HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1 MINUTES 04-19-82~ OF A ~E~uuAR ~G
OF ~ TOSTIN CIT~ COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 Centennial Way
April 5, 1982
I. CA/~L
TO O~ER
II. ~
C. XT.T.
I II. P~BLIC
1.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Sharp at 3:22 p.m.
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 Brote~arkle, Com~. Dev. Director
Ken Fleagle, Planning Consultant
Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works
Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director
Ronald Nault, Finance Director
Royleen White, Community Services Director
Jeff Davis, Planning Aide
Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk
Approximately 10 in the audience
GAME A~CADES - O~DINANC~ NO. 870
The Community Development Director presented the staff report
and recommended that ~he following ordinance have first reading
by title only and introduction:
ORDINANCE NO. 870 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE T3STIN CITY CODE PERTAINING
TO GAME ARCADES
The City Attorney co~ented that staff had modified the draft
ordinance prepared by his office and requested that first read-
ing and introduction of Ordinance No. 870 be deferred to the
next meeting to allow clarification of those modifications.
Council discussion followed. Councilman Edgar suggested modify-
ing page 1, Section 3321, paragraph b from "five or more · · ."
to read "more than five . · 0"
In response to Councilman Hoesterey, the Community Development
Director provided clarification of page 3, Section 3324, para-
graph 6, stating that requirement relates to location of
machine, size of machine, and aisle width to assure adequate
ingress/egress. Councilman Hoesterey suggested including guide-
lines as to the number of machines allowed per given square
feet.
The Community Development Director responded to Councilwoman
Kennedy that the problem of unchaperoned minors in establish-
ments with on-sale liquor licenses would be greatly minimized
due to Alcoholic Beverage & License Control Board regulations.
He continued that whether an arcade is part of another use
(fast-food service) or an independent primary use, it will fall
under regulations in a similar manner. As to the maximum number
of machines allowed per given square feet, the Community Devel-
opment Director stated that most cities have found it an impos-
sibility to make such a determination due to the various sizes
of machines. The best guideline they have found is to restrict
maxim~ occupancy based on the type of building structure, main-
taining adequate aisle widths for the passage of people back and
forth, and not being concerned with whether there is one large
or two smaller machines as long as accessibility and ability to
exit the structure are properly maintained.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2, 4-5-82
In reference to Councilman Hoesterey's inquiry on the use of tokens
vs. coins, the Community Development Director responded that staff
does not feel this needs to be addressed. Although there is a
possibility for abuse, most cities have found that unless the
machine is specifically designed for both, it creates a problem for
the operator because the machines must be modified to accept tokens
and coins, so the operator goes one way or the other, and neither
se-ms to be most satisfactory.
Councilman Saltarelll stated the ordinance is discriminatory against
this particular type of business. He co~ented that the "shopping
center" definition used in ordinance is not the same definition used
in zoning and business ordinances and posed the following questions:
1) why aren't they allowed in industrial districts; 2) why does
interior have to be visible from counter at all times if supervisor
is on board; 3) why do they have to be near a signalized inter-
section; and 4) why do we ask for information regarding the convic-
tion of any crime.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to defer the matter to
the next meeting. The motion was withdrawn following Councilwoman
F~nnedy's statement that a public hearing on the matter has been
scheduled for today and the Community Development Director's concur-
rence.
The public hearing was opened at 3:39 p.m. by Mayor Sharp.
Dave Patterson, Sgt. Pepperoni's Pizza Store, 651 E. First Street,
stated his establishment was issued a conditional use permit to
operate video games in 1977, and questioned if the standards con-
tained in Ordinance No. 870 will affect those who have faithfully
operated under existing conditional use permits. The Co~unlty
Development Director responded that those use permits having
preexisting approval would not be affected. Mr. Patterson pointed
out that although "shopping center" is defined, that definition is
not used throughout the ordinance. The City Attorney responded that
is an item which needs clarification. Mr. Patterson continued as
follows: it would be appropriate for the final draft to recognize a
two-acre shopping center as a unique entity regardless of proximity
to other uses mentioned; sten~ing from Council co~ents, it is
appropriate to recognize restaurant with on-sale liquor/beer/wine
license as such, i.e., it should not become game arcade beoause it
has more than five games; and staff has already uncovered unique
circumstances requiring attention to a restaurant doing business
with games on the side.
Mr. Patterson responded to Councilman Edgar that some standards in
Ordinance 870 seem to be pointed directly at the applicant that was
before Council some months ago, particularly in reference to the
non-signalized intersection and proximity to a hospital. The
requirement where the applicant is asked to go into detail indi-
cating the placement/kind of machine would mean that at any time the
machines are moved, the conditional use permit is in jeopardy.
