Loading...
92-0804_CC_Minutes_Regular MeetingAUGUST 4, 1992 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano, California was called to order by Mayor Jones at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Invocation was given by Bishop Kenneth Virgin of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Gil Jones, Mayor Kenneth E. Friess, Councilman (arrived at 7:35 p.m.) Jerry Harris, Councilman Gary L. Hausdorfer, Councilman Jeff Vasquez, Councilman ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Stephen B. Julian, City Manager; Richard K. Denhalter, City Attorney; Cheryl Johnson, City Clerk; George Scarborough, Assistant City Manager; David Bentz, Director of Administrative Services; William M. Huber, Director of Engineering and Building Services; Thomas Tomlinson, Director of Planning Services; Al King, Jr., Director of Community Services; Ronald C. Sievers, Director of Public Lands and Facilities; Nancy Bernard', Recording Secretary. MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY It was moved by Councilman Harris, seconded by Councilman Hausdorfer, and unanimously carried that all Ordinances be read by title only. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (CITY COUNCILICOMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,) 1. CITY COUNCILMAN NEWS ARTICLE (150.80) Kathy Holmes, 31851 Paseo La Branza, read a statement, which she provided to the press, in opposition to the letter written by Councilman Vasquez in the Viewpoint section of the July 23, 1992, edition of The Capistrano Valley News regarding City Council accountability. Councilman Vasquez responded to Mrs. Holmes and stated that his letter was about the right of the public to know the public's business. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 90-403 (CRA/Rosan Ranch) (420.170) Pat Brunnel, resident of Capistrano Valley Mobile Estates, suggested that an apartment/hotel use, with appropriate and attractive architecture, be considered for the Lower Rosan Ranch property, and that property adjacent to the freeway at San Juan Creek Road be used for the Solag purposes. She suggested that residents assist with waste disposal by using calcinators to assist with waste disposal for use as compost in gardens. OFF AGENDA REPORT STATUS OF COMMITTEE V. CITY LAWSUIT (640.30) Councilman Harris requested that the City Attorney provide a briefing of the court decision rendered in the Committee to Restore Integrity v. City of San Juan Capistrano lawsuit. -1- 8/4/92 4 1! Finding for Consideration of Off -Agenda Item: It was moved by Councilman Harris, seconded by Councilman Hausdorfer, and unanimously carried to find that this item was not available prior to publication of the Council agenda and to agendize this item for information purposes. Mr. Denhalter advised that the lawsuit involved a series of allegations that the implementation of contracts and transactions between the City Manager and City Council members over the last 11 years were in some way improper or illegal. The trial began on July 27, 1992, and after several days the judge, at motion of the attorneys, separated the issues of the case so they could be decided separately. With respect to the transactions of the City Manager, including the implementation of contracts, the judge ruled this date that in all of the various Causes of Action, the Defendants (the City, Council members, and City employees named) prevailed, and a request for an injunction was denied. The Defendants were awarded cost of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees against the Plaintiff. The judge ruled that the transactions were not illegal expenditures or a waste of public funds and the various transactions were, in fact, legal, valid, and enforceable. The judge also ruled that the various benefit loans involved did not constitute a conflict of interest for Steve Julian, the City Manager, or for any of the Council members. The judge also ruled that the current contract with the City Manager was legal, valid, and enforceable and quoted a 1969 case that held that courts should not take judicial cognizance of disputes which are primarily political in nature. Based on that concept he approved the City Manager's compensation package and all the modifications indicating that they were all appropriately approved during a public meeting after discussion in closed session. The court also basically indicated that there was no fraud, no proper demand made by the Plaintiffs in appropriate time, there was no conflict of interest and this portion of the case was considered complete. There may be further developments in the remainder of the case, but at this time the Defendant is the prevailing party and the Plaintiff takes nothing and is obligated for attorney's fees. Mr. Julian expressed gratitude to the City Council and residents of the community for their encouragement and support during the lawsuit. Councilman Harris spoke favorably of the decision rendered by the judge in this case. He emphasized that none of the 15 findings in this case were found against the Defendants and