HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES 05-05-86HINOTES OF A REGULAR P~EETING
OF ltlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CIIY OF llJSTIN, CALIFORNIA
MAY 5, lg86
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
Councilwoman Kennedy.
II. ROLL CALL
Councilpersons Present:
Councilpersons Absent:
Others Present:
III. PROCLAJ4ATIONS
IV.
Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor
Ronald B. Hoesterey, Mayor Pro Tem
Richard B. Edgar
John Kelly
Ursula E. Kennedy.
None
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
VI.
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 ANERICANS 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
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
PUBLIC INPUT
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to approve the entire
Consent Calendar. The motion carried 5-0.
e
APPROVAL OF MINIFrES - APRIL 7, 1986, REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 15, 1986, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 21, 1986, REGULAR MEETING
APPROVAL OF OENANOS IN THE AMOUNT OF $497,950.75
RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $142,396.83
5O
REOECTION 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
£~-9~ !~Z-98
66 '3u~3Jed~Q
-dO[aAaO £3~unaao3 aql £q pgpugamo3aJ S~ £uedao3 aU~AJI awl pue
£3~3 a43 uaa~aq ~uawa~J6¥ a3ueua~u~eN adeospue9 a4~ alnoaxa
o3 ~Ja[3 £3~3 pu~ Jo£~N aq3 paz~Joq3ng pu~ ~£u~dmo3 au~^J!
pu~ £3~3 aq3 uaa~3aq ~uaaaaJ6¥ pu~[~j8d aq3 a3n3axa o3 ~JaL3
£3~3 pu~ JO£~N aq3 paz~Joq3n~ ~§-98 *oN uo~3n[osaa paldop~
-uap~saa ! as~qd) §~ 'ON dVW ~3¥~ 3¥NZJ 9NZ^O~dd¥ 'NZ~SflJ. JO
Ali3 3HI JO ]I3Nf103 Ali3 3HI JO NOIlfllOg3a V - SS-98 'ON #OIl~lOS3a 'II
· aa6euew X3~3 eq3 £q pe^oJdd~ s~ I-9B 'ON uo~3nLosa~ pa3dopv
9NI991B 33IAa35 ~31VM ONV '33190d 'NOIIV951939 ~0 $1N3WI~Vd30 3HI
BOJ ~39BYH3 33IAB3S ON¥ $33J 9NIHgIgB¥1~3 '¥INB0~I9¥3 'NIIS~I JO
AlI3 3H1 ~0 913N~03 AlI3 3H1 JO NOI£~9053~ ¥ - E-9B 'ON NOI]J190$3a '0!
~OI 'uo~s~^~O 6u~aeeu~6u3 '3uem3JedaQ
s~JOM 3~Lqnd aq3 £q papuammo3aJ se Bg-98 'ON uo[3nkosaB pa3dopv
NI~SR± JO A±I3 3H± JO a33N
-I9N3 A£I30N¥ ~a333 A±I3 3H± JO 33I~J0 3H1 NI 3ql~ NO dYN NI¥£~33
±VH± NO ONV 0±3~3H Q3H3VI£V .¥,, II8IHX3 NI Q38I~3S3Q AqaV3~3I±aYd
3~OW SI V3aV H3IHM 3RN3A¥ laOdM3N QN¥ 3QN3AV igOH N33MI3B O~¥A3IROB
3NIA~I ONV 'O~VA3I~O~ 3NIA~I QNV 3~N3AV IBOdM3N N33MI3B 3~N3AV I90H
NO 031¥309 N~£$~1 JO XlI3 3HI JO ¥3B¥ 3H1 NIHII~ $3BD£3DB£$ 0¥3H
-~3AO 031¥I3055V ON¥ $3UI~ O¥3HU3AO '$390d JO 9¥AOW3B 3H1 9NIBIDO3B
IDIBISIO i±IqIlO ONOOBgB3ONO NV JO NOIldOOV ONV NOIIVNglS30 3HI
B3OISN03 Ol 9NIB~3H 3IgBod ¥ ~0 33~9d ONV 3Nil ¥ 9NI1£3S NI£$~1 JO
