06-07-1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Non-support of the City of Newport Beach Resolution; request the Board of Supervisors to: 1) Cause the removal of present weight limitations on jet aircraft utilizing Orange County Airport, thus permitting increased pay loads of both passengers and freight; 2) Improve the existing air freight facilities to serve Orange County's needs; 5) Modify the existing runway to permit operation of larger and quieter planes; and 4) Lengthen the runway to the north to permit aircraft to pass over the residential areas to the south at higher altitudes~ thus reducing noise; and delete Referral Item #8-76 from the Summary. Councilman Bricken's dissenting vote represented his expressed feeling that Santa Aha might better serve its long run purposes by meeting with the City of Newport Beach to discuss and develop a policy position on the Orange County Airport; and that these two cities would have the most to gain or lose from the economic and environmental impact of the location of air transportation facilities. Mr, Morton Fink, 1985 South Ritchie, stated that it is an absolute basic necessity that the industrial community of this City have accessibility to air transportation out of Orange County; that Santa Aha has 10% of the 1,8 million people in Orange County; that expanded air facilities are needed by every person in the County for development and to provide employment; and that it may be some time before Ontario Airport can be easily used by Orange County and in the meantime this County needs better air transportation facilities. CA 98 RECESS same Council members present. At 3:57 P.M. Mayor Garthe called a recess; the meeting reconvened at 4:09 P.M. with the AMENDMENT TO TRASH CONTRACT Clerk of the Council GREAT WESTERN RECLAMATION Florence I. Malone APPROVED; PICKUP HOURS - CONTINUED reported that she had received three phone calls and a letter from a Mrs. Shepshire requesting that the recommendation~ (No. 2) to begin trash collection at 5:00 A.M. -on a trial basis not be approved. Mr. Roger Howell of Rutan & Tucker, representing Great Western Reclamation, Inc., stated that his client would agree to eliminate that condition at this time, but that they had thought that the trial basis would be sufficient protection if the 5:00 A.M. pickup did prove to be unacceptable by the citizens; and that he would prefer that the Council dispose of the matter at this time rather than continuing it to the evening. City Attorney Keith Gow reported that--an investigation of the records of Great Western by.Mr. Howell indicated that no Coun- cilman had received gifts in excess of $70 ~rD~reat..Wgstern; that on the basis of that written information there is no conflict of interest for any Councilman; and that all of them can take part in the discussion and vote on the issue of the amendment to the trash contract; and that his earlier decision was based on the information available at that time, and he had to assume that the expenditures made by a former employee of the Contractor may have been reimbursed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 212 JUNE 7, 1976