Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 05-03-82TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting May 3, 1982 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, May 3, 1982, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Edgar at 3:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Greinke and the invocation was given by Mr. Hoesterey. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also present: Edgar, Saltarelli, Hoesterey, Greinke Kennedy William Huston, City Manager Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director James Rourke, City Attorney Janet Hester, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held April 19, 1982, were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Use Permit 82-6 Applicant: Location: Request: David Moftakhar 165 North "B" Street Authorize a guest house (with no kitchen facilities) Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report, making the additional suggestion that perhaps a deed restriction could be required to make sure that future owners of the property would be aware the unit was to be used as a guest house only and any other use was in violation of City code. The Public Hearing was opened at 3:03 p.m. Virginia Johannsen, 135 North "C" street expressed opposition to approval of the Use Permit. She felt that once such a structure was established, it would be difficult for the City to force compliance to the restriction the building not be used as a rental unit. The Public Hearing was closed at 3:05 p.m. Mr. Greinke made the motion to approve Use Permit 82-6 by amended Resolution 2027 with the additional requirement of a deed restriction. Mr. Hoesterey seconded the motion. Motion carried: 4-0 2. Use Permit 82-7 Applicant: Location: Request: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: EDGAR, SALTARELLI, HOESTEREY, GREINKE None Kennedy Trinity Broadcasting 14101 Chambers Road Authorization to place a mobile home for caretaker/ security purposes Planning Agency Minutes May 3, 1982 Page 2 After Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report, the Public Hearing was opened at 3:07. No one present wished to speak in regard to Use Permit 82-7 and the Public Hearing was closed at 3:07. Mr. Saltarelli moved to approve Use Permit 82-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2029. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoesterey. Motion carried: 4-0 AYES: EDGAR, SALTARELLI, HOESTEREY, GREINKE NOES: None ABSENT: 'KENNEDY 3. Variance 82-5 Applicant: Location: Request: Gloria Holmstrom & Robert Bosich 135 & 143 Yorba Street Develop substandard R-3 properties for office development Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report indicating to the Agency that the applicant had two areas of concern regarding the draft resolution recommending approval. Those concerns were the required offer of irrevocable dedication and the requirement of a cash deposit for public improvements. The Public Hearing was opened at 3:18. Gloria Holmstrom stated that as a long-time resident of Tustin it was her intention to keep the residential look of the structure, not to change it, only to enhance. Ms. Holmstrom said the wording of the resolution required a cash deposit. Such a requirement would make the project economically unfeasible. With regard to the dedication, she stated that from traffic count figures she received from City Engineering personnel, comparing Yorba to other highways in the City, Yorba had a relatively light traffic count. She felt that an offer of dedication was unnecessary and if she agreed to such a condition it would set a precedent for neighboring property owners who two years ago had opposed a City project for the widening of Yorba Street. The Public Hearing was closed at 3:24. Mr. Greinke asked staff if it would be appropriate to require immediate street improvements as a condition of approval. Mr. Brotemarkle stated that even though it would soon be necessary to improve the north/south arterial, to require that condition now would leave an "island" of improvement. It would be more feasible to do all street improvements at one time. Mr. Saltarelli stated he believed a fair trade would be to require the offer of dedication-but to waive the requirement of a cash deposit. Mr. Hoesterey made the motion to approve Use Permit 82-7 by the adoption of amended Resolution No. 2028 with the deletion of Condition II B. Mr. Saltarelli seconded the motion. Motion carried: 4-0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: EDGAR, SALTARELLI, HOESTEREY, GREINKE None KENNEDY PUBLIC CONCERNS: None OLD BUSINESS: None Planning Agency Minutes May 3, 1982 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Use Permit 80-10, Tustin Arms II Mr. Saltarelli made the motion to approve termination of Use Permit 80-10. Mr. Noesterey seconded. Motion carried: 4-0 AYES: EDGAR, SALTARELLI, HOESTEREY, GREINKE NOES: None ABSENT: KENNEDY 2. Extension of Use Permit 80-21 for Windsor Gardens Mr. Greinke made the motion to approve the extension of Use Permit 80-21. Mr. Edgar seconded. After Agency discussion, Mr. Saltarelli made a substitute motion to continue discussion until the next meeting when all Agency members could be present to vote. Mr. Greinke seconded. Motion carried: 4-0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: EDGAR, SALTARELLI, HOESTEREY, GREINKE None KENNEDY 3. Extension of Variance 81-2, 14682 Holt Avenue Mr. Saltarelli made the motion to approve the Extension of Variance 81-2. Mr. Hoesterey seconded. Motion carried: 4-0 AYES: EDGAR, SALTARELLI, HOESTEREY, GREINKE NOES: None ABSENT: KENNEDY STAFF CONCERNS; None AGENCY CONCERNS: None ADJOURNMENT: 19B2. at 3:48 p.m. to the next regular meeting on May 17, Richard B. Edgar, Cffairman v Janet Heste~',~ Recording Secretary MIB-O','~S OF A R~?