Although Mr. Patterson did not' have any suggestions, he felt the
proposed ordinance will not insure that an arcade will be operated
in a proper manner. In accordance with Councilman Edgar's request,
Mr. Patterson stated he would provide Council with constructive
criticism of the ordinance for Council consideration at the next
meeting.
There being no other speakers, it was moved by Kennedy, seconded by
Edgar, to continue the matter to the April 19, 1982, meeting.
Carried 5-0. 81
IV. P~BLIC
CO~C~S
None ·
V. CO~ENT
C~T.~NDAR
Item 8 was removed from the Consent Calendar by Edgar. It was then
moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to approve the remainder of
the Consent Calendar. Carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3, 4-5-82
1. APPBO~AL 0~ MIN~FZ~S- March 15, 1982.
2. APP~DFA~ 0~ DEMANDS in the amount of $329,675.12.
~A~IFICA~ON OF PAI~%OIJ~ in the amount of $198,117.19.
5O
AC~N~%NCE OF ~uMr~c IMP~w~a~ AND ~..~a-~E OF BO~D$ - ~ACT
NO. 10707 (Industrial Condominium development located on the
southerly side of Bell Ave. and westerly of Red Hill Ave.)
Accept all public improvements within Tract No. 10707 and
authorize the release of three bonds as follows: Faithful
Performance - 90C-300094, Labor and Materials - %0C-300094,
and Monumentation - ~0C-300096, as recommended by the City
Engineer. 99
A~DM~T ~ PADS JOINT POW~w~ A~T
Authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed addendum to the
Joint Powers Agreement creating PADS as recommended by the
City Manager. 45
[M]~AT~O~ OF ~ FOR MAgnOlIA '~ ~NIS COURTS
Accept the donation of bleachers for the Magnolia Tree Park
Tennis Courts frc~ the Tustln Tennis club as recommended by
the Director of Community Services. 77
In accordance with Councilwoman Kennedy's request, the Community
Services Director indicated a letter would be prepared for the
Mayor's signature thanking the ~ustin Tennis club on behalf of
the Council for the donation of the bleachers. The Director
responded to Councilman Saltarelli that the bleachers meet
safety standards, and they have been through the process with
the Public Works Department.
DENIAL OF CZ,AIM OF GEO~'=R F. (;~'m~E, DA'Z~ OF LOSS: 10.-18-81;
DA'Z~ F,,.t;n: 1--18-82; C~.,AL~NO= 82--3
Deny claim of George F. Guthrie as reco~ended by the City
Attorney. 40
7e
~SO~F~ NO. 82-26 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION ~D ASSEMBLY
BILL 2660 REGARDING THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SOUT~ COAST AIR
.QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Adopt Resolution No. 82~26 as requested by the South Coast
Air .Quality Management District. 61
~E~OI/P~ION NO. 82-28 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, COMMENDING ~E TUSTIN NEWS AND ITS
EDITOR-PUBLISHER, WILLIAM A. MOSES, II
Adopt Resolution No. 82-28 as requested by the City Council.
84
Following approval of the Consent Calendar, Mayor Sharp formally
read and presented Resolution No. 82-28 to William A. M~ses,
II.
10.
E~SION OF USE w~T 81--5 AND ~'I~FE ~ACT MA~ 11389
(14742 Plaza Drive - Office condominium conversion)
Extend Use Permit 8~-5 and Tentative Tract Map 11389 from
April 6, 1982 to April 6, 1983 as recommended by the Commu-
nity Development Department. 99
11.
~.~OI/~ON NO. 82-29 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of T~stin, California, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO RE~?.~.OCA-
TION OF AIR POLLUTION FUNDS
Adopt Resolution No. 82-29 as requested by the South Coast
Air .Quality Management District. 67
12.
APPBOPP.~ATI~ ~QUEST ~R P~CHAS~ OF 3 C~T's FOR u~ WITH ~
WA~ uTfr.?T~ MANAGemEnT SYS'~
Authorize the Finance Director to solicit bids for the pur-
chase of three CRT's for use with the Water Utility Manage-
ment System and appropriate $7,000 from the unappropriated
reserves of the Water Fund for their purchase as recommended
by the Finance Director. 87
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4, 4-5-82
13.
14.
