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