Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 1982 05 03 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way May 3, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 3:49 p.m. ROLL CALL ~cil~rsons Present: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Saltarelli ~cil~rsons ~sent: Kennedy ~hers Present: J~es G. Ro~ke, City Attorney Willi~ A. Huston, City ~nager ~ry E. W~n, City Clerk Mike Brotemrkle, ~. Dev. Director Ken Fleagle, Planning Consultant Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Royleen ~ite, Co~ity Se~ices Director Jeff Davis, Planning Aide ~a Solis, Deputy City Clerk Approx~ately 20 in ~e audience III. PROCLAMATION 1. AIA CELEBRATION OF ARCHITECTURE WEEK ~yor Edgar read and presented to Dennis G. Orr, local archi- tect, a procitation desi~ating May ~ 15, 1982, as "AIA Celebration of ~chitect~e Week." Mr · 0rr thanked the Cou~ cil. 84 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1. GAME ARCADES - ORDINANCE NO. 870 ~e Co~ity Develo~ent Director presented the staff report and recomendation, stating ~at staff deleted ~e ~jority of conditions concerning ability to legislate good management and the ordinance now requires ~at arcades be located in shopping centers/shopping areas of sufficient size to handle large groups of ~ople ~d to allow for more adeq~te su~eillance of opera- tions fr~ the street. In addition, the City Attorney has reviewed ~e last ~aft, has made tec~ical corrections, ~d has deleted any req~rMent for do~le review, one by the License a Pemit Board and one by ~e Planning Agency. However, the Director stated that on page 3, ~der definition of g~e arcade, it was ~cil's desire that a g~e arcade ~ any premise having 6 or more g~e machines, since the current code peruits up to 5 in ~isting locations and does not define it as a g~e arcade. He reco~ended that the definition be ~ended to read "6 or more ·" In ~sponse to ~e ~yor, ~e Director stated ~at ~e ~nager of Sgt. Pepperoni's had picked up a copy of the ordinance, but staff had not received ~y input from h~. The ~yor opened the continued public hearing at 3:54 p.m. ~ere were no speakers on the matter. Co~cil/staff discussion followed. Co~cilmen Saltarelli and Greinke stated ~eir opposition to ~e ordinance. It was ~ved b~ Greinke, seconded b= Saltarelli, to ~ntinue to May 17, 1982, consideration of the following ordinance: O~M~ NO. 870 - An Ordinance of the City ~cil of ~e City of ~stin, ~lifornia, ~DING ~E [STIN CI~ ~DE PERTAINING ~ G~ ARCHES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2, 5-3-82 Following Council discussion, the motion carried 4-0, Kennedy absent · 81 The Mayor requested that staff solicit comments from the Manager of Sgt. Pepperoni's for Council review and that those business- persons who have shown interest be notified of the continued public hearing on May 17, 1982. Vo PUBLIC CONCERNS A resident of the Californian Apartments, 14882 Newport Avenue, was requested by the Mayor to defer his comments to later in the agenda to coincide with Old Business No. 1 - Relocation & Purchase Plan - Californian Apartments Condominium Conversion. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 5 was deleted from the Consent Calendar by Saltarelli. It was then moved b~ Saltarelli, seconded b~ Hoestere~, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Carried 4-0, Kennedy absent. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 19 and April 20, 1982. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $106,737.48. RATIFICATIUN OF PAYROLL in the amount of $92,954.19. 58 3 · DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DAVID HILL; DATE OF LOSS: 3-6--81; DATE FILED: 6--5--81; CLAIM NO. 81-14 Deny claim of David Hill as recommended by the City Attor- ney. 40 4. DENIAL OF CLAIM OF JOHN POIRIER; DATE OF LOSS: 3-6--81; DATE FILED: 6--5-81; CLAIM NO. 81-15 Deny claim of John Poirier as recommended by the City Attor- ney. 40 6.DENIAL OF CLAIM OF KOLL COMPANY; DATE OF LOSS: 3-27-82; DATE FILED: 4--13-82; CLAIM NO. 82-13 Deny claim of the Koll Company as recommended by the City Attorney · 40 7. LETTER OF MAGREEMENT RE: C0LUMBUS TUSTIN PARK SHADE SHELTER Authorize the City Manager to execute a letter of agreement with the Tustin Unified School District establishing clearly that the City of Tustin will retain ownership of the park shade shelter structure and will be fully liable and respon- sible for any damage, loss, or maintenance expenses for the shade shelter structure as recommended by the Director of Community Services. 45 Consent Calendar Item 5 - In accordance with Planning Agency action to continue the request for extension to May 17, 1982, it was moved blx Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterex, to delete the following item from the Consent Calendar: 5. EXTENSION OF USE PERMIT 80-21 AND TENTATIVE TRAACT MAP 11336 ( 1651 Mitchell - Windsor Garden Apartments) Approve extension of Tentative Tract Map 11336 with the -- understanding that no further extensions of the Tentative Map and the Use Permit will be granted as recommended by the Community Development Department. Carried 4--0, Kennedy absent. 