CO~uu~ANT AG~J~T - MO~LTO~ PAR]~AY/I]~4q3FE C~R DP~V~
Authorize the Mayor to execute the consultant agreement for
the engineering design services on the Moulton Parkway/
Irvine Center Drive Realignment and Widening project and
select the firm of Van Dell and Associates, Inc., Irvine, to
perform said engineering design services in the amount of
$104,866.65 subject to the following: 1) Receipt of written
confirmation of the E.P.A. waiver from the Environmental
Protection Agency, and 2) Final approval of consultants
agreement by CalTrans and execution by Van Dell and Associ-
ates as recomm~ended by the City Engineer. 45
~ESOI~F~IOI~ NO. 82--30- A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin ACCEPTING WOR/(S OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (IRVINE BLVD. CENTER MEDIAN
MODIFICATION FROM YOREA STREET TO "A" STREET)
Adopt R~solution No. 82-30 and ass~ing no claims or stop
payment notices are filed within 30 days of the date of
recordation of the Notice of Completion, authorize payment
of the final 10% retention amount at that time as recom-
mended by the Engineering Department. 92
15. ~SO~T~O~ NO. 82-31 - A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Tustin ACCEPTING WOR~S OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION - (F.Y. 81-82 SIDEWALK AND
CURB REPAIR PROGRAM)
Adopt Resolution No. 82-31 and ass~ing the contractor' s
insurance carrier acknowledges responsibility for the
$150,000.00 claim which has been filed against the project
and assuming no other claims or stop payment notices are
filed within 30 days of the date of recordation of the
Notice of Completlon, authorize payment of the final 10%
retention amount at that time as reco~ended by the Engi-
neering Department. 92
Consent Calendar Item No. 8 - The Director of Public Works responded
to Councilman Edgar's concerns pertaining to whether this project
included beautification of the islands by saying that the final
submittal of the project to CalTrans and FAU included beautification
plans and they would be allowed. Any savings will accrue to the gas
tax and any expenses will come out of Redevelopment funds.
8. ~SO~TIO~ NO. 82-27- A Resolution of the City council of the
City of Tustin, California, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR IRVINE BLVD. FAU PROJECT M-M023 (2) AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS
Adopt Resolution No. 82-27 as recotmnended by the Engineering
Department. 94
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to adopt Resolution
No. 82-27 as recommended by the Engineering Department. Carried
~0.
VI. O~DIN~/~CES FOR INTRODUCTION - None
~II. O~DINANCES FOR ADOPTiON- None
VIII.O~D
BUSINESS
IX. N~W
BUSINESS
Mrs. Kennedy requested that this item be deferred until Mrs. Webb
comes to the meeting. Council concurred.
1. EEQ~EST FOI~ ~T~FFIC SIGNAL /NS~T.T.~TGN AT I~'~<SECTIO~ OF
WAL~u'£ AV~E AND OXFORD AV~E
Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, reported that a resident had
requested a traffic signal at the intersection of Walnut Avenue and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5, 4-5-82
Oxford Avenue. The required warrants were done and the intersection
did not qualify for a signal. Staff is reco~nending two additional
stop signs at the intersection.
It was moved by Kennedy, seconded by Edgar, to direct staff to
install two additional stop signs at the intersection of Walnut and
Oxford Avenues and defer any traffic signal installation at the
subject intersection until such time the required warrants are
satisfied for said installation and to fund the stop signs from the
1981-82 Maintenance Division operating budget.
Councilwoman Kennedy asked that Mrs. Dearing be notified of the
action and that staff wou~d be monitoring the situation. Mr.
Hoesterey asked that the letter include the fact that it is possible
that the warrants could be met for a signal in another year.
Discussion followed regarding the serious traffic problem at Walnut
and Red Hill. Mr. Ledendecker said that he had done some
preliminary work with the County to see if the full improvement of
that intersection on the NE corner would qualify for Arterial
Financing Program funding and he has gotten tentative verbal
response from the County that it would qualify. It would be an
immense impact on that property owner at that corner. He suggested
having a report for the next meeting that would outline the impacts
and scope of the program so that all improvements could be done at
one time.
The motion carried 5-0.
2. O.CoT. Do ~ANSITC~ FEA~IB~.TT~
The City Engineer explained that the Orange County Transit District
has requested that we participate in a study with the District to
review or select sites for a Transit Center within a reasonable 1/4
mile radius of the present Larwin Square site. This study would
involve the selection of several sites that possibly could be
utilized as a Joint Transit Facility on the ground level with some
offices or so~e type structure on the second floor wherein the City
or the District could recover some of the cost of the Center through
ongoing leases.
It was moved by Sharp, seconded by Edgar, to authorize the Mayor to
execute the Transit Center Feasibility Study Agreement and direct
staff to include the amount of $5,000.00 into the 1982-83 budget as
the City's share of the cost for said study as recommended by the
City Engineer.
