Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1982 01 18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way January 18, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Sharp at 3:43 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp Councilpersons Absent: None Others Present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, City Manager Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mike Brotemarkle, Comm. Dev. Director Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Royleen White, Conununity Services Director Ron Nault, Finance Director Monda Buckley, Administrative Assistant Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk Approximately 20 in the audience III. PUBLIC CONCERNS None IV. PRE- SENTATION 1. COMMUNICOM (FORMERLY SIX STAR CABLEVISION) ~.~ The City Manager stated that at staff's request, representatives from CommuniCom were present today to provide Council with a ! i status update on the timetable for installation of cable and services to be offered to subscribers in terms of the level of service to be provided, both in terms of what the agreement requires and anything over and beyond that. Be continued that the intent of the presentation is to give an update and allow Council the opportunity to give staff some direction on how to proceed from this point. The Director of Public Works then introduced Monda Buckley, Administrative Assistant, who has been involved in meetings with CommuniCom, along with the City Attor- ney, City Manager, and Director of Public Works. Douglas Beach, Vice President of operations for CommuniCom, pro- vided some historical background on the acquisition of the fran- chise from Six Star Cablevision and introduced other representa- tives of CommuniCom. He reported that the original franchise allowed for a 35-channel system with two-way capability and a single-trunk line. The plant being built here is in excess of the minimum franchise requirements, which is capable of some 120 channels if both trunks are operational. They are actually putting up two cable systems (one on top of the other latched together) activating one 52-channel system immediately. Those 52 channels will have the ability of handling 43 channels of sound video and 9 chan- nels of data (i.e., a security system). They are also providing full-range FM stereo services and an emergency alert system which City officials can override in case of a civil emergency. The services to be launched in April will be almost identical to the services being provided in Los Angeles. The initial 27 channels will be comprised of 17 off-air Los Angeles channels and ~0 satellite services, which will include 4 pay services and another 6 services for sports, Congress in session, and stations from other cities such as Atlanta and Chicago. The initial package will be a tremendous increase in programming and channel availability for subscribers. Five channels will be added shortly after service begins (additional sports and movie channels). CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 1-18-82 Mr. Beach continued that CommuniCom has received clearance from Edison and Bell Telephone to attach to 69% of the required poles in the City. The remainder of the pole releases will be forthcoming in the next 6-8 weeks. Some 72% of the steel strand is in place, which functions as a support structure to which the trunk and feeder cables are attached. They are progressing rapidly to construct the rest of the plant and will connect the first subscribers in April, with completion of the entire plant anticipated by August. Tustin is included in the suburban operations along with Covina, LaVerne, and Corona. The Corona office will be the central adminis- trative location because it is equidistant between Tustin and Covina, and will be headed by Mr. Robert GrLmes. They have a local office on First Street where the walk-in payment center will be maintained, along with a technical staff, head-end and processing center. In response to the Mayor, Mr. Beach reported that the head-end is actually split into two portions. They have received clearance from the con~nandant at the base and the E1 Toro regional facility to locate the earth receive station on the U.S.M.C. helicopter base. Final written authorization is expected shortly. Further, Mr. Beach stated that neither the original franchise pro- posal or the franchise document refer to the availability on behalf of the company for providing video equipment. It does refer to pro- viding channel space, and he suspects it was written that way because many communities - schools, colleges, etc., have existing studios that can be connected to the cable. In previous meetings, staff has voiced this concern and he indicated they would be pleased to provide public access facilities, rather than trying to develop an immediate local origination capability. CommuniCum would have to look further into the existing commitment and rate schedule, as they would be investing approximately $100,000 to properly equip a studio, and it would be very difficult to operate on a functional basis for less than $75,000 per year. Had this been anticipated in the original proposal, the rate structure would have reflected those costs which would be spread across the subscriber base at approxi- mately 50~ or $1.00 per month per subscriber to support that type of facility. In response to Councilman Edgar, Mr. Beach continued that the second part of the head-end facility, which is really the processing center, would be in the office on First Street. CommuniCcEa is nego- tiating a 10-year lease for the building. The electronics will be installed there and signals will be received on a supor trunk from the helicopter base, plug into the processing center, mix with the off-air signals, and a complete programming package will come out of that building. There will be a 15-18' mast on the roof for the off-air antennas. Other than that, no further tower structure is envisioned or necessary. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, Mr. Beach stated that the August completion date includes homes with underground cable, pro- vided all permits come through and easement difficulties are resolved in a timely manner. Mr. Beach responded to Councilman Hoesterey that the receiving sta- tion on the helicopter base will be located at the northeast corner off of Red Hill. A tower will not be erected, and there will actu- ally be three circular discs elevated approximately 18' off the ground to receive from three different satellites. The City Attorney commented that to clarify the situation, at the meeting held last week staff made a number of requests of CommuniCom which amount to an upgrading of the proposed service, including a facility for local origination, public access, etc. Staff was advised by ConununiCom that they would study those matters and respond to the City. AS yet, the only response has been to the Mayor that CommuniCom might give it some study, etc. He pointed out that the franchise was granted more than two years ago to a prede- cessor and interest of CommuniCom and the state of the art has changed considerably since then. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 1-18-82 Secondly, the terms of the original franchise to Six Star have not been met by Six Star, mainly the construction schedule is long past-due and out of date as far as compliance. It is staff's feel- ing that before any approval is made to a new construction schedule, and/or approval of CommuniCom becoming the new franchisee that the various matters that staff has directed to Co~u~uniCom be addressed. To date, the franchisee has not complied with the franchise terms and now a new owner has requested approval to substitute and become the franchisee and a new construction schedule is being proposed. The City Manager suggested that unless Council has any other ques- tions or comments, that staff again meet with CommuniCom and attempt to come up with a deadline in terms of installation, when service would begin, the status of the facility at the helicopter base and First Street location, come beck with specifics, and then whatever appropriate action would have to be taken in terms of amending the franchise agreement can be done at that time. Staff has asked Com- muniCom to explore the feasibility whereby if the City, hypothe- tically, were to make space available in the community center at Columbus Tustin Park would they in turn install the equipment needed to have local origination. CommuniCom has indicated a willingness to explore this, but it needs to be pinned down so the agreement can be amended accordingly, and then presented to Council. Councilman Hoesterey stated that the previous performance of Six Star has left a bad taste in the community from a marketing stand- point and from public acceptance to the entire system. With that in mind, there's going to have to be some type of action taken by the company to convince the people of Tustin that they are going to be offering a service they really want. During public hearings on location of the discs, there was a great deal of disenchantment not only with site selection but to the manner in which the people were treated by the company. With that in mind, the company has a long way to go in finding acceptance in the community. Mr. Beach concluded that he understands Council's uneasiness with the pest performance, and pointed out that Communicom is not the same company, they are very determined to do an excellent job, they have a new team in place with years of experience in the industry, and they are very interested in building the plant as rapidly as possible to give the City an absolute state-of-the-art system. Com- muniCom will work with staff to provide the necessary facts and figures needed as soon as possible to make a decision and to fully understand the magnitude of what is being addressed. 53 CONSENT CALENDAR Item 1 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Hoesterey; and Item 5 by staff. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $744,894.92. RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $95,937.05. 3. RES0LUTION NO. 82-6 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City Of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (Red Hill Ave. Water Main from First St. to Irvine Blvd. - JER Construction & General Engineering, Inc.) Adoption of Resolution No. 82-6 and if no claims or stop payment notices are filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount as recommended by the Engineering Department. 107 The Director of Public Works responded to Councilman Edgar regarding fees compared to budgeted amount for the project. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 82-7 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 11649 LOCATED AT 1162 SYCAMORE AVENUE Adoption of Resolution No. 82-7 as recommended by the Com- munity Development Department. (Kennedy registered a "NO" vote.) 99 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 1-18-82 6. RESOLUTION NO. 82-9- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (TRAFFIC SIGNALS ALONG NEW- PORT AVE.) (Traffic Signal Installation/Modification and Inter- connect System along Newport Ave. between Irvine Blvd. and E1 Camino Real/Laguna Rd. - Electrend, Inc. ) Adoption of Resolution No. 82-9 and if no claims or stop payment notices are filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of Notice of Completion, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount as recommended by the City Engineer · 94 Kennedy registered a "NO" vote on Item 4. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to approve the remainder of the Con- sent Calendar, with the exception of Items 1 and 5. Carried5-0. Consent Calendar Item 1 - It was moved by Edgar, seconded Kennedy, to approve the following: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 4, 1982 Motion carried 4-0, Hoesterey abstaining. Consent Calendar Item 5 - The City Manager clarified that funds will be advanced from next fiscal year to this fiscal year and combined with Edison funds available to get the project done. This is simply a matter of cash flow and will not forego the E1 Camino project for any projects next year, with the exception of possibly delaying the underground project scheduled for next year. It was then moved Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve the following: 5. RESOLUTION NO. 82--8- 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 OVERHEAD STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATED ON IRVINE BOULEVARD BETWEEN YORBA STREET AND HOLT AVENUE, AND YORBA STREET FROM IRVINE BOULEVARD TO 240+ FEET SOUTHERLY OF IRVINE BOULEVARD 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 Adoption of Resolution No. 82-8 and authorize recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency for the transfer of funds in the amount of $220,000 from the E1 Camino Real Street Improve- ment project to Segment "B" of the Underground Utility Dis- trict No. 6 project as recommended by the City Engineer. In response to Councilman Edgar, the Director of Public Works stated that as of December 31, 1981, the Edison fund balance is approxi- mately $300,000 deposited at a rate of approximately $80,000 per calendar year. Motion carried 5-0. 104 VI · ORDI- NANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 866 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 96~2 PERTAINING TO ADULT BUSINESSES It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 866 have first reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Follow- ing reading of the title by the City Clerk, it was moved Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 866 be intro- duced. Carried 5-0. 31 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 1-18-82 VII . ORDI-- NANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 864 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF A FEE SCHEDULE FOR ANIMAL SHELTER AND ANIMALL CONTROL SERVICES It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 864 have second reading by title only. Carried 5-0. The City Clerk read Ordinance No. 864 by title only. Pursuant to the City Manager's reconnnendation, Council concurred to defer Reso- lution No. 82-5 to follow the effective date of Ordinance No. 864. It was then moved by Edgar~ seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordi- nance No. 864 be passed and adopted. Roll call vote: AYES: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp NOES: None 23 2. ORDINANCE NO. 865 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO COUNCIL COMPENSATION It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 865 have second reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following reading of the title by the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 865 be passed and adopted. Roll call vote: AYES: Edgar, Hoestorey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp NOES: None 38 VIII. BUSINESS 1 · SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMITTEE In response to Councilman Edgar, the City Attorney reported that provisions do not require a project area committee. If there is a project area committee and it is anticipated a substantial number of low- and moderate-income housing residents will be displaced by the activity, then the project area committee must be represented by residential owner occupants within the area, residential tenants within the area, and businessmen within the area. However, it is not limited to just those people. Following the City Attorney's comments, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to defer the residential owner occupants to the subcommittee and appoint the following to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Committee: Residential Tenants - South Area - Elmo Anderson Central Area - Ann Durkee Chamber of Commerce Representative - Jeffrey McElderry Tustin Unified School District - Larry Sutherland Major Property Owners - South Area - Robert P. Warmington Co. Central Area - Mark Ainsley The City Attorney responded to Councilman Saltarelli that com- mittee members cannot acquire any new property in .the project area after their appointment. The motion was amended by Edgar~ seconded by Kennedy, to defer the residential owner occupants and major property owners to the subcommittee and appoint the following to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Committee: Residential Tenants - South Area - Elmo Anderson Central Area ~ Ann Durkee Chamber of Commerce Representative - Jeffrey McElderry Tustin Unified SchoolDistrict - Larry Sutherland Motion carried 5-0. 