Laserfiche WebLink
BICYCLE STUDY Letter dated May Z, 1972, from the <br /> Orange County Criminal Justice Council <br /> concerning the Orange County Bicycle <br />Study and SB 147 was referred to the City Manager for study on motion of <br />Councilman Evans, seconded by Councilman Yamamoto, and unanimously carried. <br /> <br />CITY OF IRVINE SPHERE Consideration was given to letter dated <br />OF INFLUENCE May 8, 197Z, from the Local Agency <br /> Formation Commission concerning a <br />sphere of influence map filed by the City of Irvine. The Mayor stated he believed <br />it would be advisable to recommend that no further annexations be executed in the <br />Irvine territory until pending legal matters are adjudicated. <br /> <br />Councilman Patterson stated he believed the City should go on record as being <br />opposed to the proposed sphere of influence; that it is too early for such a small, <br />young city to absorb additional territory; and that a time limit should be imposed. <br /> <br />The City Attorney stated that it would be optimistic to estimate a year or a year <br />and a half to resolve the legal problems; that hopefully a decision would be made <br />before annexation proceedings are finally conducted. <br /> <br />Councilmen Herrin and Markel were opposed to lodging a protest in this matter, <br />stating that they believed the Irvine Company should be held to their agreement with <br />regard to the promised acreage, but that the City of Irvine should be allowed to <br />conduct their city business without interference. <br /> <br />Councilman Patterson moved to protest the proposed City of Irvine Sphere of <br />Influence map based on the grounds that the City of Santa ~kna has a Sphere of <br />Influence map on file with LAFC which overlaps a considerable portion of this area; <br />that the City has on file a contract with the Irvine Company declaring their intent <br />to annex a considerable portion of what now constitutes the presumed City of Irvine <br />to the City of Santa Ana; that there is extensive litigation still in process in the <br />courts of California regar, ding the enforcement of this contract, and raising <br />fundamental questions as to the legality of the procedures under which the City <br />of Irvine was incorporated;and that it is too early for such a small, young city <br />to absorb the territory they already have as well as the additional territory <br />proposed in the City of Irvine Sphere of Influence map~ The motion was seconded <br />by Councilman Villa, and carried on the following roll call vote: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Patterson, Villa, Griset, Yamamoto <br />Evans, Herrin, Markel <br />None <br /> <br />PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC Councilman Villa referred to a letter <br />DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 from Supervisor David Baker concerning <br /> the Public Works and Economic <br />Development Act of 1965. He stated that at a recent symposium held at UCI on <br />unemployment in Orange County, a motion was made to organize an Economic <br />Development Agency in Orange County to bring more industry to Orange County <br />in order to create more jobs and reduce unemployment in the County° <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -204- May 15, 1972 <br /> <br /> <br />