Mayor Sharp said that since his term would be ending this month, he
wanted to leave the Council with some of his thoughts on this
matter. His assessment was that if this City is going to continue
in good economic health, it is going to have to face and solve the
issues of affordable housing, mitigation of traffic problems and the
improvement of public transportation. Through a joint venture, we
could enter into a transportation center that would help transport
people back and forth between the many businesses. I am suggesting
that you consider buying and turning over to that joint venture the
car wash site on Newport Avenue and Main Street.
Councilman Saltarelli voiced that the buses at Larwin Square have
increased from three or four buses to eight buses that don't carry
over three or four passengers and he was concerned that such a
facility would develop into a place where buses would be repaired.
He was not in favor of a permanent facility in Tustln.
Councilman Hoesterey agreed with Mr. Saltarellt and did not feel
that Tustin is set up for rapid transit. He did not want Tustin to
have to share the problems of the Orange County Transit District.
Councilman Edgar favored participating in the study because it would
enable the City to have some insight and part in the decisions made.
Councilwoman F~nnedy suggested considering other sites such as
industrial sites.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6, 4-5-82
A substitute motion was made by Saltarelli, seconded by Kennedy, to
continue this item to the April 19, 1982 meeting in order for staff
to pass along the concerns of the Council to the Orange County
Transpor~atlon District. ~ub~titute motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Kennedy, to hear Old Business
No. 1. Carried 5-0.
Agenda
Order
Councilwoman Kennedy reported that she had discussed with Cherrill
Webb the Council's feelings that they did not want to spend the
money since we could not use the pole for other events. She has on
her own secured a pole and by getting the new power and pole, she
will be able to have 17 to 20 new booths. She is going to have a
fund raiser ~o raise funds. She has gotten backing for most of the
equipment that is reqL%ired but she asks that the City promise her
$600. The pole will be ours and the School District will store it.
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to authorize the $600
which is needed for the equipment for the pole.
Agnes Bacon spoke in opposition to the Tiller Days as it has been
the last few years. She felt Tustin should lift their sites and do
something educational that would be beneficial to the young people.
She pointed out that there are a lot of educated people in Tustin
and we need some new ideas to improve.
Ms. Webb said that they had tried to stay away from a carnival
atmosphere. We have grown over the last three years and by adding
on the additional electricity, we hope to have more booths and
expand this year.
Helen Edgar, 13622 Loretta Lane, said that most of the Tiller Days
Con~aittee were County residents. She felt that a lot of other City
organizations would be asking the Council for money as a r~sult of
this action.
Councilpersons Kennedy and Saltarelli recognized MS. Webb's efforts
in working on this project.
Motion carried 5-0.
IX. NEW
BUSINESS
3. O~-STREETPAREING-- 255 WEST 6~g
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Hoesterey, to authorize the red
zoning of curbs a minimum distance of 15 feet each side of the
driveway located at 255 W. Sixth Street subject to Mr. Anderson's
approval as recommended by the City Engineer. Carried 5-0.
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to direct staff to
prepare an ordinance which includes the proposed amendments for
introduction at the April 19, 1982 Council meeting. Carried 5-0.
X. O',~R
BUSINESS
1. C~O~v SESSI~ FOR LABORN~GOT'L%.TTONS
The City Manager asked for a closed session for about an hour
regarding labor negotiations. Council concurred.
2. It was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to oppose
AB3011 which would make cancer a work related disease for
disability. Carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7, 4-5-82
It was moved by Saltarelll, seconded by Edgar, to oppose
AB2577 regarding off track betting.. Carried 5-0.
Councilman Hoesterey said he had received correspondence complaining
about Cal State Associates. Mr. Brotemarkle, Community Development
Director, said staff would have a repor~ for the nex"c agenda.
5. UlqIN~ABi'~x~ ~NN~XqTXON OF A~DERSGA~ ~"~HODIST CHURCH,
OF ~.T~ 9~]f AI~D P~- ~ OF ~ BL~I).
It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to direct staff to
proceed with the uninhabited annexation of Aldersgate Methodist
Church, the East side of Elizabeth Way and the parcel South of
Irvine Blvd.
In response to Councilwoman Kennedy, Dr. Fleagle, Consultant, said
there was no benefit to the City in terms of liability. There will
be strong opposition of the East side of Elizabeth Way. It is
strictly the City Council's perogative. It will be arg~entative
with no financial benefit. The property south of Irvine Blvd. has
been negative in the past but possibly has changed.
Motion carried 5-0.
XI. ADJOURNM~qT - It was moved by Edgar, seconded by Kennedy, to adjourn the
meeting in memory of John Hardy of the Tustin News to a
closed session regarding labor negotiations and legal
matters and thence to the next regular meeting on April 19,
1982. Carried 5-0.
MAYOR