Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1972 05 01 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN CITY .COUNCIL May l, 1972 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor C. Miller. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Councilman Langley. IIl. INVOCATION Given by Mayor C. Miller. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman: C. Miller, Saltar&lli, L. Miller, Langley, Welsh. Absent: Councilmen: None. Others present: City Administrator Harry Gill Asst. City Admin. Dan Blankenship Asst~ City Admin.-Comm. Devel. Ken Fleagle City Attorney James Rourke City Clerk Ruth Poe Ve PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor C. Miller opened the public portion of the hearing at 7: 37 p .m. There being no comments or objections, it was moved by Councilman Saltarelli, seconded by ~ouncilman Welsh that this hearing be continued in an open manner to the meeting of May 15, 1972. Carried unanimously. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 18, 1972 meeting 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in amount of $62,802.81 -Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Saltarell~ that items 1 and 2 of the Consent Calendar be approved. .Carried unanimously. VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 542 An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, California. PREZONING PROPERTY ON APPLICATION NO.PZ 72~133, INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Prezoning an approximately 2.54 acre parcel flq3m County E-4 (Small Estates) District to City of Tustin R-1 (Single Family Residential) District. Property located approximately 660' north of the centerline of Seventeenth Street, with approximately 340' frontage on the west side of Prospect Avenue. 5/1/72 Page 2 2. ORDINANCE NO. 543 An ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Tustin, California, THE ANNEXA- TION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY, DESIG- NATED PROSPECT-IRVINE-NEWPORT ANNEXATION NO. 68 (REVISED) TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA. The secretary read the titles of Ordinances 542 and 543 at the Mayor's request. Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Langley tha't further reading be waived and that Ordinances 542 and 543 by passed and adopted. Carried. Ayes: Langley, L. Miller, Welsh. Noes: C. Miller, Saltarelli. Absent: none. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION NONE IX. RESOLUTIONS I. RESOLUTION NO. 72-23 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California ESTABLISHING PORTIONS OF MCFADDEN AVENUE AND NEWPORT AVENUE TO BE COUNTY HIGHWAY DURING THE PERIOD OF STREET IMPROVEMENT BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 72-24 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN CERTAIN TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND DESIGNATED PROSPECT-CARLSBAD ANNEXATION NO. 75. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 72-25 A Resolution of City Council of the City of Tustin; California, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE, AND ORDERING, THE ACQUISITION BY CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. Property located at Utt Drive and Mitchell Avenue. Moved by Saltarelli., seconded by, Langleythat ~esolutions 72-23, 72-24, and 72-25 be read by title only. Carried unanimously. The titlesof Resolutions 72-23, 72-24, and 72-25 ._._were read by the secretary. Movedby L. Miller, seconded by Saltarellithat Resolutions 72-23, 72-24, and 72-25 be passed and ~. Carried. Ayes: C. Miller, Saltarelli,, L. Mllter',~, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: none. OLD BUSINESS 1. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION BIDS (see next page) ' ' - Counci i Minutes 5/1/72 Page 3 Mr. Grady Henry, Chamber of Commerce president, asked the following questions: a. How can Athens Disposal charge $1.50 per single family residence in Monterey Park and only $1.03 (proposed) in Tustin? b. Does the price Of containers in bids include wheels, lids, roll-out service, etc.? c. Why are 55-gallon barrels discussed in low bid, when they are illegal according to City Code Section 4712 in which maximum capacity is declared to be 35-gallon with maximum weight of 60 pounds? d. Are cost of living increases included in all bids, if the contractor bills the customer? e. How much new equipment will be required of the low bidder within 90 days? Mr. Blankenship replied as follows: a. The type of terrain in Monterey Park adds to the cost of trash collection, as do dump charges in that area. Athens is serving Montebello and Alhambra at a rate of $1.07 and $1.13 per residence, respectively. b. Letters on file indicate that wheels, lids, roll-out service, periodic cleaning, etc., are included in the bids of Athens, Toro, and Tustin Disposal. c. A barrel which can be mechanically loaded is considered a bin or mechanically-loaded container; Athens proposes to use mechanical loaders. A manually loaded container of barrel size would be inappropriate due to possibility of back