Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 03-19-90I. II. 71NUTES OF A REGULAR MEF ~�1G OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA MARCH 5, 1990 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy. INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Warren Vining, Pastor of Advent Christian Church. III. ROLL CALL IV. V. VI. Council Present: Richard B. Edgar, Mayor Ursula E. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem John Kelly Earl J. Prescott (Council position vacant) Council Absent: None Others Present: William A. Huston, City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Christine Shingleton, Dir./Community Development W. Douglas Franks, Chief of Police Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director Royleen White, Dir./Community & Admin. Services Valerie Whiteman, Acting Chief Deputy City Clerk Approximately 150 in the audience PROCLAMATION - POLICE CANINE FELLO RETIREMENT Mayor Edgar read and presented a proclamation to Canine Fello Vom Alten Fischerteich and Officer Tom Heritage of the Tustin Police Department's Canine Unit. The proclamation commended and extended appreciation to Fello for his meritorious and outstanding record of service to the City and wished him a happy retirement. Police Officer Tom Heritage thanked the Police Department for the opportunity of working with Fello and stated he had been a great partner. PUBLIC HEARING - None PUBLIC INPUT 1. MAYORAL LETTER REGARDING INVOCATIONS Mayor Edgar requested the City Clerk read the letters he sent to the clergy on January 3, 1990 and February 27, 1990. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition to a Mayoral letter sent to area ministers regarding appropriate content of invocations: Rev. McCready Johnston Frank Kazerski, 17121 East McFadden, Tustin Nova Dean Pack, 14681 Buckingham Place, Tustin Bill Hays, 15721 Williams, Tustin Stephanie Nelson, 14602 Cheshire Place, Tustin Faith Blatchford, 1422 Sierra Alta, Tustin Marie Duncan, 17766 San Francisco St., Fountain Valley Randy Wolf, 14792 Briarcliff Place, Tustin Mark Bachan, 215 South Prospect, #B-10, Tustin Richard Maiden, 13302 Charloma, Tustin Carol Spunkels Sandra Goldstein, 15500 Tustin Village Way, Tustin Joe Giesing, 9630 Starling Street, Fountain Valley Rev. Wiley S. Drake, 6801 Western Avenue, Buena Park The following members of the audience spoke in support of the Mayor and City Attorney's recommendation regarding the content of invocations: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 3-5-90 Howard Rosenberg, 13592 Carroll Way, Tustin Debbie Friedman, 651-C West 6th Street, Tustin Jean Thompson, 2291 Boxwood Place, Tustin Helen Edgar, 13622 Loretta Drive, Tustin Albert M. Shifberg-Mencher, 16282 Main St., #3B, Tustin Jack Miller, 17352 Parker Drive, Tustin Paula Massimino, 17880 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin Bob Schoenburg, 2271 Silk Tree Drive, Tustin Mayor Edgar stated he had taken an Oath of Allegiance, which included swearing to God, to follow the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California. When he was given advice from the City Attorney, that advice was acknowledged and passed on to the clergy. He stated he was not mandating how to pray or what words to use in prayer, however, it was important for every pastor who gave an invocation before a public body to recognize there were constitutional constraints. He expressed his support for freedom of speech and religion, however, when invited to a non -religious public meeting, it was essential not to use that privilege to convert someone to a particular religion. Councilman Kelly stated he was not supportive of the Mayor's initial letter and had no problem as to how the invocations were given at Council meetings. Councilman Prescott noted that Dr. Halverson, Chaplain of the United States Senate, had not been told how to pray in the last ten years and Councilman Prescott felt the Mayor's letter told Tustin clergy how to pray. He expressed one way to cleanse the City of controversy was to agendize City Attorney Rourke's letter and vote on a retraction at the next Council meeting. Council discussion followed regarding voting on a retraction of the invocation letter. Mayor Edgar requested the subject be agendized, after all other City business had been completed, at the March 19, 1990 Council meeting. Council concurred. RECESS - The meeting recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. II. CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 9 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Edgar. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. The motion carried 4-0. 1. APPROVED MINUTES - FEBRUARY 20, 1990, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVED DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,819,235.34 RATIFIED PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $231,511.88 3. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 89-38; CLAIMANT -JOHN HARRIS, DATE OF LOSS -9/12/89; DATE FILED WITH CITY -9/19/89 AND 1/25/90 Rejected subject claim for personal injury damages, special damages and general damages of an undetermined amount. 4. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 90-03; CLAIMANT-CARLOS IBARRA; DATE OF LOSS -11/10/89; DATE FILED WITH CITY -2/8/90 Rejected subject claim for personal injury and property damages of an undetermined amount. 5. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 89-10; CLAIMANT -DEBBIE ADLER; DATE OF LOSS -3/29/89; DATE FILED WITH CITY -5/4/89 Rejected subject claim for personal injury damages in the amount of $4,143.60. 6. APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH TUSTIN POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Directed the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the Tustin Police Officers Association. 7. REVISION TO PARK DESIGN PROCESS Adopted the revised policy and procedures regarding citizen participation in park and facility design. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 3-5-90 8. RESOLUTION NO. 90-36 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND SECTION 7910 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE Adopted Resolution No. 90-36 setting the appropriations limit for fiscal 1989-90 at $17,432,388.00. 10. COUNTY OF ORANGE FLOOD CONTROL FACILITY F07801 Approved the plans and specifications for the County of Orange Flood Control Project entitled La Colina - Red Hill Storm Channel (F07S01). 11. AWARD OF CONTRACT - CITY ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNS (PROJECT NO. 300046) Awarded the contract for subject project to Markel Cement Contracting in the amount of $15,575.00. 12. FILLING THE PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY Instructed staff to advertise for the current vacancy on the Planning Commission. 13. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT - ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Executed the proposed Hold Harmless Agreement with the Orange County Sheriff's Department for use of the facility at the South Coast Gun Club for shotgun familiarization and transitional training from revolvers to semiautomatic weapons. CONSENT CALENDAR NO. 9 - AWARD OF CONTRACT - JAMBOREE ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT (BARRANCA PARKWAY TO EDINGER AVENUE) THRU MARINE CORPS AIR STATION William Huston, City Manager, recommended Council award the bid for Jamboree Road subject to the condition of obtaining final approval from Caltrans. Mayor Edgar expressed gratification that the awarded contract was 30% less than the projected cost. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy to award the contract for construction of Jamboree Road (Barranca Parkway to Edinger) thru MCAS to E.L. Yeager Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $10,636.440.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract documents on behalf of the City subject to Caltrans approval. The motion carried 4-0. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None IX. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - None X. OLD BUSINESS 1. STATUS REPORT - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE MONITORING PROGRAM (JWA), COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS), AIRPORT SITE COALITION (ASC) AND HELICOPTER OVERFLIGHT PROGRAM TASK FORCE (HOPTF ) It was moved by Kelly, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 4-0. 2. APPOINTMENT OF CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE TO JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT FORUM AND MISCELLANEOUS MEETINGS Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy nominated Casper Kasparian and was seconded by Mayor Edgar. Councilman Kelly nominated Roderick MacLeod and was seconded by Councilman Prescott. Councilman Kelly stated that participation from a variety of citizens was good for the City and since Casper Kasparian was currently on the Planning Commission, Roderick MacLeod should be nominated to serve as the JWA representative. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 3-5-90 Mayor Edgar stated Mr. Kasparian was an excellent candidate, however, he would cooperate as to the nomination of Mr. MacLeod. He said Mr. MacLeod would be notified by mail and a letter of appreciation would be sent to the other candidates. 3. FREEWAYS/DIAMOND LANES/MASS TRANSIT TAX INITIATIVE RESOLUTION The following members of the audience spoke in support of the proposed resolution: Larry Koenig Carole Bryant, 15500 Tustin Village Way #100, Tustin Mayor Edgar requested the City Clerk read the following proposed resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT TWO TAX INITIATIVES BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT: ONE FOR ROADS AND FREEWAYS AND ANOTHER FOR DIAMOND LANES AND MASS TRANSIT. The following member of the audience spoke in opposition to the proposed resolution: Gerald Feldman, 13191 Wickshire Lane, Tustin Mayor Edgar noted the evidence that diamond lanes were successful was overwhelming and had become a mechanism for efficient transportation. He stated if a simplistic approach was taken of having only general purpose lanes on the freeways, it would take twenty lanes to accommodate the traffic. He stated he was absolutely against destroying Tustin to put twenty lanes of freeway through the City. The City was obliged to comply with standards set forth by Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments. He explained when roads were built in Tustin, matching funds from the gas tax were available from the State and Federal Government. If the City were to vote on an initiative allowing general purpose lanes only, the City would lose its State and Federal funding. Councilman Prescott stated he felt people were justifiably angry that the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) would put Measure M back on the ballot without alterations and OCTC refused to hold evening meetings. He felt there was outrage that people were expected to pay 3-10 billion dollars over the next 20 years but were not permitted to elect an Orange County Transportation Commission. He stated the resolution was a combination of those outrages. Council discussion followed regarding OCTC evening meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy expressed that the resolution was well meaning but poorly drafted. She stated she favored car pool, HOV, and diamond lanes because of concern for the environment and supported it, not as a total solution, but as a tenth of a total solution -- one which encouraged, reminded and rewarded drivers who, by sharing a ride, removed a car from the road. She added that if the resolution was passed the City would lose State and Federal funding. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file the subject report. As a substitute motion, it was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kelly, to adopt the proposed resolution. The substitute motion died 2-2, Edgar and Kennedy opposed. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. COMPROMISE RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL ELECTION Mayor Edgar questioned Councilman Prescott why he was proposing a resolution that was not in accordance with the law. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 3-5-90 Councilman Prescott responded it was his opinion that Ordinance No. 1032 was illegal, and by adoption of the Ordinance, piggy- backed the two incumbent Council seats. He recognized that the Council had a duty to hold an election to fill former Councilman Hoesterey's seat and proposed dividing the two issues, election for Councilman Hoesterey's seat and election for the two incumbent Councilmembers. Councilman Kelly stated it was his opinion that Ordinance No. 1032 was illegal because he felt former Councilmember Hoesterey was not a legal Tustin resident at the time the Ordinance was passed. He wanted to go on record as being fully supportive of holding an April election to fill the vacancy of former Councilman Hoesterey. Council/staff discussion followed regarding whether a Councilmember was bound to follow the advice of the City Attorney and what the cost was for the April election as opposed to a November election. It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kelly, to instruct the City Attorney to draft an Ordinance and necessary Resolutions to hold a special election in April to only fill the seat of Councilmember Hoesterey. The following members of the audience expressed their individual concerns regarding the proposed action: Zipora Shifberg-Mencher, 16282 Main St. #3B, Tustin Carole Bryant, 15500 Tustin Village Way #100, Tustin Berklee Maughan, 14331 Green Valley, Tustin Helen Edgar, 13622 Loretta Drive, Tustin Carl Kasalek, 2353 Caper Tree, Tustin Alex Carrassi, 17961 Arbolada, Tustin Joe Casasanta, General Manager, Continental Cable Jack Miller, 17352 Parker Drive, Tustin Robert Machado, 1352 Mauna Loa Road, Tustin Mayor Edgar explained that because the Council could not reach a consensus to fill Councilmember Hoesterey's vacancy, the Council was mandated by law to have a replacement election in June; it was not possible at that time to have the election in April. He continued to state that by changing the municipal election to April it became convenient for the City to have Mr. Hoesterey's replacement coincide with the election of the regular four-year terms. City Attorney, James Rourke, stated the Election Code provided that if a vacancy could not be filled by appointment the _ election for that seat must be held at the next regular election date, April 10th. The other two Council seats would expire by the Ordinance adopted last November, so they too must be filled on April 10. There was no way at this point to change the election date from April to November. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy noted that all the candidates had exactly the same opportunity and time to prepare for the election. She expressed that the issue of Mr. Hoesterey was the most unfairness she had witnessed in the time she had been with the City. She stated that the verbal and written attacks on his integrity, from Councilmembers Prescott and Kelly and their supporters, defamed and slandered him. She requested, in the interest of fairness, that Councilmembers Prescott and Kelly refrain from mentioning Mr. Hoesterey and to stop continually accusing him of illegal or improper conduct without pursuing proper legal avenues. She stated James Rourke, with 30 years experience, had advised the Council that the election in April was legal and to proceed. She believed that the Council should proceed with an April election and let the newly elected Council decide, in an unemotional environment and perhaps with advice from citizens, to revert to a November election. The motion died 2-2, Edgar and Kennedy opposed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 3-5-90 2. LETTERS FROM COUNCILMEN PRESCOTT AND KELLY REQUESTING CITY'S AGREEMENT TO PAY THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES Councilman Prescott clarified that the City Attorney, James Rourke, had retained Attorney Robert Owen of Rutan and Tucker to represent the City Clerk, Mary Wynn, in a recent election lawsuit filed against the City Council. A question -and -answer period followed between Councilman Prescott, Councilman Kelly and City Attorney James Rourke regarding: legal representation for the