The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC MINUTES 1981 02 02 MINUTES OFA REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way February 2, 1981 TO 0RDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Saltarelli at 4:37 p.m. following the regular meeting of the Planning Agency. II · ROLL CALL CounCilpersons Present: Edgar, Hoestorey,, Kennedy,= Saltarelli, Sharp Councilpersons Absent: None Others Present: James Rourke, City Attorney Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Eva A. Solis, Deputy City Clerk Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer Ken Fleagle, Conun. Dev. Consultant Michael Brotemarkle, Comm. Dev. Director :Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Royleon White, Community Services Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Gary Napper. Administrative Assistant Nancy Miller, Administrative Aide Approximately 15 in the audience III. PROCLAMA- TIONS The following proclamations were read and presented by Mayor Saltarelli in recognition of services :provided to the City: Geraldine "Jerry" L. Scott - Pacific Telephone Company M. W. "Hutch" Hutchison 'SouthernCatiforniaGasCompany lV. RECESS It was moved by Sharp. seconded by Edgar, to recess to the Redevel- opmehtAgency meeting at 4:42p.m. -:MotionCarriedS:0. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY February 2, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Saltarelli at 4:42 2. Members Present: Edgar, Hoesterey. Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp Members Absent: None 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January ~9. 1981 It was moved by Shar~, seconded by Kennedy, to approve the min- utes of the January 19, 1981, meeting. Motion carried 5:0. 4. RESOLOTION NO. RDA 81-1 - A Resolution of the T~stin Community RedevelopmentAgency of the CityofTust:~n,:Ca~ifornia, APPROV- ING. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF CONDUIT AND STRUCTURES FOR UNDERGROU~D ELECTRICAL AND TELEPHONE FACILITIES WITHIN THE EL CANINO REAL UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTPaCT NO. 5 AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS. It was moved by Shar~, seconded by Edgar, to adopt Resolution No. RDA 81-1. Councilman Edgar 'expressed concern regarding timing of actual, placement of the.underground conduit by the utility companies, statingthatina previous project there was a considerable delay in the conduit hook-up. The City Engineer stated there could be a delay, depending on availability of wiring, but staff would monitor closely to help eliminate lengthy delays in completion of the project. Motion carried 5:0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 2-2-81 5. DOWNTOWN PARKING Relative to Co~cilman Edgar's reference to assessed values received on ~e fo~ dontown parcels as requested by the Agency, Council concurred to direct staff to contact the Gfeller Development Company to dete~ine the possibility of a joint venture in developing do~to~ parking, and report back to Co~cil at its next meeting. 6. It was moved ~ Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to adjoin at 4:49 p.m..to the Ci~ Co~cil meeting. .Motion carried 5:0. MINUTES OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 4:49 P.M. February 2, 1981 V. PUBLIC CONCERNS None CONSENT MINUTES OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 12, 1981 Workshop January 19, 1981 Regular Meeting 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS. in the ~o~t of $1,111,019.54. RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the ~o~t of $91,686.16. 3. REPLACEMENT POLICE PATROL VEHICLES Approval of ~e p~chase of the five (5) patrol vehicles as quoted from the Los Angeles Co~ty purchase and appro- priate $6,890 from the ~appropriated reserves of the ~uipment Reserve Fund and approve the purchase of the station wagon ~d authorize the appropriation ~ansfers as stated as reco~ended by the Finance Director in his report of January 26, 198~, 4. RESOLUTION NO. 81-8 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin AMENDING THE PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN- Adoption of Resolution No. 81-8 as recomended by the personnel Director. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 81-9 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, .ESTABLISHING CERTAIN TUSTIN WATER SERVICE FEES, CHARGES, DEPOSITS AND WATER USAGE RATES Adoption of Resolution No. 81-9 as recomended by ~e Engi- neering D~par~ent- 6. RESOLUTION NO. 81-12 - A Resoiution of the City Council of the City of, Tustin, FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1979 (Smoke Detectors) Adoption of Resolution~No. 81-12 as recO~ended by ~e Com- m~ity Development Director- 7. RESOLUTION NO. 81-11 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT 11370 (SW terminus of Newport Avenue - 14901) Adoption of Resolution No- 81-11 as reco~ended by ~e Com- m~ity DevelopmentDepar~ent. · CITY COUNCIL M/NUTES Page 3, 2-2-81 8. SETTLEMENT - KREUGER, COLGAN, HUNT AND BROYLES · Accept the check. !from= Farmer~s Insurance !Group in the amount of $9,526.00 as settlement in the matter of Kreuger, Colgan, HUnt and Broyles and authorize execution of the form releasing the Farmer's Insurance Group from any future claims in this matter as recommended by the Personnel Director. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 81-14- A Resolution of Intention of the City CoUncil of the City of Tustin, California, TO REMOVE POLES, OVERHEAD WIRES AND ASSOCIATED OVERHEAD STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATED ON EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND NEWPORT AVENUE, EL CAMINO WAY BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY FRONTAGE ROAD, SANTA ANA FREEWAy FRONTAGE ROAD BETWEEN EL CAMINO WAY AND NEWPORT AVENUE, MAIN STREET BETWEEN "C" STREET AND 180'+ EASTERLY OF PREBLE DRIVE AND NEWPORT AVENUE BETWEEN BONITA STREET AND THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY WHICH AREA IS MORE PARTICULA/{LY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AND TO PROVIDE FOR UNDERGROUND INSTALLATION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED APPURTENANCES Adoption of Resolution No. 81-14 as reconunended by the City Engineer. Items 4 and 7 were removed from the Consent Calendar by Kennedy; Item 5 by Edgar; and Item 6 by Hoesterey. It was moved by Salta- relli=, seconded by Edgar, 'to approve,the remainder~ of the Consent Calehdar. Motion carried 5:0,~ Item 4-Resolution No. 81-8 - Following clarification by the City Attorney of changes made in the resolution tol place emphasis on open, competitive examinations ~as the standard, it was moved Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to adopt Resolution No. 81-8. Council- man Sharp felt the resolution would restrict promotions, and pro- posed continuance of the matter to allow further= study by Council. The City Administrator provided a comparison of the current reclas- sification rules/regulations to the proposed rules/regulations. The PersOnnel Director indicated the resolution was prepared based on CoUncil approval in concept; staff had not proceeded with implemen- tation of the CommUnity Services reorganization until after formal approval by Council of the reclassification policy; and added that continuance of the matter would affect staff morale of employees in the Community Services Department currently working in a lower classification. A substitute motion b~ Saltarelli, seconded bX Sharp, was made to continue the matter to the next meeting. Carried 5:0. Item 5 - Resolution No. 81-9 - Councilman Hoesterey requested a com- parison of the present fee structure to the proposed fees. The City Engineer responded that the fees in Section VI of the re~olution are identical to those approved by the Public Utilities Commission prior to the City's acquisition of the waterworks. Councilman Hoesterey requested consideration of exempting senior citizens from the service ~deposit requirement withlthe.stiputationthat it be on a 'single'service residential hookup...Followingfurther discussion and clarification by staff, it was moved by Shar~, seconded by Kennedy, to COntinue the matter to the next meeting. The Mayor requested a comparison to what other Orange County cities. charge for similar services. Motion carried 5:0 Item 6- Resolution No. 81-12 - In response to Councilman Hoesterey, the Community Development Director stated that consideration of the subject resolution cwas a prerequisite to amending the.Uniform Build- ing Code via 'Ordinance No. 838 related to smoke detectors. It was moved by Edgar, seconded bX Sharp, to adopt Resolution No. 81-12. Carried 4:1, Saltarelli dissenting. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 2-2-81 Item 7 - Resolution No. 80-11 - It was moved by Edgar, seconded Saltarelli; to adopt Resolution No. 80-11. Motion carried 4:1, Kennedy dissenting. ORDINANCE FOR INTRO- DUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 838 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of. Tustin, California, AMENDING. ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 8 OF TUSTIN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO SMOKE DETECTOR INSTALLATION It was moved by .Edgar, seconded by Sharp, that Ordinance No. 838 have first reading by title only. The Mayor stated his objec- tions, and the Community Development DirectOr prgvided clarifi- cation on the revised Ordinance. .Carried 5;0. t :~Ollowing read- ing of title by the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded .by Kennedy, that Ordinance No.. 838 be introduced- Chief Hitchins, Fire Marshal, Orange County Fire Department, offered. assistance in preparation of an ordinance which would not place a demand for additional personnel on the City and not be viewed as an infringement of private property, and stated that if the ordinance were adopted, the OCFD. could provide aid in its enforcement. He suggested continuance of the matter to allow the Fire Department's input in drafting a smoke detector -ordinance. A substitute motion was made blz Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to refer the matter back to staff for coordination with the Orange County Fire Department, and bring back to Council for further review. Councilman Edgar felt the matter had received sufficient review, and expressed his desire to take action on the ordinance now. Councilman Sharp made reference to excluding the wording "under penalty of per3ury" and the $10.00 filing fee. The City Administrator interjected that the original ordi- nance which required smoke detectors retroactive in single- family homes had received input from the Fire Department; it was rejected by Council; and the ordinance at hand was prepared by staff at Councilis direction. Following further discussion, the motion carried 4: 1, Edgar dissenting- VIII. ORDINANCES FOR . ADOPTION None AGENDA ORDER X. NEW BUSINESS 7. TORO DISPOSAL SPECIAL BIN SERVICE Due to lateness of the meeting, the Mayor indicated this item would be heard at this time. Gary Jackman, Holthe Disposal, stated that three-day bin service has not been provided to the residential community in the past, and the industrial norm is to leave a bi~._~0~ _~ev~._days. However, realizing that there is a __ need for this service from residents and after surveying resi- dential franchise sellers in differen~ cities, he found Holthe's current rate was equal to or less than Toro's. Mr. Jackman stated Holthe is currentl~ stud~i~"'~'o'~ting and considering a three-day program as opposed to the seven-day program. He also indicated Holthe's position is to provide the bin ~ervice and avoid an infringement of their franchise CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 2-2-81 The attorney for Toro Disposal, stated the City Attorney was to provide an opinion on why the Toro Disposal bin service con- flicts with the exclusive contract agreement; why the City would be liable if Toro was allowed to compete within Tustin; and he feels it is incumbent upon the City Attorney to specifically advise as to which portions of the contract would be breached. The Mayor stated Council would review this matter with the City Attorney in an Executive Session and report back to the parties involved. OLD BUSINESS 1. RESOLU TION NO. 81-10 - A Resolutionof the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING TRANSFER OF SHARES OF SIX STAR CABLEVISION OF TUSTIN, INC. William Marticorena, rePresentingSixStar/Nielson Cablevision, spoke in favor of adoption of Resolution No. 81-10, and requested deletion of the stock transfer restriction upon Neilson Enterprises. The City Attorney stated he saw no problem in permitting an exception for the shares transfer based on his knowledge of the entities involved. Council discussion of the FCC investigation of Six Star Cablevision and clarification of thematte~. ~eCity Attorney followed. The motion by Kennedy to adopt Resolution No. 81-10 was not sec- onded. It was then moved by Saltarelti, seconded by Edgar, to adopt Resolution No. 81-10 with the addition of the following on pagei2, line27 said ,entities,~"except as to Nielson Enterprises, Inc.," without the · The motion carried 5:0, with the request that staff remain aware of the matter. 2. PROPOSAL BY WALTER FOSTER ON SZURPLUS LAND BY BOYS' CLUB WithCouncil'S concurrence, this matter was deferred to later in the meeting, pending Mr. Foster's arrival. (See page 7) X. NEW BUSINESS 1. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT (ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT) A~ recommended in the memo dated Ja~unry t9, 1981, prepared by the City Administrator, it was moved by Edgar, seconded Sharp, to: 1.).Support Supervisor Riley's position~ to maintain the current master plan approach. 