HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 USE PERMIT 80-21 10-21-81DATE:October [98 Inter-Corn
FRO)I:
S UBJ ECT:
Planning Agency and City Council Members
Community Development Department
Extension of Use Permit 80-21 and Tentative Tract Map [[336
Applicant: Cal State Associates, Inc.
Location: [651 Mitchell
Request:
To extend Use Permit 80-21 and Tentative Tract Map 11336 for a
period of six months.
Recommended Action, Planning Agency
Staff recommends that the Agency grant a six month extension of Use Permit
80-21.
Recommended Action, City Council
Contingent upon Planning Agency approval of an extension for Use Permit 80-21,
staff recO,~mF, ends that Council grant a concurrent extension for Tentative Tract
Map No. 11336.
Background
In November, 1980 the Planning Agency approved Use Permit 80-21, thereby
authorizing the conversion of the Windsor Gardens Apartments into residential
condominiums. Since the date of the original approval, however, the complex
has changed ownership. The new owners, Cal State Associates, Inc. have at this
point requested an extension for the Use Permit as well as the Tentative Tract
Map.
Discussion
In a letter from Mr. Eugene E. Vollucci, President of Cal State Associates
LLLXXV, three major reasons were given supporting the request for an exten-
sion. First, the preliminary subdivision report from the California Department
of Real Estate must be modified to reflect the change in ownership. Secondly,
the applicant is proposing to make changes in building plans and will need time
for preparation and plan check. Finally, because of a problem with the water
line in the apartments, a tenant relocati6n plan is being formulated so that
any tenant wishing to purchase a converted unit will be temporarily relocated
while all necessary plumbing alterations are in progress. This plan will be in
Planning Agency and City Council
Extension of Use Permit
Page 2
addition to r~location provisions for tenants that do not wish to purchase
units as mandated by Ordinance 822.
Conclusions
1) Approval has been previously granted for conversion.
2) Change of ownership and building problems necessitate extension of time.
3) A tenant relocation program is currently being formulated.
J SD/11 h
~)REALI'OR
INCOME PROPERTY-
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - TAX SHELTERS
CAL STATE ASSOCIATES, INC.
17777 CRENSHAW BOULEVARD, SUITE 102, TORRANCE, CA 90504
532-9100
October 2, 1981
Mr. Mike Brotemarkte
Community Development Director
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California '92680
Re: Windsor Gardens
Dear Mr. Brotemarkle:
Cal State Associates CCLXXV (275) hereby formally requests a
six-month extension of Resolution No. 1930, approved November 17,
1980, and the Tentative Tract Map approved December 1, 1980
pertaining to the above-referenced project.
Although it is our intent to proceed as expeditiously as
possible with the conversion, it is not possible to perfo£m
within the original time frame for several reasons. On
August 21, 1981, we acquired the property from Windsor
Partners, Ltd. We have since discovered that the prelimin&ry
subdivision report which Windsor Partners, Ltd. obtained from
the California Department of Real Estate must be modified to
reflect the change in ownership. Our counsel has estimated
that this process will take four to six weeks. In this same
time frame, we hope to resubmit plans to the Planning Departr
ment for approval with respect to certain modifications which
we believe are necessary. Of course, until final plans are
approved, we will not be able to finalize commitments with'
our construction lender or permanent lender.
In addition, until final plans have been approved, we will
not be ready to proceed with our tenant relocation program
which is presently being formulated. We believe we would
be ready to implement our relocation program within the next
60 to 290 days. However, we wish to make sure that we do not
cause any undue hardship on the tenants and, because of the
season, this may have to be delayed.
Mr. Mike Brotemarkle
October 2, 1981
Page Two
It is our intent to reroute the water line, and such
relocation may not be possible until all tenants have been
relocated.
For the foregoing reasons, we believe that a six-month
extension would be realistic and appropriate under the
circumstances.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
CAL STATE ASSOCIATES CCLXXV
By: CAL STATE ASSOCIATES,
E~ene E. Vollucci
Fresident
EEV:pb