Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 02-16-82MIl~t~mS OF A ~%~ ~K~r~NG OF THE TUSTIN CI~ COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way Febz-,-~y 1, 1982 I. CALL TO OP4~ER In the absence of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern, called to order by Councilman Edgar at 3:50 p.m. the meeting was II. Councilpersons Present: councilpersons Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Kennedy, Saltarelli Hoesterey, Sharp James G. Rourke, City Attorney william A. Huston, City Manager Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mike Brotemarkle, Co~m. Dev. Director Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Royleen White, Co,unity Services Director Ron Nault, Finance Director Eva solis, Deputy City Clerk Approximately 20 in the audience III. P~LIC COnCErNS None IV. C~r.~DAR It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve ~he entire Consent Calendar. Motion carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Sharp absent. 1. APP~OVBL ~ MINUTES- January 18, 1982. 2. A~P~OVAL 0~ DEMANDS in the amount of $529,274.82. P~%-~FICA~O~ 0~ PAYI%O~L in the amount of $110,392.57. 5O .~.~N~IS~T OF ~ ~IGHTS ~ ~=~' A~F~E - TI~%CT NO. 8603 (NW corner of Walnut Ave. and Myford Rd.) Authorize the Mayor to execute the Quitclaim Deed to the owner of Lot No. 8, for the relinquishment of access rights to Walnut Avenue. 99 4e ~EQUEST FOR PAR~J/~G p~O~IBITIO~ ~ N~PO~ AV~IE AND SYCAMORE AF~UE Authorize the installation of signing to restrict on-street parking on the easterly side of Newport Ave. southerly of Sycamore Ave. and on the southerly side of Sycamore Ave. easterly of Newport Avenue and that warnings be issued in lieu of citations for the first 30 days ~ter the sign installation. 75 In response to Councilman Saltarelli, the Director of Public Works stated that the request for parking restriction came from the condominium homeowners' assocation. Street sweeping is done in the early morning hours to allow for greater ground area coverage due to less traffic. Changing street sweeping hours to later in the day (when traffic is greater) would mean additional staff or a decreased level of service. Councilman Saltarelli requested that staff allow for flexibility in changing street sweeping hours if too many complaints are received about parking restriction. ~ESO~UTIfH~ NO. 82-10 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of T~stin, APPROVING T~NTATIVE TRACT NO. 11746 (14351 Red Hill Avenue) Adoption of Resolution No. 82-10 as recommended by the Com- munity Development Department. 99 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 2-1-82 RESOL~A'IO~ NO. 82-11 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82-8 (Under- ground Utility District No. 6, Irvine Blvd.) Adoption of Resolution No. 82-11 which amends Resolution No. 82-8 to change the public hearing date from Monday, February 15, 1982 to Tuesday, February 16, 1982 as recom- mended by the City Engineer. 104 7e ~ENOXAr~IO~ NO. 82-13 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR RED HILL AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION-AHFP PROJECT NO. 1064 AND COOPERATIVE PROJECT NO. D82-002 Adoption of Resolution No. 82-13 as recommended by the Engi- neering Department. 95 8. ~ ADM:INISTRATIOti ~]GA, us]sH~ITS FO~ ~ ~;.~- AV~IUE AbA"~ PROJ- eCT NO. 1064 ~ID C00~tT~v~ p~a~__-rgC"T NO. DIL2-002 Approve the subject agreements and authorize the Mayor to sign and t/xe City Clerk to attest the agreements as recom- mended by the Engineering Department. 95 V. ORDI- nANCES FOR ~D~CTIO~ 1. O~DINAN~ NO. 867- An Interim UI~ENCY ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON CITY APPROVAL OF AT.?. USE PERMITS DEALING WITH THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF FACILITIES WHICH CONTAIN MORE THAN FIVE (5) PINB~T.T. OR VIDEO GAM~ MACHINES FOR A PEP~IOD OF ONE HUNDRED AND TW~ENTY DAYS Because a 4/5 vote is required for action on Ordinance No. 867, this item was deferred to the evening session when a full Council would be present. (See pp. 9-10.) FI. O~Z-- NANC~S FOR ADOPTIO~ 1. O~DINANCE NO. 866 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, A~DING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9612 PERTAINING ~D ADULT BUSINESSES It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 866 have second reading by title only. Carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Sharp absent. Following reading of the title by the City Clerk, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Saltarelli, that Ordinance No. 866 be passed and adopted. Carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Sharp absent. 31 VII. OLD B~SINESS 1. PROPO-~'m NEWPO~I~I'/'VAND~RI.ZP ANI~aa'~-"IO~i NO. 129 The City Manager presented the staff report and recommendation. As recommended in the report dated January 26, 1982, prepared by ~he Planning ConsLxltant, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in regard to Annexation No. 129 substantially as drafted and amended by Council. Carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Sharp absent. Councilman Saltarelli indi- cated he would provide his amendments to staff and Council at ~he evening meeting. (See page 10.) 