Loading...
1994/08/02City Hallf ~he£mr ~al£forn~a - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aucfust 2, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leon. fa N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings CIVIL ENGINEER-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Natalie Meeks A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:20 p.m. on July 29, 1994 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 5:28 p.m. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there are no additions to Closed Session items. PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items. The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: David Hill Employee organization: IBEW, Local 47 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9{a) - EXISTING LITIGATION: Name of case: Golden West Baseball v. City of Anaheim et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9{a} - EXISTING LITIGATION: Name of case: Anaheim Stadium Associates v. City of Anaheim et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 73-26-65. 4e LIABILITY CLAIMS Claimant: Carmen Vasquez, Diana Vasquez, Alma Vasquez and Melanie Michael Vasquez Agency claimed against: City of Anaheim Claimant: United Pacific Dominion Construction, Inc. Agency claimed against: City of Anaheim Claimant: Darrell Davis and Bennie Rapp, Jr. Agency claimed against: City of Anaheim Claimant: Richard and Bertha Castro Agency claimed against: City of Anaheim 420 City Ball. Anaheim, Cal£forn~a - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqus2 2~ 1994 - 5~00 P.M. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (ANNUAL REVIEW): Title: City Manager CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision(b) of Section 54956.9 Marquez vs. City of Anaheim Grievance Proceedings - Settlement Agreement. By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (5:35) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (6:03). INVOCATION: Lieutenant Ebenezer Saguil, The Salvation Army, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Bob Simpson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATIONS - Declaration of Recoqnition: A Declaration of Recognition was unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing Rockwell International for the prominent role it played in the exploration of space and having contributed significantly to landing a man on the moon during the flight of Apollo 11 in 1969. The declaration was presented to the following employees of Rockwell: Shirley Bower Merle Eide JuXia Flores Pat KXine Ti~Nichelson Beverly Paonessa Russell Vanderpoo! Brad Wahl Mayor Daly and Council Members congratulated Rockwe11's representatives and acknowledged their historic contribution to the country's space program as well as recognizing Rockwell (formerly Autonetics) as one of the City's long time and valued employers and its contributions to the community especially in providing employment to many of the City's residents. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,167,871.69 for the period ending July 25, 1994 and $4,583,133.69 for the period ending July 29, 1994, in accordance with the 1994-95 Budget, were approved. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:35 p.m.) Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (6:03 p.m.) ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Comments were received on Item A17 (see discussion under that item). 421 City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINI,ri'ES - Auqust 2r 1994 - 5c00 P.M. MOTION= Council Member Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of August 2, 1994. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR= On motion by Council Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Simpson, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 94R-183 and 94R-184 for adoption. Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5440 for introduction and Ordinance No. 5436 for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book. Al. 118= The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recon~nded= Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management~ a. Claim submitted by Marie Carrier, c/o Norman L. Schafler, Esq. for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 2, 1994. b. Claim submitted by Tina Amelia Agee for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 11, 1994. c. Claim submitted by Craig Brown, c/o Carol J. Disabatino, Esq. for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 2, 1994. e. Claim submitted by Antonio Padilla for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 27, 1994. f. Claim submitted by William Swavely for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 12, 1994. g. Claim submitted by James A. Christensen for personal injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 15, 1994. A2. 105= Receiving and filing minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meeting held May 9, 1994. 105= Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meeting held June 9, 1994. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting held June 9, 1994. 156= Receiving and filing a Monthly Crime Statistics Report from the Police Department for the month of June, 1994. 114: Receiving and filing a Resolution from the City of Los Angeles opposing the "Save Our State" initiative which would deny public education and most government funded health and welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. A3. 158= Authorizing the payment of $670 to Sun~itville Anaheim, Inc., pursuant to an agreement on file, for the cost of the relocation of the sign located at 2050 South State College Boulevard (R/W 6000-4 State College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue - Critical Intersection Street Widening Project - Whittle Investors). 422 City Eall. Anaheim. Cal£fornia - ~Ob'NCIL NINUTES - Auqust 2r 1994 - 5:00 A4. 000= ORDINANCE NO. 5440 - INTRODUCTION= AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTIONS .010 AND .030 OF SECTION 17.32.070 OF CHAPTER 17.32 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION FEE CREDITS. (To allow credit for construction and dedication at the same discounted percentage of the actual cost fee established by Council.) AS. 106~ Amending the Department of Public Works Capital Improvement Projects budget for FY 94/95 for the Anaheim Stadium Rail Station improvements by increasing appropriations in revenue account #275-412-3788-1799 (Miscellaneous State Grants) and expenditure account ~275-412-3788-7851 (Engineering Construction) by $2,606,000. A6. 155~ Approving a Negative Declaration, pursuant to CEQA findings, for the La Palma Avenue and Cinemapolis/Imperial Promenade traffic signal installation. A7. 158= RESOLUTION NO. 94R-183= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN TO THE CITY. A8. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis presented by the Director of Finance for ten months ended April 30, 1994. Ag. 160: Accepting the bid of Kuli Image, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the design and promotion of screen-printed softball tournament awards~ including art work, screen preparation, printing, and delivery as required, for a period of one year beginning August 1, 1994, in accordance with Bid ~5287. Al0. 