99 VII. ORDI-- NANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 871 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO FINANCIAL AND PURCHASING PROCEDURES OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 5-3-82 It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 871 have first reading by title only. Carried 4-0, Kennedy absent. Following reading of the title by the City Clerk, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 871 be introduced. Motion carried 4-0, Kennedy absent. 50 VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION- None. IX. OLD BUSINESS l. RELOCATION & PURCHASE PLAN- CALIFORNIAN APARTMENTS C0NDOMINIUM C0NVERSION (14882 Newport Avenue) The Community Development Director presented the staff report and provided information on the three concerns brought to Coun- cil's attention by the Californian Tenants' Association for clarification by the city Attorney at the April 19 meeting. Eligibility Disqualification Requirements - This issue was modified to require that a tenant must have a legal proceed- ing brought against him and found adversely against him before being disqualified. 2) Rent Raises - Cal State Associates did not mean to infer utility increases would be automatic, but did intend and did modify this section such that any rent increase would be subject to Council approval before it could be enforced; they did not want to revoke their right to at least come before Council to request consideration of a utility increase should it get tremendously burdensome. 3) Definition of "tenant" - Staff believes the confusion goes back to creation of Ordinance No. 822, which originally indicated a tenant would be subject to a minimum relocation fee equal to twice his month's rent. To eliminate the developer lowering rents for the last month and paying mini- mal relocation benefits, Council established a minimum floor of $600.00. Some tenants have advocated the $600.00 amount is On a per tenant, not per unit, basis. Relocation bene- fits have not been handled on a per tenant basis, nor does staff believe that was Council's intent. If the Council's intent was $600 per unit, then this plan is adequate. If not, then the plan would have to be changed to include each tenant. In Cal State's opinion, the per tenant basis would make the project unfeasible, and it has not been the rule applied to other projects. The Community Development Director requested that Council deter- mine its intentions concerning whether the benefits are to be on a $600 per unit basis or a $600 per tenant basis. The Mayor recognized the following speaker in the audience: Councilman Saltarelli interjected that this was not the proper place to hear grievances between private perties. A resident of the Californian Apartments, stated he did not receive a 60- or 120-day notice prior to being evicted. He received 30-days' notice based on the premise that the apart- ments were not being convened into condominiems, construction had not started, building permits had not been obtained, and therefore the standard 30-day notice for tenant eviction was applicable. He relocated within the same complex, received $850 in relocation benefits, and was informed he had forfeited his standing as a five-year tenant. At the Mayor's direction, the Community Development Director clarified that the problem revolves around 62 units to be demolished in order to comply with conditions of the Variance. Tenants of those 62 units must definitely bel relocated. It is Cal State's contention that those tenants will be allowed to make a choice - they may either receive the $850 relocation benefits and forfeit purchasing rights, or they may retain the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4, 5-3-82 discount allowance in order to purchase a unit and relocate within the complex at the developer's expense.. At present, 10 tenants have been relocated, of which 8 have accepted relocation payments and 2 have retained discount allowance benefits and relocated within the complex. As to tenants who have accepted relocation benefits but moved within the same complex, it would be Cal State's contention those tenants would be subject to the current market rate of those units like any other new tenant. Councilman Saltarelli stated that relocation benefits on a $600 per unit basis was reasonable and that subject tenant had received equitable compensation. Council concurred. 