TUSTIN : Problems Keep New Complex in Limbo

The controversial apartment complex at 15642 Pasadena Ave. will stand vacant a bit longer.

On the advice of the city attorney, the City Council delayed its decision on the beleaguered complex until April 1.

Although the 11-unit, 2 1/2-story apartment complex has been virtually ready for tenants for months, battles in court and council chambers have kept it vacant. Until the issues are resolved and a conditional permit is issued, no one can move in.

Stephen Johnson, an attorney representing neighbors who oppose the project, said the status of the apartments should be considered by the Planning Commission rather than by the City Council, but City Atty. James G. Rourke disagreed.

Rourke said the delay is designed to give city staff a chance to respond to statements and evidence presented by about 10 people who spoke against the apartments during a public hearing Monday night.

The problems started last spring after city staff members discovered that neighbors on Myrtle and Corla avenues, behind the apartments, were not notified of a 1989 public hearing at which an occupancy permit was issued.

The neighbors complained that the apartments overshadowed their homes, robbed them of privacy and lowered their property values. City officials declared the permit invalid and the council reconsidered the apartments.

After several emotional public hearings and unsuccessful council-mandated negotiations between the neighbors and the developer, the council struck what it considered a compromise.

With a 3-2 vote, the council issued a conditional-use permit for the complex but ordered developer Feridoun Rezai to remove the top floor from the rear four units.

That decision left Rezai and the neighbors unhappy, and both filed suit.

Last December, as a result of the neighbors’ suit, a Superior Court judge overturned the council’s decision and ordered it to consider the shade and shadows caused by the apartments and their effect on property values of nearby homes.

Rezai’s suit is pending. It seeks $1 million in punitive damages, along with compensation for lost income, reduced property value, additional construction and demolition costs and professional fees.