160= Accepting the low bid of Pak West Paper & Chemical, in an amount not to exceed $40,000 for 28 types of janitorial supplies as required for the period of July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995, in accordance with Bid $5285. All. 184= Reviewing the need for continuing the Fourth Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services on April 5, 1994, concerning the Santiago Landslide and Pegasus Landslide in the City of Anaheim~ and taking no action to terminate the local emergency at this time. A12. 184= Reviewing the need for continuing the Second Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services on April 5, 1994, concerning damage within the City of Anaheim resulting from the Northridge Earthquake occurring on January 17, 1994~ and taking no action to terminate the local emergency at this time. Al3. 108: ORDINANCE NO. 5436 -ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 2.12.030 AND ADDING SECTION 2.12.120 TO CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX RETURNS AND ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER. (Introduced at the meeting of July 19, 1994, Item A15.) A14. 123= Approving a Fourth Amendment to Agreement with John Cappelletti Associates and the City of Anaheim, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for consulting services in connection with the Police Automated System Development. 423 C£~v Rall. Anaheim. ~al£fornia - COUNCIL MINIFTE$ - &uqust 2, 1994 - 5~00 P.M. A15. 123: Approving a Fourth Amendment to Agreement with PRC/Public Management Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for consulting services for FY 1994/95, in connection with the Police Automated Systems Development. A16. 123: Approving a Second Amendment to Grant Agreement with Anaheim Interfaith Shelter, increasing the amount of the grant by $5,000 to be used for operational costs. Al7. 150: Approving the Fiscal Year 1994/95 allotment plan for $132,809 in Community Services Agency Funding to be distributed to selected community organizations. June Lowry, representing the Community Services Board. The funding package has been discussed with the Council over the last several months. She thanked the Council for the additional monies allocated for the Community Service needs in Anaheim. They have submitted the new allocation which has been approved by the Community Services Board first in June and then the reallocation in July. They are putting the money to the best use. A new agency has been added and several other agencies have been increased. (see report dated July 25, 1994) Mayor Daly thanked the Community Services Board for all the work put into the new revised allocations. Yadira Taylor, representing the Hispanic Women's Program. In May, they asked for funding for their program. The program is devoted to self-esteem of the Hispanic women in the community. It is four months old and they have served over 100 women. She explained certain aspects of the program. They feel the monies contributed to the program will bring a ten-fold return. She then introduced a graduate of the program. Sessie Adida. The program has provided her with education, words of wisdom and an open heart. It teaches an individual to be responsible for their own happiness and their own life. Family life and values are very important and 1994 has been designated the Year of the Family by the United Nations. The program has taught her leadership and she has been able to bring this knowledge back into her family. She urged Council consideration of the program. A18. 123: Approving an Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property and Escrow Instructions for property located at 626 S. Lemon Street, and authorizing the Executive Director of Community .Development to execute all documents necessary to complete the acquisition and relocation. A19. 129: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-184: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONFIRMING THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF REGARDING THE COST OF WEED ABATEMENT, AND DIRECTING THE FILING THEREOF WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. (For the removal of weeds, brush and/or rubbish from private property parcels.) A20. 123: Approving Amendment No. i to the Agreement for Fire Protection of Wildlands between Anaheim and the California Division of Forestry regarding fire protection of wildlands within the annexed portion of Coal Canyon~ and approving a Reimbursement Agreement with Anaheim and the Coal Canyon Company, in the amount of $20,030 after annexation of Coal Canyon to the City. 424 CAtv R&llm Anaheimm California - COUNCIL NINUTES - &uqust 2, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. A21. 123= Approving a Third Amendment to Agreement with Alex Foods to increase the monthly lease fee for 40 parking spaces from $1,000 to $1,200 per month commencing August 5, 1994 through August 5, 1997. A22. 123= Approving a First Amendment to Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc., for extension of time from June 30, 1994 to September 30, 1995, in an amount not to exceed $200,000 (as stipulated in the original agreement) for engineering services for Well No. 46 site improvements. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 94R-183 ~n~ 94R-184 ~or adoption: AYES= NOES= ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS= COUNCIL MEMBERS= COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 94R-183 through 94R-184, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5436 for adoption: AYES= NOES: ABSENT= COUNCIL MEMBERS= COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS= Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5436 duly passed and adopted. END OF CONBENT C~T.~DAR. MOTION CARRIED. A23. 105= BOARDS/COMMISSIONS-APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO TERMS EXPIRINC JUNE 30~ 1994= This matter was continued from the meetings of June 28, July 12th and July 19, 1994 to this date, with the only remaining appointments/reappointments to be made to the Library Board, Park & Recreation Commission and Senior Citizens Commission (see minutes of those dates). Council Member Pickler nominated Crimtian B. Miller and Mary Louise Pekar to the Library Board. On motion by Council Member Daly, seconded by Council Member Simpson, nominations were closed. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Daly moved for the unanimous appointment of Cristian B. Miller and Mary Louise Pekar to the Library Board for new terms expiring June 30, 1998. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly asked if there were any nominations for the Park and Recreation Commission term~ there were none. MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to continue the appointment to the Park and Recreation Commission for two weeks; Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly. On the Senior Citizens Commission a letter was received today from George McClaren, Chairman of the Commission suggesting three people who 425 City Hall, Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 2r 1994 - 5=00 P.M. are qualified to serve. He (Daly) has not had an opportunity to get copies to the Council Members. Council Member Pickler. Of the three members now serving, he asked if any had sent letters stating that they do not wish to serve; Mayor Daly. There was some mention about their interest in continuing to serve. City Clerk Sohl. She reported that at least two indicated that they wish to continue to serve on the Commission. MOTION= Council Member Simpson moved to continue appointments to the Senior Citizens Co=~ission for two weeks. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly. He asked that Mr. McClaren who is in the Chamber audience ascertain all the details relative to the status of the Senior Citizens Commission. It will also give an opportunity to circulate Mr. McClaren's letter to the Council. ITEMS B1 - B7 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY llr 1994 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 2, 1994 B1. 179= CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3245 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS= Stephen B. Wong, Norwalk Investments, 1020 N. Batavia, Ste. B, Orange, CA 92667 Howard W. Fa,rand, P. O. Box 923, Chino, CA 91704 AGENT: Glen Gwatney, Anacal Engineering Co., P. O. Box 3668, Anaheim, CA 92803 LOCATION: 526 and 532 South Rose Street. Property is approximately 0.52 acres located on the east side of Rose Street and approximately 390 feet south of the centerline of Santa Aha Street and further described as 532 South Rose Street. To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the time limitation of a previously approved auto body and paint facility and to include a 5,805 sq. ft. expansion to the existing facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION= Approved expansion and one year time extension to Resolution No. PC90-$8 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3245 (PC94-88) (6 yes votes, i absent). Negative Declaration previously approved. B2. 155= ADDENDUM FOR KOLL ANAHEIM CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3695: OWNER= Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn= Lisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Blvd., $1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT= Disney Development Co., cio Liam Thornton or Bruce Berg, 500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91421-6400 LOCATION: 300 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 3.17 acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Clementine Street. To permit an ice skating rink, including an amusement arcade and an on- site restaurant with the on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces (APPROVED), (b) minimum layout and design of parking areas and vehicular access ways (DENIED), (c) required parking lot landscaping (APPROVED), and (d) definition of enclosed restaurant (APPROVED). ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3695 GRANTED, IN PART, (PC94-89) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). 426 City Hallr Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 2, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, waiver (b) DENIED and waivers (a), (c), and (d) APPROVED. Found previously approved Addendum to the Koll Anaheim Center adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the revised project. Adopted changes to Mitigation Monitoring Program. B3. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4254, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 12: OWNER= C. V. Taormina Trust, P. O. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Richard Winn, 1131 N. Blue Gum Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1231-1235 North Blue Gum Street. Property is approximately 8.87 acres located at the northwest corner of Coronado Street and Blue Gum Street. Waiver of permitted location of decorative screen type walls within the ML Zone to construct an 8-foot high wall. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION= Variance No. 4254 GRANTED (PC94-90) (5 yes votes, I abstained, and 1 absent). B4. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3697 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Keith Goodell/Leisure Court Alzheimer Center Inc., 1135 Leisure Court, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Patricia Smith, 12232 W. Chapman Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92640 LOCATION= 1135 North Leisure Court. Property is approximately 1.34 acres located on the west side of Leisure Court and approximately 285 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To permit the addition of a storage building to an existing skilled nursing facility with waiver of minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONs CUP NO. 3697 GRANTED (PC94-91) (4 yes votes, and 3 absent). Approved waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. B5. 179= CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3694 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER= 1340 Curson Co., 5650 W. Centinela Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90045 AGENT: Brian Hughes/CB Commercial, 2400 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 3818 E. Miraloma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.82 acre located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue and located approximately 212 feet east of the centerline of Jefferson Street. To permit an auto body repair facility. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3694 GRANTED (PC94-92) (4 yes votes, and 3 absent). Approved Negative Declaration. B6. 179= CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3389 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- REQUESTED BY: Elfend and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 1290, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION= Property is located at 1859 S. Manchester Avenue.. Petitioner requests an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3389 (to permit a 750-seat theme type dinner theater with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages) to expire on July 16, 1995. 427 City Hall, Anahet~m, California - COUNCIL MXNUTES - Auqust 2, 1994 - 5=00 P.M. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION= Approved a time extension for CUP NO. 3389 (to expire on July 16, 1995) subject to the following= (a) That the property owners shall maintain their properties or demolish the buildings to eliminate the problems with the property (trash, graffiti and landscaping not being maintained). If subject Property is not demolished, it shall be inspected monthly by Code Enforcement at the petitioner's expense to ensure that the property is being maintained. (b) That prior to final occupancy, if the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is in effect, a layered landscaping along Manchester Avenue shall be provided as outlined in said Specific Plan. B7. 179= CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3667 - APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND A SUBMITTED SIGN PROGRAM FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FULL AND SELF-SERVE CARWASH AND AN AUTOMOBILE LUBE/OIL-CHANGE FACILITY= REQUESTED BY~ Tim Bundy, 20331 Irvine Avenue, Suite 7, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION= Property is located at 125 N. Brookhurst Street and 2217 W. Lincoln Avenue. Petitioner requests approval of construction phasing and a submitted sign program in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3667 (to permit a full-service carwash with related retail sales area and a self-serve automated carwash with an automobile lube/oil change facility). ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONr APPROVED, IN PART, approved the two phases of construction and, further approves the sign plan subject to the following= (a) That the two directional signs located west of the east driveway from Lincoln Avenue shall be combined into one (1) sign not to exceed 16-square feet in area and 4-feet in height. (b) That the proposed banners under the detail canopy are hereby deni~ unless the petitioner can demonstrate that the banners would not be visible from Lincoln Avenue. (c) That the required landscaping along Lincoln Avenue shall be installed within eighteen (18) months from the date of this excerpt. ITEM B8 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 25, 1994 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 4, 1994 BB. 155= ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 273 CPreviouslv Certified~ REVISED SITE PLANS FOR TRACT NOS. 12689~ 19690 AND 12691 OF THE HIGHLANDS AT ~RAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN SP87-1 DEVELOPMENT AREA OWNER= Presley Companies Of Southern California, Attn= Richard Sohn, 19 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION= Subject properties are irregularly-shaped parcels of land located at the western terminus of Canyon Creek Road, consisting of a total of 82 lots (54 lots within Tract No. 12689, 23 lots'within Tract No. 12690, and 5 lots within Tract No. 12691), located within Development Area I of The Highlands of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1). 428 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 2r 1994 - 5:00 P.M. Petitioner requests approval of a revision to the previously approved site plans for Tract Nos. 12689, 12690, and 12691 within The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) in order to construct 82 single family structures ranging from 3,343 to 4,094 square feet. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: APPROVED revised site plans for Tracts 12689, 12690 and 12691 of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan SP87-1 (Development Area 1). END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. B9. 149~ ORDINANCE NO. 5437 FOR ADOPTION: Amending various Sections of Chapters 18.01, 18.06, 18.31, 18.32 and 18.34 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to parking. (Introduced at the meeting of July 19, 1994, Item BB.) Council Member Simpson offered Ordinance No. 5437 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5437 FOR ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTERS 18.01, 18.06, 18.31, 18.32 AND 18.34 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No, 5437 for adoption: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5437 duly passed and adopted. B10. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5438 FOR ADOPTION: Amending Section 18.32.050 of Chapter 18.31 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to detached condominium projects (Ordinance No. 5416). (Introduced at the meeting of July 19, 1994, Item Bg.) Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5438 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5438: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 18.32.050 OF CHAPTER 18.31 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS (ORDINANCE NO. 5416). Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5438 for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5438 duly passed and adopted. Bll. 179~ ORDINANCE NO. 5439 FOR ADOPTION: Amending subsection .010 of Section 18.72.110 of Chapter 18.72 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning (SP88-2) - TOYON PARK. (Introduced at the meeting of July 19, 1994, Item D4.) Council Member Simpson offered Ordinance'No. 5439 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 429 C£t¥ Hallw Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 2, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 5439: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION 18.72.110 OF CHAPTER 18.72 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING (SP88-2) Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5439 for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MBMBERSs Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5439 duly passed and adopted. B12. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5441 FOR INTRODUCTION: Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 93-94-12 located at 131-135 West Elm Street from the ML zone to the RM-1200 zone. Council Member Simpson offered Ordinance No. 5441 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 5441: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 93-94-12 LOCATED AT 131-135 WEST ELM STREET FROM THE ML ZONE TO THE RM-1200 ZONE. ITEMS B13 - B14 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JULY 21~ 1994: DECISION DATE: JULY 28, 1994 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 8, 1994 B13. 170: FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 90-309 - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: REQUESTED BY: Frank J. Santangelo, 1450 Birchmont Drive, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATIONs 900 North West Street. Petitioner requests a retroactive extension of time (to expire March 2, 1995) to comply with conditions of approval for a 2-lot subdivision. B14. 170: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.'90-236 - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: REQUESTED BY= Richard Winn, 1131 North Blue Gum Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: South of Gretta Lane, west of Blue Gum Street. Petitioner requests a retroactive time extension (to expire July 9, 1995) to comply with conditions of approval. · ND OF TH~ ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEM~ FRO~ JULY 28~ 1994. Concerning the Public Hearing Calendar for this date, Mayor Daly stated that a request for continuance had been received regarding the second public hearing this evening (D2) and the applicant has requested that this request for continuance be considered before the first public hearing. D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3554 AND NEGATIVE. DECLARATION: OWNER: EDGA Enterprises, 1990 Westwood Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: Byong Kee Kent Hong, 2801E. Chestnut Ave., Orange, CA 92667 LOCATION/REQUESTs The property is located at 1490 South Anaheim Boulevard (Prestigio Towers Bar and Grill) and is approximately 0.95 acre located at the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. 430 City Hall. &nahe~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 2, 1994 Request for modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to the limitation of time of an existing restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Denied request to modify or delete Condition No. 23 of Decision No. ZA92- 51 adopted in connection CUP NO. 3554 - which expired on March 1, 1994 (PC94-63) (5 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 1 absent). Negative Declaration previously approved. HEARING SET ON= A letter appealing the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by the Agent, Byong Kee Kent Hong and Public Hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY= Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - July 21, 1994 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 21, 1994 Posting of property - July 22, 1994 PLANNING STAFF INPUT= See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 1, 1994. City Clerk Lee Sohl. Letter dated July 27, 1994 was submitted by Byong Kee Kent Hong of Prestigio Towers Bar and Grill requesting a continuance of the subject public hearing to August 16th or August 23, 1994. He asked that the request for continuance be announced prior to the beginning of the first public hearing (D1) and be acted upon at that time if possible. Mayor Daly. The owner of the property has asked for a continuance of either two or three weeks. He asked if staff had a preference. City Attorney White. Three weeks would be preferable. He would also recommend that the public hearing be opened and then continued if that is the Council's desire. Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and announced there is a request for continuance. Staff is recommending that the continuance be granted and that the public hearing be continued and held on August 23, 1994. There was an acknowledgment from the audience from the representative of the property owner that a three week's continuance was acceptable. There was no public input offered at this time. MOTION= Council Member Simpson moved to continue the subject public hearing to Tuesday, August 23, 1994. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. SWEAR-IN OF THOSE TESTIFYING AT PUBLIC HEARINGS= The City Attorney announced that it is appropriate at this time for all those intending to testify at any or all of the public hearings including staff be sworn in at this time. Those testifying were requested to stand by the City Clerk and asked to raise their right hand. The oath was then given. 431 C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 2r 1994 - 5~00 P.M. D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT'NO. 3680 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: EMC Mortgage Corp., Attn: Sheri Wilson, 511 E. John Carpenter Fwy., Irving, TX 75062 AGENT: The Eli Home, Inc., 140 S. Imperial Hwy., Anaheim, CA 92804; Jeffrey Farano, 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION/REQUEST: 100 S. Canyon Crest Drive. Property is approximately 0.22 acres located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Canyon Crest Drive. To permit a group home for abused women and their children. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONs CUP NO. 3680 GRANTED for one year (PC94-56) (6 yes votes, i absent). Approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by Gene Secrest and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of July 12, 1994 at the request of Jack Rubens, law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton on behalf of Mr. Secrest. PUBLIC NOTICE REOUIREHENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - June 23, 1994 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 23, 1994 Posting of property - June 24, 1994 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 16, 1994. Mayor Daly. This hearing was continued from the meeting of July 12, 1994 to this date at the request of Mr. Jack Rubens, Attorney for Mr. Gene Secrest. He asked first to hear from the City Attorney. City Attorney Jack White. Although this is a de novo public hearing, the Council has in front of it the record of the proceedings held before the Planning Commission. Those proceedings include City staff report dated May 16, 1994, six-page Letter of Operation and House Rules submitted by Eli Home Inc., date stamped March 30, 1994, letter from Jack Rubens of the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton, dated July 6, 1994, letter from Jeff Farano, law firm of Farano & Kieviet, dated July 11, 1994, letter from Ken Hall, dated July 25, 1994, Planning Commission Resolution PC94-56, a 28-page transcript of the minutes of the Planning Commission Hearing and attachments which were the exhibits, petitions, photographs and other documents submitted to the Planning Commission during the public hearing of May 16, 1994, and a 28-page letter dated July 29, 1994 from Jack Rubens, law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton, with Exhibits 1-4 attached thereto. All of those items are part of the records of these proceedings now in front of the City Council for consideration. In addition, there may be additional petitions, exhibits and evidence in written form submitted for Council consideration as part of this hearing. Mayor Daly. The Council has all the documents and previous testimony received by the Planning Commission as well as the detailed staff report, copies of petitions turned into the City Clerk's office and all letters that have been received. Council has had an opportunity to review all the documents. He then explained the traditional procedure that will be followed for tonight's public hearing. He encouraged designation of a spokesperson and further suggested allowing 30 minutes for the applicant to make his presentation including supporters with an equal time given to opponents and subsequently a five to ten minute period for a summary. 432 ~itv Hall. ~mahei~, California - ~OUNCIL Nllql,~S - ~uqust 2, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT~ Jeff Farano, Farano & Kieviet, speaking on behalf of the Eli Home. He will present key officials from Eli Home to explain its operation. Questions and concerns by the neighbors will be adequately responded to. Prior to filing the application, they had an opportunity to meet with the neighbors and gave a presentation of the project. After tonight's presentation, he would like to address some of the relevant legal issues addressed in a letter by the applicant's attorney (See letter dated July 29, 1994 from Jack H. Rubens for Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton) which he received on Saturday. Mr. Rubens had called him to let him know it would be forthcoming. Eli Home is a non-profit organization providing assistance to children and mothers of the children subjected to physical and mental abuse. It will provide a place to stay for seven mothers and fourteen children for 30 - 45 days. It has previously operated for the past eight years in a residential tract home in Orange. Eli Home has received a substantial grant allowing them to purchase the home and they are now the owners of the property. It is an.approximately 7,700 square foot two-story house built in 1977. He then introduced Lori Galloway, Director of the Eli Home. (Also see minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 16, 1994 where extensive input and testimony was received as well as the documents outlined by the City Attorney at the start of the hearing.) Lori Galloway, Executive Director, Eli Home, 270 $. Solomon Drive, Anaheim. Ail of the supporters in the Chamber audience are wearing blue ribbons, the symbol of the National Committee To Prevent Child Abuse. She then gave the names of the many community leaders present tonight in support of the CUP. Not present, but who lend their support as well, are Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Orange, Michael P. Driscoll and County Supervisor William G. Steiner. Eli Home provides a unique service which no other organization in Orange County provides. Its main focus is child abuse prevention. Mrs. Galloway's presentation, supplemented by slides, briefed the operation of the Eli Home, the intake process, the make-up of staff, reported that the home does not require a Community Care State License, the awards received by Eli Home, reported that no State or Federal funds support the home, that there has been no history of violence or crime, etc. In concluding, she stated they hope that those who oppose the home will give them a chance to prove that Eli Home will be positive for the community and ask for Council's consideration. Mr. Farano also introduced the following speakers, each speaking in their area of expertise= Klm White., 744 Fairway, Anaheim, Home Operations Administrator (6 years). She is responsible for the general operations of the home which she briefed. These included the rules and regulations, hiring practices and what takes place within the home.. Joan Pesout, licensed in marriage, family and child therapy with a Masters in Psychology. She is the Clinical Director at the Eli