81 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 1-18-82 IXo NEW BUSINESS 1o AWARD OF BID FOR CENTER MEDIAN MODIFICATION - IRVINE BLVD. FROM YORBA ST. TO "A" ST. Bids for subject project were received as follows: Noveco, Inc., Corona $14.438.14 Hardy & Earper, Inc., Tustin $14 460.00 Arm & Hammer Concrete Removal, Irvine $14 549.30 Golden West Asphalt Co., Costa Mesa $15 579.40 Bavin Construction Co., La Habra Heights $16 499.00 Griffith Co., Irvine $16 679.75 Porter Construction Co., Santa Ana $16 814.00 R. J. Noble Co., orange $19 390.45 John W. Tiedemann Co., Whittier $21 857.35 The low bid is 9% below the Engineer's estimate, with $15,500.00 presently budgeted for the work. AS reconunended in the report dated January 12, 1982, prepared by the Engineering Division, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to award the contract for subject work to Noveco, Inc., Corona, in the amount of $14,438.14. Carried 5-0. 92 2.CITIZENS REQUEST FOR PARKWAY TREE REMOVAL (14862 Bridgeport Road) Pursuant to the recommendation contained in the report dated January 12, 1982, prepared by the Maintenance Division, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to authorize City removal of the tree as requested and replacement of a tree from the City-approved tree list as chosen by Mrs. Nehls. Motion carried 5-0. 86.1 3 · CITIZENS REQUEST FOR PARKWAY TREE REMOVAL ( 1902 Pennington Avenue) AS recommended in the report dated January 5, 1982, prepared by the Maintenance Division, it was moved by Edgar, seconded Kennedy, to authorize City removal of the tree as requested and replacement of a tree from the City approved list as chosen by Mrs. Wilson. Carried 5-0. 86.1 4. CITIZENS REQUEST FOR PARKWAY TREE REMOVAL (14492 Oxford Avenue) Pursuant to the memo dated January 5, 1982, prepared by the Maintenance Division, it was moved by Edgar, seconded Kennedy, to authorize City removal of the tree as requested with no replacement. Motion carried 5-0. 86.1 5.CITIZENS REQUEST FOR PARKWAY TREE REMOVAL (14662, 14672, 14682, 14692, 14702, 14712 Westfall Rd.) AS recommended in the report dated January 5, 1982, prepared by the Maintenance Division, it was moved by Edgar, seconded Kennedy, to authorize City removal of the trees as requested and replacement of trees from the City approved list suitable to the owners. Carried 5-0. 86.1 6. CONSULTANT SELECTION - COLUMBUS TUSTIN PARK & MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY (PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & SITE PLAN) The Community Services Director added to the staff report that the firm of Recreation Systems, Inc., was selected following extensive screening, and staff feels very comfortable with the firm. In response to Councilman Edgar, the City Manager stated that staff is requesting Council concurrence with the consultant selection. An agreement will be prepared for Council approval at the next meeting. The eight-week completion timetable will commence from the date the agreement is approved. The Request For Proposal was designed to allow for flexibility to select another architect for Phase II should the City not be satisfied with performance on Phase I or the Phase II fee is not adequate. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 1-18-82 The Community Services Director added that after reviewing historical data, there was no specific decision made as to whether the facility would be recreational or sports oriented. The process will allow for a great amount of public input which will be a deciding factor, with Council having the ultimate decision. It was then moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to 1) Select the firm of Recreation Systems, Inc., FUllerton, to provide the professional design services for the preparation of improvement plans for Columbus Tustin Park and Multipurpose Recreation Facility; 2) Direct staff and City Attorney to draft subject agreement with Recreation Systems, Inc., pursuant to their pro- posal submitted December 7, 1981; and 3) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement as recommended by the Com- munity Services Director in the report dated January 13, 1982. Motion carried 5-0. 45 In response to Councilman Edgar, the Community Services Director reported that the park plan will be on the February I agenda. 7. STREET NAME CHANGE - WALNUT STREET BETWEEN NEWPORT AVENUE AND ORANGE STREET Following discussion, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Roesterey, to take no action on changing the name of Walnut Street between Newport Avenue and Orange Street, as recommended in the report dated January 13, 1982, prepared by the Director of Public Works. Carried 5-0. 96 8. ANNUAL REPORT - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ Pursuant to the report dated December 14, 1982, prepared by the : City Manager, it was moved by Hoesterey~ seconded by Edgar, to _ review the audit report, work program, achievements, and recom- mendations for needed State legislation. Carried 5-0. 81 Xo REPORTS 1. FISCAL YEAR 1980/81 AUDITREPORT Council concurred to receive and file the report prepared by the City Manager dated January 13, 1982. 