~JLAR OF ~ REDEVELOPMENT AG]~CY OF THE CITX OF T~STIN, C~ntFO~IA May 3, 1982 1. ~aT.T. TO O~DER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Edgar at 3:48 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. 2 * ~OT.T. O~T,T. Agency M~mber Greinke declared a conflict of interest on Redevelopment Agency matters and left the Council dais. Agency Members Present: Agency Members Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Saltarelli Greinke, Kennedy James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, Exec. Director/City Manager Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary/City Clerk Mike Brot-m~rkle, Com~. Dev. Director Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Ronald Nault, Finance Director Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Royleen White, Community Services Director Ken Fleagle, Planning Consultant Jeff Davis, Planning Aide Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk Approximately 20 in the audience 3. APPBOVA~ OF ~ It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve the minutes of the April 19, 1982, regular meeting. Carried 3-0, Greinke and Kennedy absent. 4. APP~0VAL OF It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to approve General Demands for the month of March, 1982, in the amount of $386,459.75 as recommended by the Director of Finance. Motion carried 3-0, Greinke and Kennedy absent. 81 5. BID AP~%/~D - EL CAMINO REAL & SL%~H STREET SIGNAL PBOJECT Bids for subject project were received as follows: william R. Hahn, Corona Steiny & Company, Inc., Anaheim Grissom & Johnson, Inc., Santa Ana Baxter-Griffin Company, Inc., Stanton Paul Gardner Corporation, Ontario $49,428.00 $50,840.00 $51,124.00 $51,464.00 $54,978.00 The iow bid is 3.5% below the Engineer's estimate of $51,300.00, with $53,100.00 in RDA f~nds budgeted for the project. As recommended in the report dated April 28, 1982, prepared by the Engineering Division, it was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, to award the contract for sub- ject project to the low bidder, William R. Hahn, Corona, in the amount of $49,428.00. Carried 3-0, Grsinke and Kennedy absent. 94 6. AGENC~ CO~S - None. 7. ADJuu~T It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Saltarelli, p.m. to the next regular meeting on May 17, 1982. and Kennedy absent. to adjourn at 3:49 Carried 3-0, Greinke CHAIRMAN MI~u'~=$ OF A ~EGu~AR ~KK-r/NG OF ~ ~UW~'~ CIT~ ~0~NU~U COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Centennial Way May 3, 1982 TO O~DE~ The meeting was called to order by Mayor Edgar at 3:49 p.m. Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Others Present: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Saltarelli Kennedy James G. Rourke, City Attorney William A. Huston, City Manager Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Mike Brotemarkle, Comm. Dev. Director Ken Fleagle, Planning Consultant Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public works Roy Gonzales, Personnel Director Ronald Nault, Finance Director Royleen White, Com~aunity Services Director Jeff Davis, Planning Aide Eva Solis, Deputy City Clerk Approximately 20 in the audience III. P~OCLA~TIO~ 1. Mayor Edgar read and presented to Dennis G. Orr, local archih tect, a proclamation designating May 8-15, 1982, as "AIA Celebration of Architecture Week." Mr. Orr thanked the Coun- cil. 84 IV. C0~TI~umu P%t3%I'-T C ~F.A~I[NG 1. GaME A~CADES -- O~DZNaNCE NO. 870 The 'Community Development Director presented the staff report and recommendation, stating that staff deleted the majority of conditions concerning ability to legislate good management and the ordinance now requires that arcades be located in shopping centers/shopping areas of sufficient size to handle large groups of people and to allow for more adequate surveillance of opera- tions from the street. In addition, the City Attorney has reviewed the last draft, has made technical corrections, and has deleted any requirement for double review, one by the License & Permit Board and one by the Planning Agency. However, the Director stated that on page 3, under definition of game arcade, it was Council's ~esire that a game arcade be any premise having 6 or more game machines, since the current code permits up to 5 in existing locations and does not define it