that the City Council had always been open to a fair settlement offer during the course of this trial. In response to Councilman Harris, the Director of Administrative Services advised that approximately $300,000 of City funds had been expended in defending the City at the time of the fust settlement offer. Councilman Harris stated that the information that the case could be settled at no cost to the City was therefore incorrect. Councilman Vasquez stated that at the time the settlement offer came to the City, $135,000 had been paid out in attorneys' fees. He stated that the attorneys' for the City apparently deferred their billing from November 1991 until March 1992, making the $135,000 estimate correct at the time. He stated that his main concern was that the legal procedure affirmed by the court today was that the public was not able to provide input regarding contract costs until they were negotiated in closed session and then presented to the public. He felt the flaw in the process was lack of public involvement. Councilman Hausdorfer noted that the judge in the case ruled that all of the matters in this case had been properly agendized. He emphasized that the Council has the legal right to negotiate personnel matters in closed session because of potential legal implications; and because these items are agendized, it is up to the public to become involved. He noted that the costs for determining the answers to these questions would have been much lower if the City had not been sued, which stopped the previously authorized audit process. Councilman Friess arrived at 7:35 p.m. -2- 8/4/92 041 Mayor Jones noted that he attended the trial and felt that the City was proper in pursuing this litigation to its successful conclusion. He stated that the Plaintiffs had been given every opportunity to present their case. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilman Hausdorfer, seconded by Councilman Harris, that the staff recommendations be accepted for the following items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Friess, Harris, Hausdorfer, Vasquez, and Mayor Jones NOES: None ABSENT: None 1. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7, 1992 The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 1992, were approved as submitted. 2. APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENTAGENCYMINUTES -REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 7. 1992 The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 1992, were approved as submitted. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE WARRANTS OF JULY 23. 1992 (,' 10.30) The List of Demands dated July 23, 1992, in the total amount of $4,196,732.25 was received and filed. 4. RECEIVE AND FILE CASH BALANCES BY FUND FOR JUNE 1992 (330.50) The City Treasurer's Report of Cash Fund Balances for the month of June 1992 in the total amount of $655,968.00 was received and filed. 5. REPORT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION ACTIONS (910.601 The Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Planning Services, regarding actions taken at the meeting of July 21, 1992, was ordered received and filed. 6. REPORT OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION ACTIONS (410.60) The Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Planning Services, regarding actions taken at the meeting of July 15, 1992, was ordered received and filed. 7. REPORT OF EQUESTRIAN AND RECREATION TRAILS COMMISSION ACTIONS 930.40 The Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Community Services, regarding actions taken at the meeting of July 13, 1992, was ordered received and filed. -3- -/4/92 S. REPORT OF LOS RIOS REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS (400.50) The Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Planning Services, regarding actions taken at the meeting of July 23, 1992, was ordered received and filed. 9. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ACTIONS (920.201 The Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Community Services, regarding actions taken at the meetings of July 20 and July 27, 1992, was ordered received and filed. 10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS (440.40) The Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Planning Services, regarding actions taken at the meeting of July 28, 1992, was ordered received and filed. 11. SECOND HISTORIC DEPICTION PROGRAM - FRANCISCAN PLAZA PHASE II. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL 88-18 (FARBER) (610.30) The Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Planning Services, noting the approval by the Cultural Heritage Commission at its meeting of July 21, 1992, of the conceptual plans for a second Historic Depiction Program, to be located at 31831 Camino Capistrano, was ordered received and filed. 12. DENIAL OF CLAIM - BODILY INJURY (JEREMY McLAUGHLIM (170.10 The claim received by the City from Frances McLaughlin, Guardian ad Litem for Jeremy McLaughlin, in the amount of $10,000,000 for bodily injuries, was denied, as set forth in the Report dated August 4, 1992, from the City Attorney. Mayor .Tones advised that the following item would be considered out of order from the agenda for the convenience of interested residents in attendance. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS CITY ATTORNEY 1. MOBILE HOME PARK VACANCY CONTROL (430.70) Written Communication: Report dated August 4, 1992, from the City Attorney, addressing the potential implications of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council regarding regulatory takings, in which the Court announced a new rule that governs regulatory takings that are found to deprive the landowner of gll economic use of the property regulated. The Report included a brief of the case, and the City Attorney concluded that the City could cautiously proceed with consideration of vacancy control, with a careful evaluation of economic hardship to the property owner. Mr. Denhalter summarized the findings of the Supreme Court in this case, which was heard as a regulatory taking case and not a mobile home case. The Court found that a landowner must be compensated for the loss of the use of his land when there is a complete taking of the property, similar to the rule of compensation for physical occupation of the land. The Court did not resolve the issue of compensation for less than a complete taking of property. The City's concern over vacancy control in mobile home parks, in which the property owner increases the space rent when the space is vacated, was not specifically addressed in this case, and he suggested that if Council wished, a carefully worded -4- 8/4/92 x43 Ordinance could be drafted around the requirements of the Lucas decision, avoid any opportunity for a complete taking of the property and still have a valid regulation that would not require the City to purchase those rights or interests away from the land owner. Public Comments: (1) Albert F. Simmons, 32302 Alipaz Street, Space 135, felt that the existing Rent Control Ordinance adequately addressed vacancy control and requested that the existing regulations be enforced. (2) Toni Williams, 26000 Avenida Aeropuerto, #57, spoke in favor of vacancy control enforcement and noted that many of the mobile home residents live alone and/or on fixed incomes. (3) Janet Gilbert, 3187-H Airway, Costa Mesa 92626, representing the owners of the Capistrano Terrace Mobile Home Park, member of the City's Mobile Home Park Review Committee, spoke in opposition to the enforcement of vacancy control since it is a mobile home park owner's only way to ensure an adequate return on investment. She requested the matter be referred to the Committee for review with the residents to provide recommendations. She noted that if vacancy control were enforced, many mobile home park owners would file petitions for economic hardship. She further noted state-wide economic and housing conditions and stated that there are other market conditions at play than just rents. (4) Keith Casenhiser, 725 Brea Canyon Road, Walnut 91789, representing the owners of the San Juan Mobile Estates, member of the City's Mobile Home Park Review Committee, felt that the existing Rent Control Ordinance adequately protects the City's mobile home residents from certain rent increases and that mobile home owners were in jeopardy of losing their property rights. He noted that long-time residents of mobile home parks in the City are paying much lower rents than new residents because they were protected under the current provisions. He stated that the only way in which park owners can raise rents to market value is through vacancy increases. (5) Ervin L. Watkins, 26000 Avenida Aeropuerto, owner of Capistrano Valley Mobile Estates, suggested that the mobile home parks owners work together with the mobile home residents to resolve this matter. He stated that the only way park owners can keep their profit margin is through rent increases for new residents, and that he was advised by an appraiser that his monthly rents should be at $500. Adrian Navarro, 26000 Aeropuerto, #86, was called to speak on this item, pursuant to a 'Request to Speak" form filed with the City Clerk, but did not respond. Council Comments: Councilman Harris suggested that the City Attorney be directed to draft an ordinance providing for vacancy control in accordance with the existing Rent Control Ordinance. Councilman Friess suggested that the discrepancies in rent between new residents and long-time residents be reviewed with an effort toward equalization. He suggested that Dr. Watkins' suggestion for the park owners and residents to meet be considered to come up with a creative solution in this matter that would be fair to all parties. Councilman Vasquez stated this action was a good way to protect affordable housing. Councilman Hausdorfer stated that although he was sympathetic to the residents on this issue, he would not support the motion for philosophical reasons dealing with the freedom of choice to remain in one place and pay lower rents or to move and pay higher rents, similar to the impacts of -5- 8/4/92 Proposition 13 on homeowners. He