Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1986 05 05 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA MAY 5, 1986 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION The meeting was called to order by Mayor Saltarelli at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Edgar, and the Invocation was given. by Council woman Kennedy. II. ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor Ronald B. Hoesterey, Mayor Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar John Kelly Ursula E. Kennedy Counci 1 persons Absent: None Others Present: William A. Huston, City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Donald D. Lamm, Com. Development Director Robert S. Ledendecker, Dir. of Public Works Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police ~ Royleen A. White, Dir. of Com. & Admin. Srvcs. Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent Approximately 50 in the audience III. PROCLAMATIONS 1. FIRE SERVICE RECOGNITION DAY - MAY 10, 1986 ) Mayor Saltarelli read a proclamation designating May 10, 1986, as = "Fire Service Recognition Day," which was accepted by Battalion Chief Harold Ferdig. Chief Ferdig thanked the Council. 84 2. TUSTIN OLDER AMERICANS MONTH - MAY, 1986 Mayor Saltarelli presented a proclamation to Isabelle McClements, proclaiming the month of May, 1986, as "Tustin Older Americans Month." Ms. McClements accepted the proclamation on behalf of Tustin seniors and thanked the Council. 84 IV.PUBLIC HEARINGS None. V, PUBLIC INPUT VI. CONSENT CALENDAR : ~ It was moved by KennedJ/, seconded by Edgar, to approve the entire Consent Calendar. The motion carried 5-0. ~ 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1986, REGULAR MEETING APRIL 15, 1986, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING !:~: APRIL 21, 1986, REGULAR MEETING ! 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $497,950.75 - RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $142,396.83 50 3, REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-5; CLAIMANT: STEVEN DOUGLAS GREEN; DATE OF LOSS: 12/4/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 2/28/86 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney's Office. 40 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 5-5-86 4. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-7; CLAIMANT: CAROL PETRY; DATE OF LOSS: 1/9/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 4/4/86 Rejected subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney's Office. 40 5o RESOLUTION NO. 86-56 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDA- TION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (Sully Miller Contracting Company - Assessment District 85-1 Improvements, Jamboree Road and Laguna Road) Adopted Resolution No. 86-56; and assuming no claims or stop payment notices are filed 30 days after date of recordation, authorized payment of final 10% retention amount as recommended by the Public Works Department, Engineering Division. 95 6. RESOLUTION NO, 86-57 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDA- TION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (Blair Paving, Inc. - Fiscal Year 1985-86 Pavement Rehabilitation and Asphalt Concrete Overlay Pro- gram) Adopted Resolution No. 86-57; and assuming no claims or stop payment notices are filed 30 days after date of recordation, authorized payment of final 10% retention amount as recommended by the Public Works Department, Engineering Division. 95 7. AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 86-47 - RESOLUTION FOR INTENTION OF STREET NAME CHANGE FROM JAMBOREE ROAD TO TUSTIN RANCH ROAD Amended Resolution No. 86-47 to change the date set for the public hearing from May 5, 1986, to May 19, 1986, as recom- mended by the Public Works Department, Engineering Division. 96 8. RESOLUTION NO. 86-59 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN SETTING A TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE DESIGNATION AND ADOPTION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF POLES, OVERHEAD WIRES AND ASSOCIATED OVER- HEAD STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATED ON NEWPORT AVENUE BETWEEN 325 FEET NORTHERLY OF BRYAN AVENUE AND WASS STREET, WHICH AREA IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AND CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN Adopted Resolution No. 86-59 as recommended by the Public Works Department, Engineering Division. 104 9. RESOLUTION NO. 86-58 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN SETTING A TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE DESIGNATION AND ADOPTION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF POLES, OVERHEAD WIRES AND ASSOCIATED OVER- HEAD STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATED ON HOLT AVENUE BETWEEN NEWPORT AVENUE AND IRVINE BOULEVARD, AND IRVINE BOULEVARD BETWEEN HOLT AVENUE AND NEWPORT AVENUE WHICH AREA IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AND CITY ENGI- NEER OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN Adopted Resolution No. 86-58 as recommended by the Public Works Department, Engineering Division. 104 10. RESOLtrTION NO. 86-1 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF LEGISLATION, POLICE, AND WATER SERVICE BILLING Adopted Resolution No. 86-1 as approved by the City Manager. 50 11. RESOLUTION NO, 86-55 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 12345 (Phase I Residen- tial, East Tustin) Adopted Resolution No. 86-55; authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Parkland Agreement between the City and The Irvine Company; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Landscape Maintenance Agreement between the City and The Irvine Company as recommended by the Community Develop- ment Department. 