injuries, etc. (City Attorney arrived at this point in the meeting, 7:50 p.m.) Athens has accepted, in writing, any proper container in any number that will hold 200 pounds. d. The specifications state that a cost of living increase based on the consumer price index for this area is automatically included only in that portion of the contract for which the City is paying the contractor directly, and does not apply to the portion of the con- tract involving direct billing by the contractor although Athens indicated that they would like to have a similar provision in the commercial section on bins. e. Specifications require that during the life of the contract, the contractor will not use equipment in excess of five years old or which fails to meet safety, appearance and mechanical standards. Athens has indicated that they would need temporary (90 days) waiver in order to avoid having to rent new equipment to start service pending delivery of new trucks in several months. Mr. Henry added that the City should pay $1.03 per business just as it will be paying for residential, since businesses are already paying taxes directly or through lease hold. Council Minutes 5/1/72 Page 4 Mr. Chuck Waltman of Toro Disposal Service ..... a~rted that~Qity staff used incorrect figures ~n ~he commer~ia,1 can and extended~commercial" service, and that Athens was permitted tO amend their original bid. Occasionally reading excerpts from his April 24 letter to the City, Mr. Waltman stated that two areas of the bid analysis are incorrect: Category B-Commercial Can Collection. The City's evaluation of Athens' figure is incorrect due to equating a 200-pound pickup with a two-barrel pickup. Average density of commercial trash in Tustin must be.determined so that Athens' bid based on number of barrels can be compared with other bids based on 200-pound limit. Mr. Waltman also challenged the City's assumption that Athens meant "55-gallon drums" when they said "barrels" in their bid; nowhere in that bid did Athens indicate intended use of 55-gallon drums. City ordinance forbids anything over 35 gallons, as well as anything over 60 pounds; an empty 55-gallon drumweighs 30 pounds and could con- rain'only 30 pounds of trash to be legalunder the ordinance. Category C-Commercial Bin Service. Mr. Waltman stated that City analysis was based on incorrect information as to the number of bins in the City. Since City staff did not use figures contained in Toro's comprehensive study on this, Mr. Waltman offered to pa~ the cost of an independent audit; he said that there has been no staff reply to this proposal, contained in the April 24 letter. Mr. Waltman then introduced Mr. Donald E. Frank, Department'Manager, Solid Waste Management, VTN Orange County, who prepared a report con- cerning commercial portion of the bids on behalf of Toro DisposalService. Mr. Donald E. Frank, VTN Orange County, 2301 Campus Drive,,Irvine, described background and qualifications of his company, and read his May 1 letter to the _~._-Counci~ on this matter, which generally supported - Mr. Waltman's'Comments about barrel size and capa- city and Athens' proposal, and discussed the figures in the "Bid Su/nmary" attachments. Mr. Arthur Nisson, Attorney, representing Toro Disposal'SerVice, stated that the particular problem with Athens' bid is in the matter of barrels, covered in their Attachment 10, which lacks a description of "barrel" or "container", and did not indicate any weight limit. Mr. Nisson referred to an April 18 letter from Athens to Mr. Blankenship explaining their barrel service and mechanical "barrel lift", and stated that this constitutes a new bid. Athens' April 28 letter fails to clear up-deliberate "ambiguities". He submitted that Toro is the low bidder. Ma~or C.Miller noted that in his experience, bids with many qualifications, protests, etc. usually indicate something wrong with the specifications, and suggested rebidding under revised specifications. Council Minutes :'5/1/72 Page 5 Replying to Councilman L. Miller, Mr. Gill described specification preparation and review of draft specifications by potential contractors. The staff felt that the specifications were clear and there had been no indication otherwise from contractors during the review process. Replying to further.questioning by Councilman L. Miller, Mr. Rourke stated that he was greatly involved in'the preparation of the specifications and that although experience with these bids would probably be helpful in re-drawing the specifica- tions, he did not feel that rejection of the bids would necessarily be the solution to the problem. In reply to Councilman Langley, Mr. Rourke explained that no additional bids were accepted and that he and the administrative staff had interpreted Athens' bid to mean a certain thing (concerning barrels', 200-pound limit, etc.) and had asked Athens to confirm this by letter. There was also a confirmation made relative to charges that are considered extra charges such as roll-out service, casters, lids, etc. It is felt that the best interpretation of