cited further concerns that the existing Ordinance not be weakened or damaged, noting that it is the only one in Orange County and that it had been to court and been tested. He stated the motion should include the Mobile Home Park Review Committee in the process. Mayor Jones' concurred with Dr. Watkins' suggestion that the residents and mobile home park owners meet on this issue. He concurred that the Mobile Home Park Review Committee be involved in the process and that the existing Ordinance not be destroyed. Preparation of Vacancy Control Ordinance: It was moved by Councilman Harris, seconded by Councilman Friess, that the City Attorney be directed to draft a carefully worded and enforceable ordinance providing for vacancy control regulations in accordance with the existing Rent Control Ordinance. With the concurrence of the second, the motion was subsequently amended to direct staff to meet with representatives of the mobile home park owners and residents and to direct that the draft Ordinance dealing with vacancy control be forwarded to the Mobile Home Park Review Committee for review prior to City Council consideration. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Friess, Harris, Vasquez, and Mayor Jones NOES: Councilman Hausdorfer ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE Council recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS At the request of Councilman Friess, the public hearings were held in reverse order on the agenda. 1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13823 AT PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF SAN JUAN CREEK ROAD AND NORTH OF THE HIDDEN MOUNTAIN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (DIFFLEY) (600.30/420.40) Proposal: Consideration of a five-year Development Agreement and a time extension for Tentative Tract Map 1.3823 to run concurrently with the term of the Development Agreement, for a 13 -lot custom home subdivision. Applicant/Property Owner: David Diffley 252 Potosi Way Henderson, NV 89014 0 8/4/92 . 5 Written Communication: Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Planning Services, recommending that the public hearing be continued to the meeting of August 18, 1992, to allow staff to resolve final details of the proposed Development Agreement with the applicant. Continuation of Public Hearing: Notice having been given as required by law, Mayor Jones opened the Public Hearing, and there being no response, it was moved by Councilman Hausdorfer, seconded by Councilman Harris, that the hearing be continued to the meeting of August 18, 1992. The motion was carried by a 4-0-1 vote, with Councilman Friess abstaining due to the proximity of his residence to the subject property. 2. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9. CHAPTER 3. SECTION 9-3.603 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE - TEMPORARY SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY 410.40 Proposal: Consideration of a amendment to the Municipal Code regulating the placement of temporary signs on private property. The proposed amendment was in response to Council concerns regarding the proliferation of election -related signs in certain areas of the City. Written Communication: Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Planning Services, forwarding a draft Ordinance regulating temporary sign size, placement, number, removal, storage, and including the public informa- tion process. Mr. Tomlinson made an oral presentation and noted that this was a companion ordinance to the one adopted in May 1992 regulating temporary signs in the public right-of-way. In response to an inquiry by the Council, he noted that temporary banners for a business were permitted under a separate section of the Ordinance, and signs on parked cars and trailers would be prohibited unless permanently affixed. Public Hearing: Notice having been given as required by law, Mayor Jones opened the Public Hearing, and there being no response, closed the hearing with the right to reopen at any time. Introduction of Ordinance Approving Code Amendment Regulating Temporary Signs: The City Clerk read the title of the Ordinance next in order. Further reading of all Ordinances had been waived earlier in the meeting. It was moved by Councilman Hausdorfer, seconded by Councilman Friess, that the following Ordinance be introduced: AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE - TEMPORARY SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 9-3.603 OF THE SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO MUNICIPAL CODE DEALING WITH TEMPORARY SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY -7- 8/4/92 The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Friess, Harris, Hausdorfer, Vasquez, and Mayor Jones NOES: None ". 