81 One other tenant voiced discrepancies in information he received from Cal State Associates and what he has heard discussed in Council meetings. The City Attorney interjected that Mr. Hudson, Vice President of Cal State Associates, was speaking outside with the previous speaker and suggested that this tenant also meet with that representative to try to resolve the matter, and if not perhaps staff could resolve it. The Community Development Director concurred with Councilman Hoesterey that the proper procedure would be for tenants to con~ municate any discrepancies, problems, etc., in writing to City staff for investigation and resolution. William H. Hamilton, 735 Joanne ~1, Costa Mesa, formerly a tenant at 14884-K Newport Avenue, also voiced discrepancies in information he had received, what was approved by Council, and the frustration and confusion tenants have experienced caused by different interpretations of Ordinance 822 by different people at the ownership level. He stated he would follow the proper procedure to try to have the matter resolved. In response to Mayor Edgar, the Community Development Director responded that Cal State Associates has been verbally informing staff of their dealings with tenants. Presently, they've dealt with 10 tenants, with approximately 52 units more that will have to be demolished. At this point, Cal State has given every indication of complying with the document. He continued that his staff will handle problems on a case-by-case basis. Xo NEW BUSINESS 1. FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AMANDMENT (North Side of McFadden Between "B" Street & Newport Avenue & Other Appropriate Areas) AS recommended in the report dated May 3, 1982, prepared by the Community Development Department, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to direct staff to advertise public hearings for an Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Following Council/staff discussion, the motion carried 4-0, Kennedy absent. 56 2. RED HILL & WALNUT AVENUES INTERSECTION STUDY Following consideration of the reports dated April 22 and 29, 1982, prepared by the Director of Public Works and City Manager, respectively, Councilman Saltarelli stated that Mr. Nisson had requested this matter be scheduled for a workshop. Council con- curred that staff contact Mr. Nisson to set up a workshop date, with staff to propose alternative dates for subject workshop at the May 17 meeting. 94 XI ° OTHER BUSINESS 1 . NORTH TUSTIN PARKETTE Councilman Saltarelli reported on the deplorable state of repair of the North Tustin Parkette on Santa Clara Avenue. Staff responded that this parkette will be receiving rehab equipment CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5, 5-3-82 from other parks that will be receiving new equipment, and will insure that any hazardous conditions are eliminated in parks throughout the City in a timely manner. 77 2. PROCLAMATIONS Councilman Saltarelli urged the Council to support proclamations for local organizations and causes only. 84 ~ 3. POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WEED CONDITION - RAILROAD COMPANY Councilman Hoesterey requested that staff communicate with the railroad company regarding removal of weeds between the Santa Ana Freeway and Moulton Parkway before it becomes a potential fire hazard. Staff responded they had communicated with the railroad company, were notified that financial considerations prevented them from removing the weeds in a timely manner, but staff will again communicate with them and request that the weeds be removed very quickly. 108 4. LION'S CLUB GARAGE SALE Councilman Greinke announced the Tustin Lion' s Club "World' s Largest Garage Sale" to be held Saturday, May 8 at Columbus Tustin Intermediate School from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 73 5 · SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS Councilman Greinke directed staff to study the feasibility of Tustin being placed in one supervisorial district. The City Manager reported that staff has gathered preliminary information on a historical basis and will provide same to Council. 68 6. REINSTATEMENT OF A PLAMNING C0MMISSION Mayor Edgar requested that staff prepare a timetable for reacti- vation of a Planning Commission for the May 17 meeting. Coun- cilman Hoesterey added that members of the community interested in serving in such capacity be encouraged to communicate their interest in writing. Councilman Greinke requested that the media also feature a story on the Planning Commission. 80 7. WEED COMPLAINT Agnes Bacon complained about 6' weeds near her property. Staff responded it should be taken care of within six to eight weeks. 108 8. FIRE ORDINANCE In view of the recent bad fire in the City of Anaheim, Mayor Edgar suggested that Council review the present fire ordinance in terms of retroactively reducing fire exposure. Councilman Saltarelli commended the Maintenance Division for the excellent job they did in clearing debris and trees in a timely manner. 51 XII. · ~ ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, to adjourn to the next regular meeting on May 17, ~982. Carried 4-0, Kennedy absent. - MAYOR