24 VIII · NEW BUSINESS 1. AWAP~ O~ BID NO. 82-03, POlICE/FINANCE D~PA~T ~0DIFZCATIONS The City Manager indicated that $35,000 was allocated for the total project. However, a portion of those funds has been expended for planning and minor imprevements made elsewhere in City Hall. A supplemental appropriation will be required for this project, which can be handled at a later date. CITY COUNCIL ~INUTES page 3, 2-1-82 Bids for subject project were received as follows: Martin Resnick Construction Co., Laguna Beach Sentry Builders, Los Angeles Means & ulrich, Santa Aha Hewett Development Co., Orange Spec Builders, Laguna Hills $31,600.00 $41,548.00 $46,800.00 $48,880.00 $53,000.00 Pursuant to the reconunendation contained in the report dated January 26, 1982, prepared by the Community Development Direc- tor, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to award the bid for subject project to Martin Resnick Construction Com- pany, Laguna Beach, in the amount of $31,600.00 for building modifications to the Police and Finance Departments. Motion carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Sharp absent. 39 The Director of Community Services stated that staff is excited about the recommendation to award to The Reynolds Environmental Group; they came through with an excellent proposal; and staff feels they will do an excellent job in this very important plan. It is anticipated completion of the project will take 6-9 months from signing of the agreement. In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, the Director of Community Services reported that two of the lower bidders neglected to include a citizen survey, and some bid with the option of the City conducting the s~rvey, which is not feasible. Therefore, The Reynolds Environmental Group was the second lowest bidder including the citizen survey. However, staff felt the lowest bidder'did not have the expertise to provide the fiscal analyses on future development. The City Manager assured Councilwoman Kennedy that the City Code does not prohibit the Council to enter into contracts for services of a professional nature with- out formal bid procedures (i.e., awarding to lowest bidder). It was then moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to 1) Select the firm of The Reynolds Environmental Group to provide the pro- fessional design services for the Master Plan of Recreation and Parks for the City of Tustin; 2) Direct staff and City Attorney to draft subject agreement with The Reynolds Enviromuental Group pursuant to their proposal submitted December 14, 1981; and 3) Authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement as recommended by Conununity Services Director. Councilman Saltarelli questioned the necessity and extra expense of a citizen survey. The Community Services Director stated that although the survey is not required by law, staff feels it is very necessary in a major master planning effort. The survey will be a combination of a printed survey of users/patrons, as well as a telephone s~rvey during evening hours when people are home, and will include City residents only per Council direc- tion. Councilpersons Edgar and Kennedy echoed the Co~nunity Services Director's comments on the importance of obtaining citizen input. The motion carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Sharp absent. 41 3. FISCAl, XF, AR 1981--82 SZX--~'~B mJDG~"~ ~'v.~7 The City Manager provided a brief sun. nary and reco~ended that Council receive and file the report. In response to COuncilman Saltarelli, the City Manager indicated staff will come back within the next 30-45 days with a proposal to review water meter charges. Councilman Edgar stated he has requested that staff update last year's water fund budget analy- sis which was in finer detail as to categories of expenditures, so that Council can review the expenditure pace of the first six CITY COUNCIL MINUTES page 4, 2-1-82 4e months, and make a better projection of the latter six months. Councilman Saltarelli indicated he is willing to waive any capi- tal improvements unless they are absolutely necessary until the water fund cash flow is stronger. The City Manager responded that until a long-term plan is established, only e~ergency improvements will be considered; this fiscal year's budgeted improvements are essentially completed; and the next step is to look at long-term improvements and how they will be financed. The City Manager responded to Councilman Edgar that staff will provide a more detailed allocation of business license fees as soon as possible, and council will receive a third quarter report which will address major sources of revenue - water sales, sales tax, property tax, etc., and indicate what the trends are. Councilwoman Kennedy felt the report was clear and well done. It was then moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to receive and file the 1981-82 Mid-Year Budget Review report dated January 28, 1982, prepared by the City Manager. Carried 3-0, Hoesterey and Sharp absent. 