3113QV iceWOMM 3. CONFIRMATION OF COST REPORTANDAUTHORIZATION TOASSESS CHARGES - 1992 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM (540.70) Proposal: Consideration of proposed charges for the City's 1992 Weed Abatement Program which will be assessed to individual property owners on their 1992-93 tax bill. Written Communications: (1) Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Public Lands and Facilities, recommending that assessment charges be approved. The Report noted that letters of notification were mailed to all property owners with potential nuisance problems on April 15, 1992, and that abatement began on May 22, 1992. (2) Memorandum dated August 3, 1992, from the Director of Public Lands and Facilities, noting the deletion of a weed abatement charge on Assessment Form B2 because of a payment received on July 31, 1992, for Parcel No. 121-254-30, and recommending that assessment charges be approved in the amount of $10,243.45, as amended. Mr. Sievers made an oral presentation. Public Hearing: Notice having been given as required by law, Mayor Jones opened the Public Hearing, and there being no response, closed the hearing with the right to reopen at any time. Resolution Adopting the Confirming Cost Report: It was moved by Councilman Hausdorfer, seconded by Councilman Harris, that the following Resolution be adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 92-8-4-1. CONFIRMING COST REPORT - 1992 WEED ABATEMENT - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE COST REPORT FOR THE 1992 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen Friess, Harris, Hausdorfer, Vasquez, and Mayor Jones NOES: None ABSENT: None ffa 8/4/92 The Resolution authorized 1992 weed abatement charges in the amount of $10,243.45, to be assessed to individual properties by submittal of the cost report to the Orange County Auditor -Controller. 4. REQUEST FOR REZONE 91-01, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14343, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG LA NOVIA AVENUE EAST OF I-5 AND WEST OF THE GLENDALE FEDERAL PLANNED _COMMUNITY (SAN JUAN MEADOWS /LA MESA/SAN JUAN CREEK ASSOCIATES) (460.20/420.40/600.30) (CONTINUED FROM JULY 21. 1992) Propos : Consideration of a Rezone to amend the Forster Canyon Comprehensive Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14343, and Development Agreement for the San Juan Meadows project located along La Novia Avenue east of Interstate 5 and west of the Glenfed Planning Community. The 148 - acre project consists of 155 single-family detached lots, 120 single-family attached units, 180 senior housing units, a 9 -hole executive golf course and driving range, public improvements, and an 8.5 -acre public institutional site. The public hearing was continued from the meeting of July 21, 1992, for staff to address the Council's concerns regarding project financing, senior housing affordability, and potential visual impacts of the proposed senior housing, including an additional visual analysis of the knoll area. Applicant: Al Brende and Ray Poulter San Juan Creek Associates, Ltd. 324 West Fourth Street, 2nd Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 At olicant's Representative: Philip Schwartze The PRS Group 27132-B Paseo Espada, #122 San Juan Capistrano 92675 Written Communication: Report dated August 4, 1992, from the Director of Planning Services, specifically addressing the concerns expressed by the Council at the July 21 meeting. Exhibits were on display, and Mr. Tomlinson made an oral presentation, which included the following comments: (1) Although the application for infrastructure financing was withdrawn by the applicant, staff included a condition in the proposed Resolution for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map that required any indebtedness from improvement districts be retired at the close of escrow to protect future homeowners from long-term property tax assessments. (2) Specific Government Code standards and regulations were applied for affordability in the Senior Housing District; development of the project will require an affordability agreement. (3) A visual analysis of the EIR found an additional view corridor to the project from EI Adobe Restaurant, but no major view impacts were perceived from the knoll area of the proposed project. A digitized computer view analysis will be required of the applicant for the senior housing portion of the project. (4) The applicant and the County are continuing their negotiations regarding the financing and closure of the landfill. Public Hearin: Notice having been given as required by law, Mayor Jones opened the Public Hearing, and the following persons responded: -9- 8/4/92 • (1) Phillip Schwartze of the PRS Group, representing the applicant, San Juan Creek Associates, noted that commercial land use was not now proposed for the project, as previously directed by the City Council, and that the current view analysis represented the project's worst-case scenario. He noted that the applicant was not requesting an improvement district and that the Tentative Tract Map did not include as part of the site planning, the items shown on the illustrative. The tract map presented for approval would include the single-family homes only. The senior housing and townhomes would be before the City for site plan, architectural planning, etc. He concurred with staff's