A±I3 3HI ~0 913NR03 AlI3 3HI ~0 NOIIO90$3B V - Bg-gB '~ NOII~90$3B
~OI 'uo~s~^~O §u~JaeU~§U3 '3ua~aedaQ
s~JoM 3~[qnd eql fq papueamo3aJ se 6§-98 'ON uo~3n[osau pe3dop¥
NIIS~I JO iiI3 3HI JO ~33NIgN3 iii30NV ~393 i113 3HI
JO 33IJJO 3HI NI 39IJ NO dVW NIVIU33 IYHI NO ONV OI3B3H 03HDVIIV
,,V,, IIBIHX3 NI 03BI~3S30 19~Vg~OlIUVd 3~OW SI V3U¥ HDIHM '133B15
SSVM ON¥ 3DN3A¥ N¥iBB JO igB3HIUON 133J gZE N33MI3B 3DN3A¥ IBOdM3N
NO 031V309 NIi$~l ~0 i113 3HI JO ¥3B¥ 3Hi NIHIIM S3BDIDDBIS 0¥3H
-B3AO 031¥I305S~ ON¥ S3UIM OV3HB3AO 'S390d JO 9¥AOW3U 3HI ~NIBIDO3B
13IU1510 ilIgll~ ON~OUgU3ON~ NV ~0 NOIldO0¥ ON¥ NOIIVN~I$30 3Hi
B3OISNO30l 9NIUV3H 3198Ad ¥ ~0 33¥9d ON¥ 3WI1 ¥ 9NI1135 NIISFLL ~0
i113 3HI JO 913ND03 iii3 3HI JO NOIIDgOs3B ~ - 6g-gB '0~
96
'uo~s~^6O §u~aaau~§u3 '3uam3JedaQ s4JoM 3~[qnd aq~ £q papuam
-~o3aa se '986~ '6~ fen o3 '986~ '~ XeN ~oJj §u~aeaq 3~[qnd
aq3 JOj ~as a~ep a43 a6ueq~ o~ L~-98 'ON uo~3ntosa~ papuamV
OVOB H31~J NII$AI Ol OVOB 33BOBI~E WO)J 39N~HO 3HVN ~33BZ$
JO NOIIN31NI aOJ #O~IAIO$3B - Z~-gB 'ON NOIIAgOS3B Ol IN3WON~QV
'6
'8
'Z
S6 'uo~s~^~Q 6u~aaau~6u3 '~uem~dedao S4JOM o~[qnd aq3 Xq
papua~ooaJ se ~unome uo~lua~aa %0~ [eu~j jo ~uam£ed paz~aoq~ne
'uo~3epao3ad JO a3ep Ja3Je s£ep OE P~L~J aJe sao~3ou
do3s JO sa~e[3 ou §u~nsse pue ~LS-9B 'oN uo~3n[osaB pa3doPV
(meJ6
-oad ~eLJaAO a3~J3uo3 ~t~qdsv pue uo~3e3~t~qeqa~ 3uamaAed 9B-g86I
J~aA LeOS~ - '3uI '§u~^~d J~g[B) NOI£39dW03 ~0 33110N JO NOII
-~OBOO3a 9NIZIUOH£D¥ ON~ 1N3W3AOBdWI ~0 $3B0~ 9NIld333~ NIIS~I ~0
Ali3 3H1 ~0 913N~03 Ali3 3H1 ~0 NOI£R90$3B ¥ - Z~-gB 'ON NOII~9~3B '9
~6 'uo~s~^6O 6u~aaau~6u3 '~uam3JedaQ S~JOM o~lqnd aq3 ~q
papuammooaJ sg 3unom~ uo~%u~3BJ %0I tgu~j ~o 3u~m£gd p~z~Joq~n~
'UO~3~pJoDBJ ~0 B3~p JB3~8 $£~p 0~ PBt~ ~J~ $~D~3OU
do3s JO sm~t3 ou 6u~mnss~ pu~ 19§-98 'ON uo~3nlos~ pa3dopv
(peo~
~un6e9 pu~ p~o~ aaJoqmep 's3uomaAoJdmI I-S8 3o~J3S~O ~uomssassv
- £uedmoD 6u~2oe~2uoD Ja[[~W £[[n$) NOII39dWOO JO 33110N JO NOII
-¥0~0~3B 9NIZIBOHIR¥ ON¥ 1N3W3AOBdWI JO $3~0~ 9NIId3DD¥ NII~I JO
AlI3 3HI JO 913NR03 A113 3HI JO NOIIQqO$3B V - 9g-gB 'ON NOII~IO$3B
-g
981~1~ :Ali3 HIIM 031Ii 31VO ~98/6/I
:$$01 ~0 ]1¥0 ~AB13~ IOBWO :]J~I¥1O ~-98 'ON WI¥10
98-g-g 'Z a6~d
$31~NIW 913N~O3 AlI3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3, 5-5-86
VII.
VIII.
IX.
ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION
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, lg86, 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 by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordi-
nance No. g68 be introduced 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
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION
None.