2) .Support the proposed resolution before the Orange County Division of the League; and 3~) Request the following changes:= a) The preferential runway. play (taking off toward Tustin) should not be a minimum of 200 hours as shown in the League resolution, but should only be when required by Santa Ana wind conditions. b) The County should attempt T0 find another small airport for all of! the "touch and go" practice landings of small planes which woUld=!appear:to add air traffic congestion and potential hazards to a stressed situation. c) The County ~should avoidl expansion of private aviation at this location assUchlexpansion would appear to irritate or conflict with the expansion of commercial aviation. Motion carried 5:0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 2-2-81 2. RESOLUTION NO. 81-13 - A Resolution of the-City Council of the City Of Tustin, California, APPROVING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PERSONNEL RECORDS It was moved blF Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, toladopt Resolution No~ 81.13.z Motion carried 5:0. 3. AWARD OF BID - TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS, WALNUT/FRANKLIN AND WALNUT/BROWNING Bids were received as follows: Baxter-Griffin, Stanton . :: $8~ ,932 · 00 W.R. Hahn, Corona $91',336.00 I Electrend, Inc., Norwalk $92,410.00 Steiny and Company, Anaheim $93,100.00 Grissom & Johnson, Inc ·, -Santa Ana $93,190 · 00 Paul Gardner, Ontario $95,632 · 00 Smith Electric Supply, Stanton $107,748 · 00 The low bidder came in 20% under the Engineer's estimate of $.1 ~1.0,3.7.3 · 00: ( original budgeted amount $100,000.00 ) · It was moved by Edgar,: seconded by Kennedy, to award subject bid to the low bidder, Baxter-Griffin of Stanton, in the amount of $87,932.00, as recommended in the memo dated JanUary 28, 1981, prepar~ed by the ~ity :Engineer. Carried 5.:0. 4. AWARD OF BID - STREET IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SAN JUAN STREET Bids were received as :follows: :' Five States Plumbi~ng, Orange $57,686 .65 R. J. Noble Co., Orange $61,283.95 Griffith Co., Irvine $61,563.59 Calex Paving Co., Long Beach -$63,156.00 Porter Construction Co., Santa Aria $64,184.70 Luz Pina, General Engr., Long Beach $64,812.23 Ruiz Engr .- Co. ,~-Long Beach ' ~ $66,256 · 55 B- 1 Enterprise Corp ·, Rancho Cucamonga $66,611 · 90 Hardy and Harper, Tustin $66,981.10 Jerry Cross Paving, Costa Mesa $66,936.03 Veal Construction, Los Angeles $68,394.60 T. J. Crosby, Inc., Santa Ana $69,920.57 Damon Const. Co., South Gate $78,046.55 The low bidder ,came in 14.5% below the Engineer's estimate of $67,500.00, (original budget amount $40,700.00, with additional budget appropriation of $17,000.00 reqUired)- As recommended in the memo dated January 28, 1981, prepared by the City Engineer, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to award subject bid, to the low bidder, Five States Plumbing of Orange, in the amount,.of $57,686.65 and appropriate additional funding in the ameunt of $17,000.00. Motion carried 5:0. 5. AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACTS FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES The City Engineer responded to the Mayor's inquiry on the sub- ject contract award process, indicating type of work, funding, location of work, and staff time required were factors consid- ered in the award recommendation · It was then moved Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar,~ to select the-following consul- tant engineering . firms ~to perform! engineering design services for projects and amounts as follows: Projects la and lb - Berryman & Stephenson, Inc~ $16,600.00 Projects 2a, 2b, 2c - Governmental Professional Svcs $14,650.00 Project 3 - R.G.B. Engineering $ 6,500.00 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 2-2-81 Following discussion re budgeted amounts, the'motion was amended to include additional funding in the amounts of $16,600.00 for Projects la and lb, and $6,500~00 for Project 3 to cover the cost of consultant design fees. Motion=carried 5:0. Councilman Hoesterey expressed apprehension over exceeding bud- get limitations, and 'requested.that staff provide financial reports which would prevent over-spending and provide the oppor- tunity of reallocating excess funds to selected projects prior to the end of the fiscal year. Council concurred. 6. PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AS recommended in the memo dated February 2, 1981, prepared by the Community Development Consultant, it was moved by Salta- rell~, seconded by Edgar, to authorize scheduling consideration of..draft Ordinance No. 841 and Resolution No. 81-7 at the next regular meeting. Carried 5:0. AGENDA ORDER IX. OLD BUSINESS 2. PROPOSAL BY WALTER FOSTER ON SURPLUS LAND BY BOY'S CLUB Noting that Walter Foster was not present, Council discussed the °ffer-maS subm~ted'i~ his.lett~rdated January.23, 1981. The City Administrator added that in consideration of that offer, the City might wish to retain ae0' portion of the easement for possible;development of a water .well. It was;moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, to accept Mr. Foster's offer of $10,000 for the strip of :land adjacent to the Boys' Club, contingent upon the City Attorney meeting with the BOys' Club and Mr. Foster and reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement between the three parties involved. Discussion followed regarding the existing Boys' Club lease, the possibility of leasing the subject parcel, future development options, andoriginationoftheoffer submitted.I A substitute motion was made~bX Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to direct the City Attorney to meet with Mr. Foster and Boys' Club officials to negotiate an offer relative to price vs. mutual benefits and report back to Council at the next regular meeting. Motion carried 5:0 XI. OTHER BUSINESS I. ANNEXATION NO. 121 - IRVINE BLVD. - DEAN ST. Consideration of the matter was deferred to later in the meeting to allow Council review of Resolutions No. 80-15 and No. 80-16. (See page 8) 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS The City Administrator noted that the next regular meeting will be .he~ on Tuesday, February ~i7, ~1~81; and adjournment will be to the February 9, 1981, workshop session to be held in the maintenance building. 3. FINANCIAL REPORTING Councilman Hoesterey expressed desire for monthly reports of the City*s financial standing, i.e., budget vs. actual expenditures with capital expenditures ±nclu~ed, on a departmental basis. Cou21cil concurred. In response to Councilman Edgar, the City Administrator indi- cated that the financial statement of the City's acquisition of the waterworks should be finalized within the next thirty days. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 2-2-81 4. LANDSCAPING OF MEDIANS '- The .City Engineer responded, to Councilman Edgar' s inquiry regarding the ~enter~ median located on Plaza: Drive. stating that one of the developers expressed interest in obtaining Council permission to plant and.maintain that islands. Failing that, staff will add this median to the Newport Center Island project. 5. TUSTIN MEADOWS - MEDIAN ISLANDS The Mayor referred to the cost analysis received for planting grass in the center island on Sycamore from Red Hill to Devon- shire, and requested that the matter be placed on the Febru- ary 17 agenda. ~ Inquiry was also made as to the condition of the median where Pacific Telephone Company is currently working, ,,with the City Engineer reporting that a condition of the contract requires reseeding of the island by Pacific Telephone. The City Engineer indicated he would research the matter .of whether trees .at the entrance to .Tustin Meadows! are diseased and report back to Council. 6. ANNEXATION NO. 121 - IRVINE BLVD. - DEAN STREET · RESOLUTION NO. 81-15 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPE- CiAL ANNEXATION ELECTION FOR "IRVINE BLVD..DEAN STREET ANNEXA- TION NO. 121 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN" TO BE HELD IN TERRITORY PRO- POSED FOR ANNEXATION ON TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 1981, AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS ~ OF THE. STATE OF CALI- FORNIA RELATING TO THE CALL AND CONDUCT-OF SUCH SPECIAL ELECTION AND PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF ARGUMENTS AND REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 81-16 - A Resolution of the City Council of the CIty of Tustin, California REQUESTING THE. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO SAID CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL ANNEXATION ELECTION TO BE HELD IN TERRITORY pROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION NO, 121, IRVINE BLVD.-DEAN STREET, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2~ 1981 It was moved by Edgar, seconded-by Saltarel~li, to adopt Resolu- tions No. 80-15 and No. 80-16 with staff to simplify wording on page 2, Section 8, of Resolution No. 80-15 if legally possible. Motion carried 5: 0.. XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION; ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Sharp, seconded by Edgar, to adjou~rn at 6_'.20 p.m. to an Executive Session for discussion of legal matters, thence to the workshop session on February 9, 1981, and thence to the next regular meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 1981. Carried 5:0. YOR