recommendations and stated that the applicant understood the proposed conditions of approval. (2) Mrs. Mary Rose Winkler, 32302 Valle Road (Capistrano Terrace), expressed concerns regarding the proposed project's impact on the existing instability of the land and improper drainage at Capistrano Terrace. (2) Jessica Dean, 32742 Alipaz Street, Space 102, on behalf of San Juan Housing Advocates, voiced support for the senior housing portion of the project. She noted the definition of "affordable housing" by Pauline Leonard in "The Action Plan for Housing Opportunities Program in the City of San Juan Capistrano." There being no further input, the hearing was declared closed with the right to reopen at any time. Council Discussion: Councilman Friess expressed concern that the applicant would probably not be the individual who builds the project and therefore, there were a number of issues which needed to be addressed, as follows: Re: Comprehensive Development Plan - Clarification was necessary regarding comparisons of the residential regulations between the project's added designations. - Cited concerns regarding the pad size and coverage. - Direction was needed regarding the inconsistency in sidewalk locations. - Cited concerns regarding front yard setbacks. - Consistency of documents was a concern, specifically, there was no mention in the CDP regarding the recreation facility shown on the tract map. - Percentages of affordability needed to be clarified for the senior housing use. - The CDP should clarify that the amount of open space was reduced for this project because it was consolidated into one space and not spread over the project area. - The CDP should clarify that although two and three stories are allowed for the senior housing use under the zoning, it could be denied by the City Council. - Percentage of affordability should be applied to the originally proposed 275 units. - The senior housing portion of the project should be considered a separate project and stand on its own as affordable housing. He noted that none of the 275 units are considered "affordable," with the exception of the senior housing, and requested that "affordability for families" be addressed. -10- 8/4/92 The City's review process needs to be clarified regarding Conceptual Phasing Plan and Mass Grading Plan. Housing allocations based on 1992 figures should be addressed since the homes would not be constructed for some time. - Construction access should be changed from Valle Road and not from La Novia Avenue and San Juan Creek Road. - The CDP should include the City Council in the approval of the landfill closure plan. The CDP should address the potential visual impacts from land uses allowed for the neighborhood recreational area on the knoll since the uses could include buildings. He inquired about the lack of a Landform Control District for the project. Re: Tentative Parcel Map - The connection of "A" Street to "C" Street should be required prior to the fust occupancy instead of the 100th occupancy as proposed. Phasing of the public improvements should be spelled out to avoid problems with future developers. Early installation of the landscaping should be considered, similar to the Maurer project, to mitigate visual impacts. Regarding financing, a condition should be added to ensure that if the applicant failed to pay the bonds in full, the costs would not be passed on to future homeowners. The Tentative Tract Map should include a notation that the City Council has the final approval of the percentage of lot size coverage. Councilman Vasquez stated he would not support the project as proposed because of its density and the large homes on small lots. He concurred with Councilman Priess' suggestions regarding housing affordability not being applied to just the senior housing. Councilman Harris expressed opposition to the following: lot sizes being too small, project density, too much mass, insufficiency of open space between the buildings for adequate landscaping to mitigate the visual impacts, senior housing appears too institutionalized and the number of stories proposed for the senior housing. He requested that low-cost housing be assured and suggested that a conceptual plan for the project be referred to the Design Review Commission and the Planning Commission for review and recommendations. Mr. Denhalter advised that federal and state courts, over the last five years, have allowed the category of individuals over the age of 55 to be singled out for preferential treatment in the area of housing. In response to concerns expressed by the Council members, Mr. Schwartze explained the senior housing is its own issue and includes requirements put on normal housing. If Council approves the item and the zoning, the senior housing and townhouse units would be returned for architecture and site planning. He agreed that multiple builders would probably be involved, noting that there are builders who specialize in senior housing. He noted that the construction of Street "A" and its connection was not required until the 100th occupancy was because the