29 2. RAISED REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKERS FOR FIRE HYDRANTS Council/staff discussion followed pertaining to blue reflector markers to designate fire hydrant location, possible traffic hazards if they're placed too far from the center line, cost to the City, and value on residential streets as opposed to arte- rial highways. The Director of Public Works reported that approximately four years ago, the City was approached by the County Fire Department to install reflective blue markers opposite hydrants just off the center line. At the time, the County indicated that if the City supplied the markers, they would attempt to install them. Staff responded that if it was a necessary item, the County i should budget for same. The item died until Councilman Edgar ! i brought the matter up a few meetings prior. Council concurred with Councilwoman Kennedy's suggestion that staff report back on data re number of seconds, property, lives, etc., saved where time is essential, and the possibility of including the markers in fire protection services agreement with the County. 51 3. SOLICITATION OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR MOULTON PARKWAY/IRVINE CENTER DRIVE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES Council concurred to receive and file the report prepared by the Director of Public Works dated January 13, 1982. 95 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 1-18-82 XI · ~r~R BUSINESS 1 · REQUEST FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION The City Manager requested an Executive Session for discussion of personnel matters. 2. WATER BONDS In response to Councilman Saltarelli, the City Attorney stated he does not believe the Tustin Water Works bonds are immediately due and payable because of the sale to the City. To date, there have been two requests for payoff of the bonds. At this point, the City is only making interest payments on the bonds. 3. EL CAMINO REAL The Director of Public Works responded to Councilman Edgar that there was a short red zone adjacent to the corner of Sixth Street and E1 Camino Real, and the remainder of it was a two- hour time zone, which has been frequently violated. Within the next meeting or two, staff will present a plan to red-zone quite a bit of curb on both sides of Sixth Street as well as E1 Camino to provide adequate turning radius for truck traffic, etc. Councilman Edgar commented that he is pleased to see all the power lines down on E1 Camino. The Director of Public Works reported that Pacific Telephone expects to have the telephone lines down no later than April. 4. REINSTATEMENT OF A PLANNING COMMISSION It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Sharp, to recreate the Plan- ning Agency with the time schedule that the newly elected Coun- cil will select the Agency and establish the principle that the selection be at-large. Pursuant to Councilman Hoesterey's comments, a substitute motion was made by Kennedy, seconded by Hoesterey, to agendize the mat- ter for the February l, 1982, meeting. Councilman Saltarelli expressed his support of the main motion. The Mayor recognized Margaret Byrd in the audience, who stated that from her observations, the previous Planning Commission was not a very efficient, productive commission. Following Councilman Saltarelli's comments, the original motion was amended to appoint public members to serve on the Planning Commission, as opposed to the City Council. Councilman Hoesterey spoke in favor of the substitute motion to allow the opportunity to study what fiscal impacts creating a Planning Commission might have in terms of a higher staff support level. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy's concern, the City Attorney stated that there is no requirement to agendize a matter, but it is an orderly procedure to follow. Councilman Edgar spoke in favor of the main motion. Councilman Eoesterey stated that the present Council has tried to let the voters know that it is not in the "railroading" busi- ness. He felt the proposed action is either in response to an editorial in the paper or some input that was received by a Councilmember, and did not understand why a decision must be made at this meeting if members of the Planning Commission will be appointed by the newly-elected Council. The substitute motion failed 2-3, Edgar, Saltarelli and Sharp dissenting. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 1-18-82 Councilman Saltarelli stated that although he believes the present Planning Agency is a very efficient, frugal operation, it is obvious that no one seems to appreciate the time being spent by Councilmembers to fill that job. The Mayor stated his support of the amended motion due to prob- lems that arose following approval of rather complicated pro- posals, or proposals Council thought were understood when approved, but once construction started or people started to object after construction commenced, he wonders if in the press of business, they received proper and due consideration. Councilman Hoesterey stated he was torn between voting against the amended motion to allow the matter to be agendized for fur- ther fiscal study, and voting in favor as it might be good to have a separate Planning Commission. The amended motion carried 5-0. 81 XlI.EXECUTIVE SESSION & ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Hoestere~, seconded by Edgar, to recess at 5=06 p.m. to an Executive Session for discussion of personnel matters, and thence adjourn to the next regular meeting on February 1, 1982. Carried 5-0. M~YOR ~