as a game arcade. He recommended that the definition be amended to read "6 or more." In response to the Mayor, the Director stated that the Manager of Sgt. Pepperoni's had picked up a copy of the ordinance, but staff had not received any input from him. The Mayor opened the continued public hearing at 3:54 p.m. There were no speakers on the matter. . Council/staff discussion followed. Councilmen Saltarelli and Greinke stated their opposition to the ordinance. It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Saltarelli, to continue to May 17, 1982, consideration of the following ordinance: O~DINANCE NO. 870 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE ~JSTIN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO GAME ARCADES 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. V. PUBLZC COnCErNS A resident of the Califqrnian Apartments, 14882 Newport Avenue, was requested by the M~yor to defer his comments to later in the agenda to coincide with 01d Business No. 1 - Relocation & Purchase Plan - Californian Apartments Condominium Conversion. VI. CO~T C~T.~NDAR Item 5 was deleted from the Consent Calendar by Saltarelli. It was then moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Carried 4-0, Kennedy absent. 1. APP[%O~L0~ MI~u'~3$S- April 19 and April 20, 1982. 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $106,737.48. RATIFICATIOn{ OF PAkrROIJ~ in the amount of $92,954.19. 5O D~F~AL Off CLAIM Off DA~TD HILL; DA~E OF ~OSS: 3-6-81; DATE p~.~n: 6-5-81; C~AIMNO. 81--14 Deny claim of David Hill as recommended by the City Attor- ney. 40 4e DENIAL OF C~AIM OF JOHN POIP. IER; DATE OF LOSS: 3-6-'81; DATE F~.~n= 6-5-.81; CLAIM NO. 81~15 Deny claim of John Poirier as reco~nended by the City Attor- ney. 40 DENZAL OF CLAIM OF ~ C0MPAN~'; DATE OF [.OSS: 3-27-82; DATE FTT-~I%: 4"13-82; enX_T. M gO. 82--13 Deny claim of the Koll Company as reco~nended by the City Attorney. 40 7e LETTER OF ~K~T ~E: CQI/H~BUS T~S'Z'/~ pAR~ ~ADE Authorize the City Manager to execute a letter of agreement with the T~stin 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 Co~sent ~]~R~ Item 5 - In accordance with Planning Agency action to continue the request for extension to May 17, 1982, it was moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Hoesterey, to delete the following item from the Consent Calendar: EX'z~dSIO~ OF USE PEaMIT 80-21A~D ~SN~ATI~E TRACT 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. VII. OIOI- NaNCES FOR IN TRODU~;.,:-CXl 1. 99 OEDINANCE NO. 871 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, AMENDING THE ~JSTIN CITY CODE RELATIVE TO FINANCIAL AND PURCHASING PROCEDURES OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3, 5-3-82 VIII. IX. OLD BUSINESS 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 O~DINANCES FOR ADOPTIG~- None. ~ELOCAT~GN & P~E PLAN- C~T.TFO~IAN APAR~M~T~ ~v~I~ (14882 Newport Avenue) The Community Development Director presented the staff report and provided information on the three concerns brought to Cour~ cil's attention by the Californian Tenants' Association for clarification by the City Attorney at the April 19 meeting. 1) 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 ~aises - 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 b~ 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 parties. 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 converted into condominiums, 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 d'eflnlteiy be relocated. It is Ca1 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 X. N~ B~SINESS 1. BUSI'~ESS 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 com- 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. ~%~-i~KE ~NERAL PLaN AMENDMENT (North Side of McFadden Between "B" Street a 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, ~nnedy absent. 56 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- curre~ 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 NORTH T~S~IN PARK~'rr~ 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 insL%re that any hazardous conditions are eliminated in parks throughout the City in a timely manner. 77 Councilman Saltarelli urged the Council to support proclamations for local organizations and causes only. 84 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 con~unicated 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. 158 Counci~m~n Greinke announced the Tustin Lion's Club "World' s Largest Garage Sale" to be held Saturday, May 8 a= Colun~bus T~sttn Intermediate School from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 73 5 · -~uw~Kw~SOPJ[AL DIS~CT~ 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 REINStAtEMenT OF A P~%NNING (X~ISSI~ 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. WK~ 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 O~DINANCE 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. It was moved by Greinke, seconded by Edgar, to adjourn to the next regular meeting on May 17, 1982. Carried 4-0, Kennedy absent. MAYOR ,~/ CI'Df OF TUb'TiN 300 Cant~nial Tust~n, FIRST CLASS MAIL