TMC project was conditioned to build Street "A" from their connection down to La Novia Avenue, advising that the condition had been added by the Planning Commission. He agreed that more analysis was needed regarding lot -11- 8/4/92 0 coverage and number of stories for the senior housing portion of the project since there was not sufficient information at the present time and the specific planning would be done during specialized site planning. He stated the applicant attempted to match the setbacks approved for the TMC project. He stated that early landscaping installation would be acceptable. Councilman Friess indicated he was not opposed to the project but wished to present his list to staff and the applicant in order to resolve his issues. He suggested the hearing be continued to allow time to resolve Council's concerns. At this point in the hearing, a break was granted to the applicant's representatives to leave the Council Chamber to discuss the possibility of a continuance. During this time Ordinances and Council Comments were heard. The applicant's representatives then returned to the Council Chamber, and Mr. Schwartze agreed to a two-week continuance. Continuation of Public Hearin ¢: It was moved by Councilman Hausdorfer, seconded by Councilman Friess, and unanimously carried that the hearing be continued to the meeting of August 18, 1992, for staff and the applicant to address the concerns expressed by Council. RECESS AND RECONVENE Council recessed at 9:37 p.m. to convene the San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment Agency, and reconvened at 9:38 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 2. CHAPTER 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE - CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS (630.20) (ADOPTIOND Written Communication: Report dated August 4, 1992, from the City Clerk, advising that the Ordinance was introduced at the meeting of July 21, 1992, and was scheduled for adoption. Adoption of Ordinance: The City Clerk read the title of the Ordinance next in order. Further reading of all Ordinances had been waived earlier in the meeting. It was moved by Councilman Hausdorfer, seconded by Councilman Friess, that the following Ordinance be adopted: ORDINANCE NO. 709. AMENDING TITLE 2. CHAPTER 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE - CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 2, ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 4, MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, ARTICLE 1, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS -12- 8/4/92 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Friess, Hausdorfer, and Mayor Jones NOES: Councilmen Harris and Vasquez ABSENT: None COUNCH,MANIC ITEMS 1. ORAL REPORTS OF OUTSIDE AGENCIES None. COUNCIL COMMENTS 1. SIGN AT RANCHO VIEJO ROAD/VIA ESCOLAR (410.40) Councilman Friess requested that the City Attorney provide a status report at the September 1, 1992, meeting regarding the non -conforming sign located at Rancho Viejo Road and Via Escolar (McDonald's/Wendy's advertisement). 2. RODENT ELIMINATION (560.50) Councilman Hausdorfer noted the receipt of a letter in response to news articles regarding mice and rat infestation in the South County. 3. VACANCY CONTROL (430.70) Councilman Vasquez inquired whether the City should modify its existing Rent Control Ordinance to allow mobile home park residents to sublease their homes. Mr. Denhalter advised that mobile home subleasing was not addressed in the existing Ordinance and was not a part of the Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. He stated that there is a potential for legal conflicts when a city intervenes with existing contracts that prohibit subleasing, and enforcement of violations would be difficult. Although it could be considered for new contracts, he noted that many mobile home park residents oppose subleasing because they want to discourage renting. Councilman Friess suggested that the City Attorney contact some of the park residents to discuss the issue. Councilman Vasquez noted that at a previous meeting one park resident requested that he be allowed to sublease his trailer due to economic hardship. Councilman Friess advised that the matter would fall under the hardship clause of the existing Ordinance. Councilman Harris inquired that if a person's total income were considered for rent qualification, could that be regulated by the City. Mr. Denhalter stated that he would provide whatever information was available. CLOSED SESSION Council recessed to a Closed Session at 9:45 p.m. for discussion of litigation matters per Government Code Section 54956.8(a) (Stein v. Thomason; Roberts v. City of Palmdale; and Committee to Restore Inteerity V. Com), the City Clerk being excused therefrom, and reconvened at 10:53 p.m. -13- 8/4/92 There being no further business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 p.m. to the next regular meeting date of Tuesday, August 18, 1992, at 7:00 p.m, in the City Council Chamber. ATTEST: COIL J S, O Respectfully submitted, 1. Wm SIR NEW' -14 8/4/92