29 ~r~v~a~S S~AR~ D~v~OPM~T - ~_~M~TT$ FOR PA~EING ~-rK~-xo~u~, AND P~AZA (Stevens Square Development) The City Attorney defined the contents of the three draft docu- ments - the parking structure lease, option to purchase agree- ment, and the mall and plaza agreement. He noted that the developer and subsequent owners of units in Stevens Square will maintain the plaza and mall at their expense. Although the documents are not in final form, they are very close to being finalized. He recommended continuation of the public hearing for the vacation of "C" Street to the next meeting, following approval and signing of the docoments, since the vacation reso- lution refers to a plaza and mall agreement which is one of the several documents not yet approved and signed. Councilwoman Kennedy stated she was troubled to read the draft mall and plaza agreement (the word "mall" being new to her) and find that the City had been conmaitted, admittedly in a draft, to do a percentage of the maintenance on the plaza, when the devel- oper had promised to do that. The City Attorney responded that it was an error of misunderstanding, and that language will be deleted. Councilwoman Kennedy expressed her displeasure and disappoint- ment over the apparent rush in preparation and submittal to Council of the documents. The City Attorney stated staff pro- ceeded to expedite the documents upon the developer expressing problem~ of urgency on the situation. Councilwoman Kennedy expressed concern that had the draft document been approved and the error not caught, the City would have been committed to maintenance of the plaza at great cost to the taxpayers. She continued that although she is sympathetic, she will not agree to anything she has not had an opportunity to study and read and which is not in final form. Doug Gfeller, Gfeller Development Company, assured Council that he did nothing to instigate a misunderstanding over maintenance costs. He stated that, with the exception of the person who prepared the draft agreement, everyone else understood that the City would not be responsible for maintenance of the plaza. Mr. Gfeller added he does not see the need for a plaza and mall agreement since they are proceeding as indicated on plans filed with the City; they will grant all rights and easements required; and total maintenance costs indefinitely will be their cost alone. He continued that he is very disturbed that the vacation of "C" Street may be delayed an additional two weeks, since it is absolutely critical for them to proceed, and he can- not agree to any delays. He has reviewed with the City Manager detailed changes to the agreements, and he enumerated what those changes are. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 2-1-82 Mr. Gfeller reported there has been a change in plans from last September in the number of spaces his company will need on the second floor. However, he suggested that the agreement stand as is, but if for some reason the City would want more spaces and want Gfeller Development to contribute less, he would be willing to do so. The approximate cost to build the structure is $684,000, not including interest or carrying costs, or any sprinkler costs. If sprinklers are required, it could mean an additional $30,000. With Gfeller's contribution of $70,000 the City's cost will be approximately $614,000. He stated he is agreeable to the financing arrangements. Councilman Hoesterey arrived at 4:28 p.m. Mr. Gfeller emphasized that timing is very critical and urged Council to proceed with the public hearing for vacation of "C" Street at the evening meeting. In response to Councilman Saltarelll's question on the legality of proceeding with the street vacation public hearing, the City Attorney stated there does have to be a document that describes what the responsibilities of the respective parties are for maintenance, repair, and control of the plaza and mall, which at this point has not been finalized and signed by the City and Gfeller Development. Councilmen Saltarelli and Edgar suggested proceeding with the street vacation public hearing, and if approved, wording legal context so that nothing becomes effective until the agreements are entered into. The City Attorney stated the resolution could be revised to provide for same. Mr. Gfeller stated that with approval of the vacation, Gfeller Development can execute all the easements the City requires for pedestrian and vehicular right-of-way in that area. Also, street improvement plans are on file with the City Engineer which cannot be signed until the vacation is completed. Mr. Gfeller stated they have spent considerable money on street designs, structural engineering, and soils investigation and evaluation, all done in good faith towards developing plans for a parking structure on which they have nothing in writing from the City. If the street vacation public hearing were approved today, it would allow them to start construction, with the other documents just a few minor changes away from being completed. The City Attorney stated it is not appropriate for the vacation to be unconditionally approved and/or for construction of the mall to begin until at least an agreement has been entered into between the developer and the City regarding maintenance, use, control, etc., of the mall. The Council could, pursuant to Councilmen Saltarelli's and Edgar's suggestion, vacate the street subject to either at least the mall doct~ent being signed, or the mall document and all the other documents being signed before the vacation is effective. Although the documents are very close to being finalized and acceptable to all parties, they will certainly not be ready tonight. Councilman Saltarelli suggested proceeding, if that is Council's direction, and then holding a special meeting as soon as the final documents are ready so that Gfeller can commence construc- tion. The City Attorney stated that is definitely preferable than leaving it to staff to approve the final form. In response to Councilman Saltarelli, the City Attorney indicated it would be a matter of 2-3 days to finalize the docLanents, barring any developing difference of opinion as to some element. Mr. Gfeller stated it would be a matter of hours for him and his attorney to finalize the documents. The only new development is the City exercising its option to purchase the structure within the next 30 days rather than months or years from now. He stated he is more than willing to work with the City to do what- ever is necessary to avoid incurring any interest/point costs in the near future that would have to be passed on. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6, 2-1-82 Councilman Saltarelli stated he has two concerns. First, the insurance coverage should contain a clause which allows for inflationary protection. In regard to additional spaces, there should be a clause allowing the City to purchase additional spaces at any time in the future at cost at time of construc- tion. Other than that, he is prepared to act on the matter this evening. He suggested continuing the matter to the evening to allow the City Attorney and Gfeller's attorney to get together and finalize the documents sufficiently to act on. Councilman Edgar concurred. Councilwoman Kennedy stated her greatest concern is with the parking spaces. Mr. Gfeller responded they originally thought they would need 24 spaces on the upper floor. The current cal- culation indicates they need 18, which is not ~ny spaces, but in the formula for payment of cost, it will have an impact on the City. Gfeller is willing to either pay less allowing the City to have extra spaces, or pay what was originally indicated and deliver to the City the number of spaces as first dis- cussed. Councilwoman Kennedy stated she would like to hear staff's reaction prior to making a decision on that. She indi- cated she saw no reason to delay the street abandonment, but would not approve a binding document that is not in final form and that she has not read. The City Attorney commented he does not see the practicality in trying to finalize the documents tonight, and felt it would be better if Council held a special meeting to approve the final documents. Councilwoman Kennedy concurred. Mr. Gfeller disagreed and stated that a 3-4 day delay is costly to him in terms of interest carrying costs. He stated the plaza agreement was directed towards protecting the City's interests when it was assumed maintenance costs would be shared. Now with the clear understanding that the City is not sharing in mainte- nance costs, Mr. Gfeller feels the City should no longer have any concern with their budget and how it's being managed, since it is all regulated by the conditional use permit on the proj- ect, by the permits and approval of plans the City has, and by the easements which they are granting back over it. The City Attorney disagreed with Mr. Gfeller's comments insofar as the City has a definite interest in how the project is devel- oped, that it is developed, how it is maintained, and what uses are going to be made of it now and in the future. Mr. Gfeller responded it is his understanding that is all contained in the conditional use permit on the project. If not, he suggested maybe there is a way to make those things a condition of the plan approval. The City Attorney stated that could be, but he feels those provisions need to be memorialized in a precise and complete way, more so than the general statements in a condi- tional use permit and again, it needs to be done before the vacation is effective. Councilman Saltarelli stated he is agreeable to approving the vacation and making it effective upon execution of the final documents. Mr. Gfeller stated this wo~ld give him absolutely nothing because it does not allow him to pull permits and start construction. Councilwoman Kennedy inquired if the reason for not allowing the developer to pull permits is because the mall and parking structure have been tied together. The City Attorney responded that is not the only reason. If Council determines that the parking structure is an independent project and does not care to have it tied to the street vacation, then all that is necessary prior to vacation is an agreement specifying the terms and con- ditions of development, use, and control of the mall. However, if Council feels that it's all one package, then all the docu- ments must be signed before the vacation is effective. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7, 2-1-82 Councilman Saltarelli co~ented that in many private develop- ments construction is allowed to begin, but no occupancy permits are issued unless the project is completed and everything is signed satisfactorily, and he does not understand why this can't be approached in the same manner. The City Attorney responded this is a different matter because it involves a building on what is now a City street. Councilwoman Kennedy stated she thinks the parking structure is independent and has always con- sidered it separate from the mall; and she, in fact, voted for the parking structure and voted against the mall. She continued she has no problem with separating the items as long as the entire project is monitored, but she is concerned with the abandonment of "C" Street. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to approve the agreements subject to review by staff and execution by the City Attorney, City Clerk and Mayor, to be effective when exe- cuted, and if there is a way ~hat building permits can be autho- rized to co~ence construction with the City retaining the pro- tections that are necessary that same be granted, subject to the following stipulations: 1) that the developer has the cost for maintenance in perpetuity (City shares nothing in maintenance costs); 2) that the liability insurance coverage be given some inflationary protection by attorneys for both parties so that coverage will be adequate throughout the term of the lease; and 3) that the City maintain purchase rights to repurchase any additional spaces at the cost at time of construction and have first right of refusal over the sale of any spaces owned by the developer · Councilwoman Kennedy asked if the maker of the motion would delete the mall and plaza agreement. The maker and second of the motion ~id not concur. Councilwoman Kennedy stated she could not accept the motion due to past experience and because it is unprofessional to approve a project of this kind without a final document. Councilman Hoesterey stated he also voted against the plaza, but the Council majority approved the plaza and Mr. Gfeller has pro- ceeded on that basis. He feels the City is now committed to that project and does not see any advantage to segregating the issue. As far as the drafts, he can approve the agreement as modified and would prefer to see a red-lined copy this evening if at all possible. The City Attorney responded he did not think it possible to finalize the doc~aents tonight. Councilman Edgar concurred with the City Attorney and suggested handcarrying the final documents to individual Councilmembers to allow them the opportunity to puruse the documents prior to the Mayor's Signature. He does not want to have any impediment in terms of formal meetings which would delay approval. Councilman Saltarelli concurred. The motion carried 3-1, Kennedy opposed, Sharp absent. 81 IX. OTHER BUSINESS None. X. ~ECES$ - ~v~ING Council concurred to recess at 4:59 p.m. to the 7:30 p.m. evening session. CITY C0~NCIL ~r~NG 7=30 P.Mo I * C~T-T- TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Sharp at 7:33 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8, 2-1-82 II. ~OLL Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli Sharp None 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, Cummunity Services Director Ron Nault, Finance Director Charles Thayer, Police Chief Approximately 10 in the audience P~IC None IV. P~S~IC HEA~ING 1. "C" STREET FACATIO~ AND A~%NDO~M~T ~.~O~TI~ NO. 82-12- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, VACATING A PORTION OF "C" STREET The public Hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. There being no com- ments or objections, the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to adopt Resolu- tion No. 82-12 subject to the execution of the Construction and Maintenance Agreement by both the City and the developer. Councilwoman Kennedy requested that Elizabeth p.ankey's letter be made a part of the record. Councilman Saltarelli expressed that this was not common practice but had no objections. Council concurred to make it a part of the record and it reads as follows: January 16, 1982 Tustin City Council, Dear Members, Since there is to be another hearing on the city's abandon- ment of C street between Main and Sixth, I would like to repeat that I cannot see an advantage to the citizens of Tustin that C Street be given away. During the first public hearing a couple of months ago, and after an hour or more of debate over the multi-story parking building, Mr. Saltarelli informed those present that it was beside the point to discuss the parking facility further, because the Planning sion to accept it. decision.) An easement retained as vehicular use of Commission had already made the deci- (Or the City Council had made that by the city will be ineffective as far the street is concerned, since the spokesman for Stevens Square said that evening that the pur- pose of the plaza is to deter the flow of traffic along C Street. I believe he was sincere in admitting that, and the future use of C Street for the general public will become non-existent except for those using the multi-story parking facility. Admittedly, the plaza would beautify the East entrance to Stevens Plaza, but surely this should not be at the expense of the citizens of Tustin who have accepted C Street for over one hundred years as public property. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 2-1-82 Believe me, more than fifty per cent of the people at that hearing were not in favor of abandoning C Street. Had the first hour been confined to the subject at hand, it wo~ld have been an overwhelming show of hands against abandonment. yours very truly, /s/ Elizabeth S. Pankey The City Attorney requested that the Resolution be amended as follows: 1. At the end of Section 3, it should read "copy of which shall be attached" instead of "copy of which is attached"; and Add the following sentence: "This Resolution shall be effective upon execution by the City of the Lease Agreement, Option to Purchase, and Mall and Plaza Maintenance Agree- mento" The motion was amended by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, to adopt Resolution No. 82-}2, with the above changes subject to the exe- cution of the Construction and Maintenance Agreement by both the City and the developer. The amended motion carried 4-1, Kennedy opposed. 105 ACC~'~ANCE OF GRANTS OF EASeMenT - 'C' STms~z' P~AZAPROJECT The City Engineer explained the five Grants of Easement as con- tained in the Engineer's staff report dated January 21, 1982. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to accept the five Grants of Easement for the "C" Street Plaza Project. Motion carried 5-0. 