the Athens bid is that they did intend to be bidding 200 pounds commercial pickup at the rate that was specified, and this was the confirmation received. Replying to further questions, Mr. Rourke stated that he and the staff undertook an analysis of the various possibilities of bin distribution as they did not have a bin count, and Athens was the lowest bidder in every theoretical distribution of bins. Mr. Leo Learn;, 824 N. Broadway, Santa Ana, repres- enting Western Refuse Hauling, read a portion of Western's letter of April 25, which maintained that the bid documents were unclear as to speci- fics,'and requested that the bids be rejected. Mr. Adam Slining, 10851 Thorley, Santa Ana, requested that a clearer set'of specifications be drawn up. Mr. Bud Holthe of Holthe Disposal Service stated that the company has purchased $250,000 worth of new equipment in the last nine months, and noted that Athens" bid listed trucks of 1960's and older. He said the Holthes' bid was higher because they were basing the bid on the quality of service they have been providing over the years. He suggested rejecting all the bids. Moved by Langley, seconded by Welsh that presenf bids be rejected and that Alternative One be redrawn in the specifications to eliminate questions and controversy about what is being bid on. 'Mr. Holthe stated that they would be willing to work with the staff about extending service until a bid is awarded. Above motion carried unanimously. Mr. Rourke,replying to Mr. Saltarelli, stated thaE all but one contractor (Toro) providing input for the specifications were of the opinion that an exclusive contract would be in order, for various reasons. Council Minutes 5/1/72 Page 6 ....... T~ the MayOr's comment that having contracto~s-~ -~ .~.,~, ~i~ Q~t~i~e ,~ no~re~!Usi~e .might _result that the qUestion'~i~ which method is most advantageous to the City. Mr. Gill reported that input inaicate~.that an exclusive franchise ~s a "must" in today's market and would provide a savings to the City. He referred ~o four letters received from various vendors attesting to the clarity of the speci- fications. He replied to Mr. Langley's question about lid and caster requirements. General Ralp~ Yeaman, President of the Enderle Gardens Homeowners Association, commended the quality of Holthe's service and recommended: con- sideration of their bid. Mr. Waltman spoke against an exclusive contract. Mr. Lou Gerding, 333 E1 Camino Real, Tustin, and Mrs. Lee Wagner, 17331 Jacaranda, Tustin, also spoke in support of Holthe Disposal Service. Mayor Mille~ called a recess at 9:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:16 p.m. x. NEW BUSINESS 1. FINAL TRACT MAP 7750 Property located on east side of Yorba Street, approximately 300 feet north of Jacaranda Avenue. .... Mr. Fleagle stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this final tract map on April 24 and found it in conformance with the tentative map previously submitted, and had recommended approval of the final tract map and that the Mayor and City Cl'erk be authorized to execute the necessary docu- ments subject to approval of the CC & Rs by the City Attorney. Mr. Fleagle explained, in reply to Council's questions, that the commercial and professional portions were approved for development by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1256, and UP-72-379 required dedication and improvement of the total street system for the total area indicated on the master plan prior to occupancy of any building; this was to assure that the commercial development would proceed as a coord- inated whole. The optionee, Western Mortgage, advised on April 28 that they have dropped the option on the property, and Mr.French, the original proponent, is still proceeding with plans for development and_expects to complete the project when financing is found. The master plan for the entire area was submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council and was approved as submitted. As a condition of Resolution No. 1243, the circulation system, street right-of-way on all the adjoining property was ded- icated and recorded and is now in the name of the City. [ ~-ounclt l~llnunes wl/7 7 Moved by L. Miller, seconded by Sa!tarelli ~hat Final Map of Tract 7750 be approved and the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execut,, the necessary documents, subject to approval o~ ~he ~C & Rs by the City Attorney. Carried unanimously. . XtI. OTHER BUSINESS 1. COUNTY ZC 72-22 It was the consensus of the Council that the Planning Commission respond to the County Plan- ning Commission on this matter, and that the City Council Would respond to the Board of · Supervisors when the case reaches that Body. Councilmen will discuss the matter with Super- visor Ralph Clark a.t the Breakfast Meeting on May 5. 2. CITIZEN COMMENTS: MRS. LEE WAGNER Mrs. Wagner thanked the Council for acting in a ~air manner on this evening's business. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Langley that the ~eeting be adjourned (9:30 p.m.). Carried unanimously. -.