisition �ers re reservoir. and construction of water supply works for.the City of Newport Beach and the City of Costa Mesa.. She requested Councilman Stoddard, Chairman of the Newport Beach Commissioners, to summarize said Report. Facts contained in Councilman Stoddard stated,among other things, that the Report sets t e Report. forth the following facts: That it is deemed desirable, feasible and equitable that the Cities of Newport Beach and.Costa Mesa acquire and. construct a joint project which is common to both cities and consists of a water storage reservoir with water transmission mains and appurtenances and appurtenant works, the estimated cost of which joint project is $2,884,380; that the City of Newport Beach acquire and construct works for storage, transmission and distribution of water necessary and proper for supplying water for the use of the City and its inhabitants, in an estimated cost of $539,100, said costs to be borne entirely by the City of Newport Beach; that the City of Costa Mesa and the.City of Newport Beach should execute a certain Agreement (copy of which is attached to, and indicated as "Agreement 1".of said Report) entitled 1°Joint Powers Agreement of 1957 between City of Newport Beach and City of Costa Mesa;" that said cities execute a certain Agreement (copy of which is attached to, and indicated as "Agreement 2" of said Report) with The Irvine Company; that the costs of said acquisition and construction be paid from the proceeds of general obligation bonds of the City and that the.Council submit to the qualified voters a proposition for incurring indebtedness and issuing bonds of the City therefor; that the Council submit to the voters a proposition for the approval or rejection of the plans and terms set forth in this said Report; that the Council submit to the voters a proposition for the approval of the Agreement with The Irvine Company. Statement of Polic . In view of the fact that the Council had met in special session on the or CClty Co�unc morning of March 18, 1957, and had instructed the City Attorney to proceed re annexat on with legal steps to appeal from the decision of a Judge of the Superior suits. Court, County of Orange, State of California, in regard to the suits in connection with Newport Beach's "17th Street Annex" and Costa Mesa's "Mesa #2 Annex," it was thought wise at this time to read a Statement of Policy of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. Mayor Hill read the following statement: ' "The City Council of Newport Beach today made a . decision that it would rather not have been - called upon to make. The City Council decided it was morally and actually obligated to proceed to exhaust all of its legal remedies to complete the annexation to the City of Newport Beach of the so- called 17th Street - 65 acre annexation. "The Newport Beach City Council feels that it is obligated to appeal the decision rendered by a single Superior Court judge in order to discharge the obligations of the City to those who sought to affiliate with it. "In our opinion the City of Newport Beach took proper and legal actions in each of its steps in the 17th Street annexation. First, the City of Newport Beach received and made public the individual requests of property owners within. the area seeking annexation to the City. During the course of the court case it developed that Costa Mesa had received letters which it did not read at council meeting nor make public. There- for, the City of Newport Beach had no way of knowing that those letters existed from residents seeking annexation to Costa Mesa. "Second, Costa Mesa had the opportunity to exclude the 65 acres under annexation to Newport Beach from its 250 acre annexation before the election. "Third, prior to the election, it appears from substantial reports, false information was given to residents within the area by Costa Mesans. "The City of Newport Beach therefore suggests to Costa Mesa that the interests of both cities would be best served if both cities cancel all annexation proceedings relating to the entire area and establish a proper basis for new proceedings which would take into account sound planning principles and the desires of property owners and voters in the area." Statement from Council- The City Clerk read a statement from, and bearing the signatures of', men of t e City o Claire M. Nelson, A. L. Pinkley, Bertren Smith, A. H. Meyers, and Bruce Costa Mesa. Martin, Councilmen of the City of Costa Mesa, which had been received at 7:25 P.M. on March 18, for the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, in words as follows: "I am in accord with the Findings of the Commissioners on the proposed joint water project, but our eagerness J J 1 to further complete this. project at this time is somewhat abated by the action today of the City of Newport Beach. "The City Council of Newport Beach voted to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of the State of California on Mesa #2 Annexation. They gave as their reason a moral obligation to one of the property owners in the area. "We too have.a moral obligation, not to just one person but to all the people in the Mesa #2 area who voted to join the City of Costa Mesa, and that is to allow them to vote along with the rest of the City of Costa.Mesa on this important Joint water project. Morally, this is a right to which .we, the council, have always subscribed. "Although I am eager, willing and ready to proceed toward completion of this joint project, I move that we table the Commissioners' Report until such time as the people in Mesa #2 Annexation can vote on the project. I further move that our City, Attorney be instructed to assist the City of Newport Beach in the speedy processing of their appeal in order that the joint project may be subjected to the least possible delay." Councilman Stoddard stated that it would seem that it is more important to the City of Costa Mesa to settle the annexation election.matter than to build the reservoir. The City Attorney stated that waiting for a decision in the matter of appeal could involve from -a year to eighteen months, and if taken to the Supreme Court, could take as long as three years. Councilman Ridderhof stated that he was of the opinion that we should take the first steps at this time for building the.reservoir with or without the assistance of Costa Mesa. On motion of Councilman Hart, seconded by Councilman MacKay and carried, the Statement of Council Policy read by Mayor Hill was adopted, and copy of said statement.was ordered sent to the City Council of Costa Mesa immediately, inasmuch as they were then in session, and copy of said statement was directed to be sent to The