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 Aha 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 Aha 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 of
Alternative 2A because it provides the most general purpose lanes
needed.
Councilman Edgar spoke in support of HOV lanes.
followed.
Council debate
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 ~ll 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 would
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
MAIN STREET TRAFFIC CONTROLS (MAIN STREET AT "B" STREET INTER-
SECTIOg)
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
l
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
NEW BUSINESS
1. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR BELL AVENUE STORM ~AIN EXTENSION
Bids for subject project were received on April 29, 1986, as
follows:
Gillespie Construction, Inc., Costa Mesa
Wilson's Equipment Rentals, Inc., Ontario
Ray Development & Construction Co., Corona
Peter Co David Company, Garden Grove
KIP, Inc., San Marcos
Kershaw Construction, Montclair
Mladen Buntich Construction Co., Sunland
Sully-Miller Contracting Co., Orange
Vicco Construction, La Verne
JWM Engineering, Irvine
Mike Bubolo Construction, Temple City
J & B Contractors, Inc., Highland
$ 96,673.50
$104,221.00
$107,337.30
$108,345.00
$113,666.00
$118,026.00
$118,052.00
$120,517.25
$120,587.00
$126,480.50
$129,885.00
$150,884.29
As recommended in the i nter-com dated May 1, 1986, prepared by the
Public Works Department, Engineering Division, it was moved by
Edgar, seconded by Hoestere~, to award the contract for subject
project to Gillespie 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. gl
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6, 5-5-86
XI.
XII.
ABARD OF CONTRACT FOR EL CANINO REAL EXTENSION FROM TUSTIN AUTO
CENTER TO MYFORD ROAD
Bids for subject project were received on March 27, 1986, as
fol 1 ows:
S. A. Healy Company, Azusa
W. F.~Maxwell, Inc., San Diego
K.E.C. Company, Corona
Fleming Engineering, Inc., Buena Park
$684,d73.50
$709,885.00
$729,614.g0
$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
REPORTS
1. PLANNING COMNISSION A~TION AGENDA - APRIL 28, 1986
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to ratify the entire
Planning Commission Action 'Agenda of April 28, 1986. Motion car-
ried 5-0. 80
2. IR1/ESTNENT SCHEDULE AS OF APRIL 30, 1986
It was moved by Hoestereyt. seconded by Edgar, to receive and file
subject report dated April 30, 1986, prepared by the Finance
Department. Carried 5-0. 50
3. NAIN STREET UNDERGROUNDING OF ~ffILITIES 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. ~4
OTHER BUSINESS
1. UNDERGROUNO UI'ILITY 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. CIIY FILINGS IN SNALL CLAINS 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 AgO & EDINGER
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey, the Director of Public
Works stated that signalization of Del AmD 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 AmD for progressive timing.
$. 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.
7. APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC llENBER 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 PIJ~NNING COI~qISSIONERS
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 Commissioners for the May 19 meeting;
to send letters 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
XIII.
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 1 wherein the City Attorney states that the
Joi~t 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.
RECESS - REDEVELOP~NT 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.
CiT C
LERK
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF ll~E REDEVELOPMENT AGE~Y OF
THE CITY OF 1USTIN, CALIFORNIA
MAY 5, 1986
CALL TO Offi)ER
The meeting was called to order at 8:20 p.m. by Chairman Saltarelli
City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California.
in the
ROLL CALL
Agency Members Present:
Agency Members Absent:
Others Present:
Donald J. Saltarelli, Chairman
Ronald B. Hoesterey, Chairman Pro Tem
Richard B. Edgar
John Kelly
Ursula E. Kennedy
None
William A. Huston, Exec. Director/City Manager
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary/City Clerk
Donald D. Lamm, Community Development Director
Robert S. Ledendecker, Director of Public Works
Charles R. Thayer, Chief of Police
Royleen A. White, Dir. of Com. & Admin. Services
Ronald A. Nault, Finance Director
Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent
Approximately 50 in the audience
e
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 7 AND 21, 1986 REGULAR MEETINGS
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to approve Minutes of the
April 7, 1986, and April 21, 1986, Regular Meetings. Motion carried 5-0.
O~HER BUSINESS - APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR llU~FFIC SIG~L AT ~IN & "B"
STREETS
It was moved by Edgar, secohded by Kennedy, to appropriate funds for the
installation of a traffic signal at Main and "B" Streets, not to exceed
$90,000. The motion carried 5-0. 94
5. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. to the next regular meeting on
May 19, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. by unanimous informal consent.
-~Y CLERK~