99 45; 86-21; 86-22 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 5-5-86 VII. ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION 1. STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON PUBLIC ROADWAY - ORDINANCE NO. 968 The staff report and recommendation were presented by the Chief of Police as contained in the inter-com dated April 29, 1986, prepared by the Police Department. The Police Chief responded to Council questions. It was then moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance ' " No. 968 have first reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 968 by the City Clerk, it was moved b Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordi- nance No. 968 be introduce~ as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 968 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 5340e, 5330e AND SECTION 5311 RELATIVE TO THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey felt that 24 hours was not sufficient. He suggested a 48-hour limitation. The motion was amended by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, that all references in Ordinance No. 968 to twenty-four {24 hours be changed to forty-eight (48) hours. Following further Council dis- cussion, the amended motion carried 4-1, Kelly opposed. Council requested that the Police Department give a 60-day warning period following the effective date of the ordinance. ,.. The original motion for introduction carried 4-1, Saltarelli opposed. 82 VIII.ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION None. IX. OLD BUSINESS 1. DRAFT EIR-EIS FOR THE SANTA ANA (I,5) FREEWAY WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN ROUTE 405 AND ROUTE 55 The Director of Public Works described the six project alternatives {excluding the "no project" alternative}, noting the number of travel lanes in each direction, the amount of right-of-way take, whether HOV lanes are included, and the projected congestion · ~ relief. Councilman Edgar spoke in support of Alternative 2B and HOV (high occupancy vehicle} lanes. He was not in favor of consuming addi- tional right-of-way in Alternative 3B. The motion by Edgar to sup- port Alternative 2B died for lack of a second. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, the Director of Public Works .:~ stated that the direction reversal lane concept was studied in the ~" Santa Ana Transportation Corridor by the Orange County Traffic Com- mission. It is not incorporated in CalTrans' present proposal. At Councilwoman Kennedy's request, the Director identified the short-term and long-term differences in Alternatives 2 and 3 rela- tive to service levels of traffic circulation. He further respon- ded that a direct connector of the Foothill Corridor to Route 22 in the Bottleneck Study would make Alternative 3B too radical. How- ever, such a solution would be defined long after implementation of the Santa Ana Freeway Widening Project. ! Mayor Pro Tem Saltarelli expressed concerns with actual widening of the freeway and its impacts on Tustin. He was supportive of Alter- native 2A (without the HOV lane). CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 5-5-86 Councilman Hoesterey did not favor HOV lanes. He was supportive ~6f' Alternative 2A because it provides the most general purposeilanes needed. Councilman Edgar spoke in support of HOV lanes. Council debate followed. Councilwoman Kennedy spoke in favor of HOV lanes and indicated sup- port of Alternative 2B. The Director of Public Works added that the I-5 widening project will be financed 90% with Federal funds. HOV lanes will be heavily considered in the decision-making. Overall, Tustin's recommenda- tion will have very little effect on CalTrans' decision. Part of the environmental process is to obtain input from local agencies (City of Irvine, County of Orange, and City of Tustin). The Director noted that what CalTrans decides in this segment of the widening project will set precedent as the project continues northerly to the 605 Freeway. He stated that the City of Irvine supports Alternative 3, and they do not have the large impact of property take as Tustin. The Director responded to Councilwoman Kennedy that soundwalls are financed by CalTrans on an interstate highway that is established and will not be widened any further. He noted that soundwalls are included in this project as a mitigating measure, and 95% of the soundwalls to be constructed are through Tustin. Some areas in Irvine will not get soundwalls. Councilman Kelly indicated support of Alternative 3B. At the Director's suggestion, the Mayor asked for public input. An unidentified gentleman in the audience asked when displacement of residents would begin. The Director responded that a firm date has not been established. He estimated right-of-way takes wo~ld begin after completion of the environmental document/alternative selection, or 18 months from June, 1986. He stated that specific inquiries could be directed to CalTrans, or he could obtain and relay information to residents. After a further question-and-answer period, the Director suggested that the gentleman see him after the meeting to discuss the matter. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to support Alternative 2A. The motion failed 2-3, Edgar, Kelly and Kennedy opposed. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to support Alternative 2B. The motion failed 2-3, Hoesterey, Kelly and Saltarelli opposed. It was then moved by Kennedy, seconded by Kelly, to support Alter- native 3B. The motion failed 1-4, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy and Saltarelli opposed. Mayor Saltarelli suggested staff notify CalTrans that the Council was not able to reach a consensus. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to support Alterna- tive 2A, with a recommendation that after completion of the HOV lane experiment and the reports are in, Council will make its posi- tion clear on same. The motion carried 5-0. 54 2. MAIN STREET TRAFFIC CONTROLS (MAIN STREET AT "B" STREET INTER- SECTION) The Director of Public Works reported that since the inter-com dated April 28, 1986, prepared by the Engineering Division, the Chief of Police and Consultant Traffic Engineer met with members of CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 5-5-86 TRUST (Tustin Residents United to Save Tustin). Based on resi- dents' feelings along Main Street expressed at subject meeting, staff now recommends that a signal would be necessary at Main and "B" Streets. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to: 1) Install traffic signals at Pacific and Main; 2) Install traffic signals at "B" and Main; 3) Remove Pepper tree from south side of Main Street west of "B" Street; 4) Install white traffic signal control buttons on the road sur- face eastbound on Main, east of freeway bridge approaching the new light, to warn drivers of same. These buttons would be used in conjunction with a sign posted on south side of Main Street stating "Signal Ahead"; and 5)Fund the above with funds from the Redevelopment Agency. The Director pointed out that there are three ongoing costs which currently total about $230-$240/month/intersection for signal maintenance, signal energy, and safety light energy. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey, the Director reported that traffic signal equipment removed from various intersections is taken to the Yard and reworked where possible. Staff will then spec those out and use them as supplied material to lower the cost of signalling intersections. He reported on the condition of the California Pepper tree which is diseased from dry rot and is hollow. He stated that the tree would not be removed for two weeks until staff contacts the adjoining · property owner on whether there should be a replacement tree. The motion carried 5-0. 94 X. NEW BUSINESS 1. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR BELL AVENUE STORM DRAIN EXTENSION Bids for subject project were received on April 29, 1986, as follows: '. Gillespie Construction, Inc., Costa Mesa $ 96,673.50 Wilson's Equipment Rentals, Inc., Ontario $104,221.00 Ray Development & Construction Co., Corona $107 337.30 Peter C. David Company, Garden Grove $108 345.00 KIP, Inc., San Marcos $113 666.00 Kershaw Construction, Montclair $118 026.00 Mladen Bunrich Construction Co., Sunland $118 052.00 Sully-Miller Contracting Co., Orange $120 517.25 Vicco Construction, La Verne $120 587.00 · JWM Engineering, Irvine $126 480.50 Mike Bubolo Construction, Temple City $129.885.00 J & B Contractors, Inc., Highland $150 884.29 As recommended in the inter-com dated May 1, 1986, prepared by the Public Works Department, Engineering Division, it was moved by · Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to award the contract for subject project to Gill espie Construction, Inc., Costa Mesa, in the amount of $96,673.50. The Director stated this project has been in the Capital Improve- ment process for the past 3-4 years. There are other projects that are probably more deserving but there just haven't been funds to program them. This project is recommended basically because there is a high employment center in the area and flooding during the rainy season makes it impossible to cross the street. The motion carried 5-0. 91 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 5-5-86 2o AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR EL CAIqINO REAL EXTENSION FROM TUSTIN AUTO CENTER TO MYFORD ROAD Bids for subject project were received on March 27, 1986, as follows: S. A. Healy Company, Azusa $684,073.50 W. F. Maxwell, Inc., San Diego $709,885.00 K.E.C. Company, Corona $729,614.90 Fleming Engineering, Inc., Buena Park $760,529.50 Pursuant to the recommendation contained in the inter-com dated April 30, 1986, prepared by the Public Works Department, Engineer- ing Division, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to award contract for subject project to S. A. Healy Company, Azusa, in the amount of $684,073.50. Carried 5-0. 95 XI, REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA - APRIL 28, 1986 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Ed ar, to ratify the entire Planning Commission Action Agenda of Aprit 28, 1986. Motion car- ried 5-0. 80 2. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF APRIL 30, 1986 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report dated April 30, 1986, prepared by the Finance Department. Carried 5.0. 50 3. MAIN STREET UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES AND STREET LIGHTING INSTAL- LATION Councilman Edgar stated that subject report does not respond fully to his request as contained in the Minutes of April 21, page 8. He provided clarification for the Director of Public Works. Coun- cil concurred to delay the matter for further report. 104 XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS NO. 7 & NO. 8 The Director of Public Works responded to Councilman Edgar that the public hearing report will delineate the number of poles to be removed and the number of existing street lights vs. the additional street lights that will be installed. 