81 Cherrill Webb, 1981 Street Faire Chairperson, explained that her written report, which is attached to the Community Services Director's repor~ dated January 26, 1982, contained information regarding her proposal for the 1982 Street Faire. She pointed out that lighting in the park is needed in order for all of the booths to remain open at night. This would require another telephone pole plus $3000 to rent lights for the park. She also asked that the Tiller Days Parade Chairman come to their meet- ings and be under one committee. The 1982 Tiller Days will be October 15, 16 and 17. Councilman Edgar responded that the Jaycees will be speaking at the next Council meeting. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Sharp, to support the Tiller Days Street Faire in the amount of $6,000 and the Community Services Director to work with Cherrill Webb. Helen Edgar, 13622 Loretta Drive, commented that she did not think very many Tustin citizens support the Tiller Days. The motion carried 5-0. A~DA ORDER V. ORDINANCE FOR INTRO- 1. ORDINANCE NO. 867 - An Interim URGENCY ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON CITY APPROVAL OF Ar~. USE PERMITS DEALING WITH THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF FACILITIES WHICH CONTAIN MORE THAN FIVE (5) PINB~TJ. OR VIDEO GAME MACHINES FOR A PER/OD OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS Mike Brotemarkle, Community Development Director, reported that the Planning Agency had denied a Use Permit for a Pizza Restau- rant with 45 video machines and had directed staff to draft an CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10, 2-1-82 AF-'~(K~ ITEM VII. OLD BUSINESS 1. VT. tTA'I:LISK BUSINESS 1. ordinance with more development standards for video machines. Ordinance 867 was prepared to prevent Use Permit applications prior to the adoption of the development standards. It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 867 have first reading by title only. Carried 5-0. Following the reading of the title of Ordinance No. 867 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 867 be introduced. Councilman Saltarelli said that he thought this was an overkill and not necessary. The Attorney and Community Development Director concurred that the ordinance determining development standards would probably be in effect by the end of April. The City Manager explained ~hat the moratorium could be lifted at anytime, but the four-month period is the shortest period for declaring a moratorium. Councilwoman Kennedy was in favor of the moratorium in order to develop proper and thorough standards so that all applicants would be treated equally. Councilman Edgar thought it only fair to develop standards so that all applicants would be aware of requirements before applying. The Comm%~nity Development Director reported that his department has had inquiries from five different people interested in filing for a Use Permit for this type of business. Motion carried 4-1, Saltarelli opposed. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, that Ordinance No. 867 have second reading by title only. Carried 4-1, Saltarelli opposed. Following reading of the title of Ordinance No. 867 by the City Clerk, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 867 be passed and adopted as an urgency ordinance. ROLL C~T.T. VOTE: ~YES: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Sharp NOES: Saltarelli 81 PROPO-~,, NEWPOI~F/VANDE~U~P ANN~TIO~ NO. 129 Councilman Saltarelli suggested the following changes to the letter to LAFC0 from the Mayor: 1) Paragraph 2, subparagraph 2, should read "The subject properites can be served efficientlyby the City without undue financial burden"; and 2) subparagraph 3 should read "The City is not pursuing an aggressive annexation ~olicy but, if it is the Commissioners' desire, after this annexation is approved, the City will establish an annexation program for the adjacent area." Council concurred. 24 It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Edgar, that the Mayor be directed to send a letter to Santiago Municipal Advisory Council (SMAC) requesting the termination of Steven Johnson as liaison to the City. Mayor Sharp was in favor of the motion and recommended that copies of the letter be sent to Supervisor Nestande and other Supervisors. Motion carried 5-0. 73 2. 'r~X~ TRI~ING Councilman Saltarelli said that he had received critical com- ments on the way the City was trimming trees. The City Manager responded that staff would give the Council a report on the reasoning of such trimming. . 86.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11, 2-1-82 3. DETOUR (~ SANTA ~tNA ~tND NEWPO~ Councilman Hoesterey questioned the detour routing of traffic from the Santa Aha and Newport Freeways into Tustin. The City Engineer responded that the detour will only be in effect from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. 54 4. SO~H/C~T~aT. ~EFELOP~T P~OJECT CO~'rr~ It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to appoint Betty Truitt and John Harrison, homeowners adjacent to the Project area, as members of the Redeveloianent Project Committee. Attorney Rourke reiterated his statement from the last Council meeting that developers cannot acquire any new property during the time they serve on the co~nittee, however, they can develop property they already own. Motion carried 5-0. 81 XII. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to recess at 8:30 p.m. to the next adjourned regular meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 1982. Carried 5-0 · MAYOR