Irvine Company along with a copy of the statement submitted to Newport Beach by the Council of Costa Mesa. Mayor Hill presented Resolution No. 4611, approving plans and terms reported by the Commissioners for acquiring and maintaining a water supply, and ordering, calling and providing for a Special Election to be held in said City on the 14th day of.May, 1957, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said City a proposition for the approval or rejection of said plans and terms and a proposition for the approval of a certain contract and consolidating said Election with the Special Municipal Bond Election to be held in said City on said date. On motion of Councilman Stoddard, seconded by Councilman MacKay and carried, Resolution No. 4611 was adopted by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEN: Hart, Wilder, MacKay, Stoddard, Higbie, Ridderhof, Hill NOES, COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT, COUNCILMEN: None ' Mayor Hill presented Resolution No. 4612, determining that the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition and construction of a certain municipal improvement, and making findings relating thereto. On motion of Councilman Stoddard, seconded by Councilman MacKay and carried, Resolution No. 4612 was adopted by the follow- ing roll call vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEN: Hart, Wilder, MacKay, Stoddard, Higbie, Ridderhof, Hill NOES, COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT, COUNCILMEN: None Mayor Hill presented Ordinance No. 817, being AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL.BOND ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ON THE 14TH DAY OF MAY, 1957, FOR THE . PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID CITY A PROPOSITION TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS BY SAID CITY FOR A CERTAIN MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT. On motion of Councilman MacKay, seconded by Councilman Hart and carried, Ordinance No. 817 was adopted by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEN: Hart, Wilder, MacKay, Stoddard, Higbie, Ridderhof, Hill NOES, COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT, COUNCILMEN: None Ap .9 r y A 8 o Statement of ounc xpo icy re-b _ o RV V d 4opt� R -4611 adopted, terms r1eans orte t e Comm ss onefs an ca n special on Ord. No. 817. CallinR election or re reservoir, Ord. No. 817 ad opt�_ a��. •` t J 4:% R -4613 adopted Mayor Hill presented Resolution No. 4613, authorizing the Mayor and. execution o Joint City Clerk to execute Joint Powers Agreement by-and between the City of Powers reement. Newport Beach and the City of Costa Mesa, with respect to the acquisition, construction, maintenance, repair, management, operation and control of a joint project consisting of a water storage reservoir and appurtenances thereto. On motion of Councilman Ridderhof, seconded by Councilman MacKay and carried, Resolution No. 4613 was adopted by the following roll call vote, to wit: .AYES, COUNCILMEN: Hart, Wilder „,MacKay, Stoddard, Higbie, Ridderhof, Hill NOES, COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT, COUNCILMEN: None R -4614 adopted, Mayor Hill'presented Resolution No. 4614, authorizing the Mayor and. reement etween City Clerk to execute an Agreement between the.City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach, Costa the City of Costa Mesa, and The Irvine Company. On motion of Councilman mesa, -T The Irvine — Ridderho£, seconded by Councilman MacKay and carried, Resolution.No. 4614 Company. was adopted by the following roll call vote, to wit: Additional business. AYES, COUNCILMEN: Hart, Wilder, MacKay, Stoddard, Higbie, Ridderhof, Hill NOES,.COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT, COUNCILMEN: None Mayor Hill stated that the discussion of matters concerning the reservoir was completed and the City Manager could proceed with additional business. Mr. Brandt commissioned On motion of Councilman MacKay, seconded by Councilman Stoddard and to es t a new carried, Mr. Rexford Brandt was commissioned to'design a new official seal obi cia seal- for the City of Newport Beach. Re removal of On motion of Councilman Stoddard, seconded by Councilman Wilder and Hosp to aty Pier.” carried, the City Manager's plans for the removal of "Hospitality Pier," Harbor Master's former headquarters, were approved. Adjournment. On motion of Councilman Stoddard, seconded by Councilman MacKay and carried, the meeting was adjourned to 4:00 P.M., March 19, 1957, and the City Manager was instructed to invite.the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa to meet for.lunch on March 19th, or later in the afternoon, or to meet at 4:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City /off Newport Beach. (9 r1i' c E c— - J w Mayor ATTEST: c city Merk March 19, 1957 Second adjourned The City Council of the City of Newport Beach met in a second adjourned r regu a session. regular session in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at.the hour of 4:00 P.M. Roll call. The roll was called, the following members being present: Councilmen Hart, Wilder, MacKay, Stoddard, Higbie and Hill; Councilman Ridderhof being absent. Costa Mesa's Among others in the audience were Costa Mesa's City Manager Robert representatives. Unger, City Attorney Donald Dungan, and City Clerk Arlie Swartz. Statement from The City Manager Robert Shelton read the statement delivered at 7:25 Costa esa tit P.M. to the Council at its meeting held. March 18,1957, bearing the signatures ounc or erea of each of the Council members of the Council of the City of Costa Mesa.. Said receive an i.led. statement is set forth verbatim in the minutes of the Council meeting of the City of Newport Beach held on March 18, 1957. On motion of Councilman Stoddard, seconded by Councilman Hart and carried, said communication was ordered received and filed. Messa a sent to .Costa The City Manager stated that on instructions from the City Council during Mesa Counci . the evening meeting of March 18, he dispatched the following message to the Costa Mesa City Council: "Costa Mesa City Council "Attn: Robert Unger, City Manager "The Newport Beach City Council acted tonight to adopt resolutions required for the purpose of holding an election on the reservoir matter ' May 14. The Council adjourned until 4:00 P.M. Tuesday, March 19, in the event that the Costa Mesa City Council desires to meet informally, with the Newport Beach City Council prior to that time.. It was suggested that if such a meeting is desired, it could be held at noon or at any time between noon and the scheduled 4:00 P.M. adjourned meeting, or at the adjourned meeting.