City Council during the lawsuit; legal basis for retaining Rutan and Tucker; the Council's right to request legal defense; communication between City Attorney James Rourke and the law firm of Rutan and Tucker; letter written by Councilman Prescott to City Attorney Rourke requesting legal defense be retained by the City on his behalf; and letter written by City Attorney Rourke in response to Councilman Prescott's request for City retained legal defense. Mayor Edgar read both subject letters into the record. Mayor Edgar explained that failure to vote for Resolution No. 90-26 was a crime and the City was not mandated to pay attorney fees to defend Councilmembers in a criminal action. Councilman Prescott questioned if he had the discretion to vote his own beliefs. James Rourke replied Councilmembers had that discretion only in those areas where the law gave that discretion. Councilmembers were not permitted to do whatever they felt like doing from time to time; Councilmembers were closely restricted in their duties, and their responsibilities were closely regulated by the provision of various statues of the -State of California. Councilman Prescott continued at length to question City Attorney Rourke. It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kelly, to have the City immediately appoint counsel of choice to represent Councilmembers Kelly and Prescott. Mayor Edgar expressed his opposition to the motion and stated that by not voting on Resolution No. 90-26, Councilmembers Prescott and Kelly were committing a criminal act and he was not prepared to defend criminal activity, however, he would accept the court's determination. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy stated as an attorney herself, she would respect the experience of City Attorney Rourke in stating that the Council had the right not to support alleged criminal activity, however, she would abide by the court's ruling. The motion died 2-2, Edgar and Kennedy opposed. It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kelly, to have the City Council appoint an attorney for Mayor Edgar and Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy. The motion died 2-2, Edgar and Kennedy opposed. It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kelly, to have the City Council appoint an independent attorney to defend the City. The motion died 2-2, Edgar and Kennedy opposed. It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kelly, to have the City Council initiate litigation to challenge the validity of Ordinance No. 1032. The motion died 2-2, Edgar and Kennedy opposed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 3-5-90 3. REQUEST TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The following member of the audience addressed the Council regarding his request to have underground utilities installed at the intersection of Sixth and "B" Streets. The request for undergrounding was to accommodate moving the Thompson residence, the oldest home in Tustin, from 640 West First Street to 415 West Sixth Street: Jeff R. Thompson, 405 West Sixth Street, Tustin Mayor Edgar stated he was supportive of Mr. Thompson's request and the value the community would derive from retaining the house was significant. He stated Redevelopment funding could be used because the intersection was in the Redevelopment area. He asked that Council vote on the commitment in concept and to agendize it at the March 19, 1990 Redevelopment Agency -meeting. William Huston, City Manager, noted the Council could adopt a motion committing to the funding of the project and staff could inform the utility company of that commitment. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to commit City funding of the Pacific Bell utilities undergrounding at the intersection of "B" and Sixth Streets. The motion carried 4-0. XII. REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA - FEBRUARY 26, 1990 It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of February 26, 1990. Councilman Prescott requested that Item No. 4. be appealed. The motion carried 4-0 to ratify the remainder of the Planning Commission Action Agenda of February 26, 1990. 2. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 1990 It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Kelly, to receive and file subject report. The motion carried 4-0. XIII. PUBLIC INPUT 1. CONDUCT OF COUNCILMEN PRESCOTT AND KELLY Paula Massimino, 17880 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, spoke regarding unprofessional and abusive conduct of Councilmen Kelly and Prescott. XIV. OTHER BUSINESS 1. PROCLAMATION FOR LESLIE PONTIOUS Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy requested a proclamation be given to former Planning Commissioner Leslie Pontious. Council concurred. 2. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 9, 1990 Mayor Edgar announced there would be a Special City Council Meeting on March 9, 1990 to consider adoption of Resolution No. 90-26, regarding polling places and precinct officers. Council discussion followed regarding action to be taken at the Special Meeting. (City Clerk notation: This meeting was cancelled.) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 3-5-90 N. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 p.m., then adjourned 7:00 p.m., and at 7:00 p.m. CITY CLERK the meeting recessed to the Redevelopment Agency, to a Special Council meeting on March 9, 1990, at then to the next Regular Meeting on March 19, 1990, MAYOR