2. CITY FILINGS IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT Councilman Edgar requested that the Police Department report on those few instances where the City has filed against individuals in small claims court to recover funds expended in prosecution of cer- tain cases. 3. TREE DAMAGE ON DEVONSHIRE & ROANOKE Councilwoman Kennedy reported that complaints continue regarding tree damage on Roanoke and Devonshire and some damaged bushes at street level belonging to residents. The Director assured Councilwoman Kennedy that the trees will recover and regain their green color. The Director recommended that residents with burned parkway shrubs wait to see what growth comes out. If there is a need for replace- ment, staff will come back to Council on same. He did not believe there is any recourse against the contractor, since it is a known factor that the heat remix process produces a great amount of heat. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 5-5-86 The Director explained that staff will reconsider another proce- dure, using the heater remix method in the two center lanes on streets such as Roanoke/Devonshire, and coplaning or grinding the two outside lanes near parkway trees. The quality will not be as good or the ride as smooth, but it will eliminate excessive heat on trees. The pine trees will drop their needles in the interim, which will be an irritation to homeowners. Staff has contacted several home- owners and asked them to sweep the needles into the street. Street sweeping in that area has been increased from once a week to as often as possible for this purpose. 4. TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION AT DEL AMO & EDINGER In response to Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey, the Director of Public Works stated that signalization of Del Amo and Edinger is scheduled in the five-year program. It had been held back until completion of the grade separation of the Newport extension over the railroad tracks. Since that was found to be unfeasible, staff is now going back to look at the at-grade crossing. The signalization of sub- ject intersection is still programmed, but he suggested waiting until the extension matter is ironed out. The signal and driveway location on the Pacific Bell project was so located to accommodate equal spacing for installation at Del Amo for progressive timing. 5. KUDOS TO CURRIE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL At Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey's request, the Mayor requested that staff send a letter of congratulations to the students and teachers who participated in the Academic Pentathlon held at the Orange ,,_ County Fairgrounds. Currie placed fourth among 39 schools compet- ing, and they placed first in a super quiz competition. 6. CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS It was moved by Kelly, seconded by Kennedy, to agendize for the May 19 meeting consideration of consolidating the City's general municipal election with County elections. The motion carried 5-0. 48 7, APPOINll!ENT OF PUBLIC MEMBER TO LAFCO Mayor Saltarelli obtained Council consensus to vote to reappoint Don Holt to the position of LAFCO public member for a term com- mencing June 1. 8. AHFP FUNDS TO TUSTIN The Mayor reported that he was notified by Supervisor Stanton's office that the Board of Supervisors voted to allocate $180,000 in AHFP funds to the City of Tustin for the intersection of Red Hill and Walnut. 9, APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Mayor Saltarelli raised the matter of Planning Commission appoint- ments which are due to expire on June 1, 1986, and the method of appointment/reappointment to same. Following Council discussion, Council concurred to agendize the manner of appointing Planning Commi ssioners for the May 19 meeting; to send 1 etters to present Commissioners notifying them of term expirations on July 1, 1986; and if interested in reappointment, to notify Council of same. 80 Mayor Saltarelli requested The Tustin News publicize the matter for interested members of the public to apply. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 5-5-86 10. JOINT POWERS AGENCY - FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR The City Attorney advised the Mayor that discussion in public of an inter-com on subject item and corridor alignments was appropriate. The Mayor stated he had questions regarding City participation relative to the paragraph on road alignment and condemnation. He referenced Paragraph i wherein the City Attorney states that the Joint Powers Agency (Agency) will not have power to determine alignment within territorial limits of any city which is not an Agency member. Neither the county or any city has the power to fix a road alignment within territorial limits of another city, and the Agency only has powers which Agency members have. The Mayor requested that Council members think about the matter for further discussion at a later date. He did not have a major recom- mendation. However, he thought that not being an Agency member may give Tustin more selection of an alignment, since the Agency would not have the power to fix an alignment within Tustin. XIII. RECESS - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADJOURNMENT At 8:20 p.m. the Council recessed to the Redevelopment Agency; and thence adjourned to the next Regular Meeting on Monday, May 19, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. by unanimous informal consent.