Home and has a private practice in Orange County and Covina. She gave her extensive background and then briefed her role in Eli Home. A typical family in the Eli Home would be a mother in her twenties or early thirties with two children who have all suffered some type of child 433 City Hall, Anahe4u, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 2, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. abuse - physical, emotional or sexual, not spousal abuse. The perpetrators at this point are generally out of the picture. She has never been harmed in any way by the perpetrator. Rowland Alexander, Rowland and Associates, 1290 N. Hancock Street, Anaheim. He described the proposed improvements to be made to the home. Debra Moody, Council Social Worker for 15 years stationed at Valencia High School in Placentia. Eleven of those years have been in child abuse prevention and treatment. She has been working with the Eli Home since 1983. The home is very committed to mothers and children. Eli Home provides a specialized service - parenting in-house which is very unusual but very necessary. The only other alternatives are things like protective custody. If they are not permitted to exist, they are going to be bringing more and more children into a system that has many failings. Jeff Farano, Farano & Kieviet. He then spoke to the issues brought up at the Planning Commission hearing and on the appeal as outlined by Mr. Rubens in his letter of July 29, 1994. Some of those being: security and danger - the fears expressed are unfounded and the visibility issue is irrelevant; the proposed use is not a commercial use but a residential use; the encroachment will not be at odds with the Santa Aha Canyon Road widening nor inconsistent with the equestrian trail; licensing is not an issue and it is not under the Council's jurisdiction to make a determination on that issue; the application and approval process is in compliance with CEQA and the project will not have an environmental impact; the general plan permits the proposed use as a CUP in a residential area; the status of the structure itself and the improvements to be made; the parking issue; number of occupants, etc. (see letter from Mr. Rubens dated July 29, 1994. The issues addressed by Mr. Farano were those contained in that letter generally starting on page 4 to the end, page 28). Mayor Daly then questioned staff relative to the design changes recently submitted by the applicant. City Attorney White. He is not totally aware of what the changes are. If there are changes to the plans that have been made which would cause the structure to exceed the zoning code limits as to dimensions, those changes would have to be considered tonight as part of this process. He would think Council would have great difficulty legally approving a project that did not comply with zoning code requirements. Certain issues that have been raised already in the written materials at the Planning Commission level are proper building permit issues that should be resolved not as part of this process. The issue before the Council tonight is whether the criteria in Section 18.03.030 of the AMC have been satisfied to warrant approval of the CUP. The testimony and Council's attention should be directed to those five criteria in that section. There are other issues that will need to be resolved if this is approved before occupancy and one is compliance with building code requirements. City Attorney White asked Mr. Farano if he would reiterate those changes. 434 City Hallt Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 2t 1994 - 5~00 P.M. Jeff Farano. The first is a change in the fence on the corner of Canyon Crest and Martin designated by the plan posted on the chamber wall, moving the fence in 8 feet in order to comply with sight line requirements. (2) The slump stone wall on Canyon Crest adjoining the driveway has been moved in 5 feet in order to meet sight line requirements exiting the driveway. (3) An additional 5 feet has been added to the cement drive to the east which will provide additional space to cars backing out of the parking spaces to allow for the 25 feet required. 88 City Attorney White. If those are the only changes, the City Council can take those into consideration as part of the process. The Council could condition approval upon compliance with the changes. Therefore, the answer to the question is yes - that the changes should be considered as part of tonight's hearing and compliance should be condition of any approval. There was then a brief discussion between Mayor Daly and City Attorney White regarding time limitations for presentations by the opponents. The City Attorney reported that the proponents took 54 minutes and he would recommend that the opponents be allowed a maximum of one hour. Subsequently, the applicant would have six minutes in rebuttal equalizing one hour for each side. Council Member Pickler asked those present on behalf of the Eli Home to please stand; there were approximately 75 to 80 people. The following person then spoke in support of the Eli Homes Barbara Menzer, 1706 Santa Ana Canyon Road, Orange. She was the former landlord of Eli Home for eight years. They had a good working relationship. She clarified in rebuttal to statements that had been made that Eli did not leave the home in shambles, she does not believe there were any problems, she visited the home every two weeks and had a gardener for the home and no problems were reported. Eli Home is doing a wonderful thing for the community and she encourages them. Mayor Daly then asked to hear from those in opposition, the first being a representative of the group which filed the appeal. Mr. Jack Rubens, law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton, 333 S. Hope Street, Lo8 Angeles, Angeles 90071-1448. He is not representing all of the residents but Mr. Gene Secrest who is one of the residents who lives in the neighborhood behind the proposed site, although they have been working with all the residents and have streamlined the presentation. He is going to go through his letter and highlight some of the key issues (see 28-page letter dated July 29, 1994). He clarified this ie not about whether anyone is in favor of child abuse or spousal abuse prevention. The residents are in full support of those things. Many testified at the Planning Commission hearing they have participated in groups like the Eli Home. The issue tonight is whether or. not the project is going to adversely affect the adjacent con~nunity and be detrimental to the Peace, health, safety and general welfare of the community and whether the California Environmental. Quality Act was complied with and if the project complies with all general plan zoning requirements relating to that site. 435 City Hallt Anahe£mr Cal£forn£a - COUNCZL MINUTES - Auqust 2r 1994 - 5:00 P.M. The site is probably one of the worst sites that could have been chosen for the use proposed. It is next to a major industrial and scenic expressway when the goal is to be in a secluded location. It is in a elevated location and it is the only structure anywhere in the vicinity that exceeds the maximum height limit of 25 feet at 28 feet 9 inches. It is of an architectural design that is quite different than any other structure in the con~nunity. It has a number of code problems - the third floor is an attic and the first floor was a crawl space when originally constructed. It is a non-conforming building and it could not be built today without a substantial number of variances. Mr. Rubens then briefed the contents of his letter starting on page two (see letter dated July 29, 1994 - 28 pages containing the reasons for the appeal - summary - an extensive discussion ~ortion starting on page four of the letter accompanied by Exhibits 1-4). At the conclusion of hie extensive presentation, Mr. Rubens stated for all the reasons he has given and the reasons the Council is going to hear, it is their request that the Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the Conditional Use Permit. The following people spoke in oppo0ition. Their reasons, comments and concerns are summarized. Jeanne Averill, 171 Canyon Crest Drive, Anaheim. She is an immediate neighbor. There are 37 homes in her neighborhood. There is only one entrance to the neighborhood which at the corner where the proposed site exists. Most of those who support the home do not live in the area. She referred to the Letter Of Operation submitted by Eli Home (previously made a part of the record) and spoke to some of the points contained therein. She also referred to the recent publicity and news articles with pictures on the Eli Ho~e. Eli Home is guilty of breaking the penal code by disclosing the proposed location because everyone who drives down Santa Ana Canyon Road knows where the house is. They have enjoyed a peaceful neighborhood and have not encountered any crime. They would like it to remain that way. She then relayed concerns that arose as a result of some of the residents visiting the former Eli Home in Orange as well as visiting the Huntington Beach home. There has been a long history of breaking the laws and she questioned why it would change now. If Eli Home must move to this location, it should be limited to six or eight people. She asked the Council to review the CUP and urged Eli Home to find another location. She then read a letter dated August 1, 1994, from Bill Queenen, 563 S. Wrightwood Drive, Orange, also signed by John V£thus and Delores Heffley expressing their concerns and objections to the Eli Home being established at the subject location. Ray Currie, 7550 E. Martella Lane, Anaheim. He is present on behalf of himself and his father and the 15 people listed on hi8 prepared statement which he submitted and who are opposed to the CUP and the proposed location of the Eli Home. Attached to the statement was letter dated May 27, 1994 from the law offices of Farano and Kieviet which the City Attorney clarified was accompanied by Proof of Service. 436 City Hall~ Anahe~ California - COUNCIL NINUTES - Auqust 2~ 1994 - 5:00 P.N. Mr. Rubens stated it was a letter from Jeff Farano of Farano and Kieviet sent to 17 residents who testified at the Planning Commission hearing. Proof of Service was attached and sent to the 17 residents shortly after the Planning Commission hearing threatening them with legal action. April Hughes, Canyon Crest Drive, Anaheim. She was one of the residents who went to the previous location in Orange to talk to some of the neighbors about their experiences with Eli Home. She spoke with Delores Heffley (one of the signers of the August 1, 1994 letter from Bill Queenen) and can verify what is in the letter. She also commented that the residents are disappointed in the Eli staff and the reporting that has been going on characterizing their neighborhood as being upscale and not caring about the plight of the poor. Those statements are untrue and irrelevant. What is not being mentioned is that the home does not meet zoning and code requirements. Ail the good things they do are noteworthy but have nothing to do with whether a large shelter should be established in the proposed location in their neighborhood. Hene Secrest, 121 S. Canyon Crest Drive, Anaheim. The residents all have concern for the welfare of Eli Home and their work. Of major importance is the lack of regulations and whether the structure is suitable to house children and are they trying to create an atmosphere both structurally and emotionally sound and safe for the children. Eli purchased the property on June 2, 1994 for $125,000. Concurrently recorded with the Grant Deed was a Trust Deed made out in favor of Dedering of the Dedering Family Trust, the person who originally built the structure, in the amount of $125,000. Therefore, the Eli Home would not be financially harmed if the City Council asked them because of overwhelming facts and issues at hand to seek a different site and a location more appropriate for the use. Ken Hall, 151 S. Canyon Crest Drive, Anaheim. The issue is whether this business - the Eli Home - which processed over 1,000 people through their operation last year, would be a proper land use in their single family neighborhood. He believes it is not and outlined his reasons why. Jack Rubens. He referred to the last section of his letter containing four additional conditions the residents would like to have imposed if the Council does not deny the use outright. The conditions started on page 25, item number 8, a,b,c,d. SUMMATION BY APPLIC~NT~ Jeff Farano. His client does not have a problem with getting a formal opinion from the State on whether or not a license is required. He emphasized it is not for the City Council to make such a determination. He also does not believe it is within the Council's purview to make the determination whether this falls within Hroup R, Division i occupancy but that of the Building Department. The determination of the parking study allocating one parking space for each individual that will or may be visiting the site sometime to be an overkill. Five (5) spaces will be required for staff and six are being provided. He thereupon submitted a letter dated April 21, 1994, signed by five residents living on Wrightwood Street in Orange, the 437 City Ha~, Anahe~ California - COUNCIL NINUT~S - &uqust 2, 1994 - 5:00 P.H. same street as the former location of the Eli Home in response to the Queenen letter stating that the home caused no traffic congestion, did not bring an undesirable element to the neighborhood and that the home was maintained and conducted as a typical residence in the community. Another resident at 490 S. Wrightwood stated he was not even aware that the Eli Home maintained a residence at the former location. The letter sent by his office was not threatening legal action but was sent in order to protect the Eli Home from statements being made that would seriously harm their ability to raise income. He then answered/rebutted some of the other issues/concerns raised concerning the position of the home, security and the building permit. City Attorney White. In reviewing the details and testimony, it is incumbent upon him to make some remarks and provide instructions to the Council. Many of the issues that have been discussed are extraneous to the decision the Council needs to make. It is a land use decision and the Council needs to be guided by the five criteria in the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) specified in the Planning Commission Resolution, three of which are discussed in the most recent 28-page letter from Mr. Rubens dated July 29, 1994. There has been much discussion about building code requirements, state license requirements, general plan requirements, parking requirements and county permit requirements. Most of that discussion is probably irrelevant to the Council's decision. He subsequently elaborated on the reasons why. After doing so, he stated that one area of concern after discussing the matter with the Planning staff relates to the rendering submitted and the structural height of the building, The existing building is non-conforming to the height limitation in the AMC. The existing building could be continued provided the degree of non- conformity is not expanded. The building could be remodeled and additions made without demolishing the building as long as the degree of non-conformity is not expanded. He is concerned that this expands the degree of non- conformity. It does not increase the overall height of the structure but increases the mass of area that exceeds the 25 foot height limit. It adds the areas that are on the proposed third floor, the dormers, which would actually create more area encouraging encroaching into that Space above the 25 foot height requirement. If the third floor is to be occupied under building code requirements, they need to have that much-more extra height to occupy the third floor. City Attorney White then stated'he would suggest three different approaches to the City Council could take with regard to that issue as follows: (1) The Council would have the discretion to deny the application on the basis that plans do not conform to. the code in that they exceed the height requirement by expanding the non-conforming nature of the structure. (2) The Council could continue the hearing to allow the applicant to either redesign the roof structure or to apply for and for Council to consider a Variance in conjunction with allowing that extra maes to be added into the non-conforming area. (3) If the Council chooses to approve the project, they could approve it subject to either redesign of the structure to conform to the code requirements for the newly constructured portions of the structure to eliminate those intrusions or to obtain a Variance at a later date to allow those to exist. 438 City Hallr Anahe~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 2. 1994 - 5:00 P.M, In summary, the Council can exercise its discretion in the five areas specified in the code based upon the evidence with, in his opinion, the one limitation if the Council chooses to approve the project they should make some reference to the height issue discussed and at such time as the Council is ready for an action if it needs to be addressed, he will walk the Council through. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. The only thing he would add, they have established the required number of parking spaces to be five based on the number of employees. Council Member Simpson. One of the options was for the Council to continue the public hearing and ask the applicant to come back with revised plans that would eliminate further encroachment into the height area. He asked if it would require leaving the public hearing open and, if so, could it be confined to only that issue. When they began, he thought the issue was reasonably narrowly framed. He is having a difficult time separating the remainder of the issues from what is in the Council's purview to deal with - whether or not this is a permissible use in a single family residential neighborhood and whether or not the Council should grant the CUP knowing what they know. He does not want to have to listen to additional testimony. He asked for clarification if they would need to take additional testimony. City Attorney White. The answer is yes. If the Council chooses to continue the matter for the purposes of redesigning, he would recommend that the Council allow additional testimony which could be limited only to the issue they desire open at that time which would be, if the structure is redesigned, what impact that redesign has upon the neighborhood or the five criteria set forth in the code or whether it complies or does not comply with code. He does not think they need to continue the hearing with an unlimited second round of discussion on everything they have heard. Also, the option always remains open to the applicant if he chooses not to redesign but instead apply for a Variance. The Council could limit it to only the issue of the redesign plan and not take testimony on all of the other issues. Council Member Pickler. The City Attorney has said everything the applicant wants to do is there except one thing - the height of the building and the applicant would have to either redesign and bring it back or obtain a Variance. City Attorney White. To make the record clear, he needs to clarify that what he was attempting to do was narrow the issues the Council needs to consider. He was not attempting to indicate or imply that the permit meets all the five criteria. The Council Members are the judges for that purpose. Ail he was saying, as to the other issues, he believes that this narrows those down and to limit the Council's decision to the areas mentioned. Council Member Pickler. He is ready to approve the CUP with the condition fha% the concerns of the C£ty Attorney be met throuqh redes£gn or a Var£ance. Mayor Daly. He is trying to pin down where the land use decision merges with the program they are considering. The way the problem operates will dictate whether the land use will be acceptable or not. The permit approved by 439 City Hal.lr Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auclust 2r 1994 - 5**00 P,M. Planning Commission is a one year permit. He is saying, there are questions that remain. It is something more than a single family use. He does not have a comfort level in trying to pin down the program issues this evening. They do not know if Eli Home is going to use this location as its primary operating home and the Council deserves to know that as well as the people in the area. City Attorney White. If the Council limits the permit by condition to one year, the burden would be on the operator. The courts are continually eroding the ability of cities to consider these types of successive periods of time. They are saying, once an action is allowed, there needs to be convincing reasons not to allow them to continue. The way this differs from a single family use is not just the number of people but the program and that is why one of the criteria is whether the permit, if approved, subject to the conditions that were imposed .would be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. Council Member Pickler. He feels that they have to let Eli Home try it for one year. It is necessary to take the first step. Hr. Farano and a representative of the Eli Home then answered questions posed by the Mayor relative to the program. They explained they found the property in Anaheim Hills and decided to focus all their efforts into the home. For financial reasons, they have closed down the main home in Orange. They still operate their extension homes and have outside services, intake and counseling. They stopped the main home around the first of the year. Council Member Hunter. The City Attorney talked about three options and he is inclined to go along with the second option - that of continuing the public hearing and receiving testimony on just the redesign of the structure. If the home cannot be redesigned to where they are not expanding the non-conformity, then the amount of people in the home would be less than anticipated. Otherwise, they would have to ask for a Variance which he would not do listening to the testimony given. For the eight years he has been on the Council, he has held to the height limit in the hills. A lot of those people in support of the Eli Home were with him on that issue because they all wanted to maintain that integrity in the hills. It would be hypocritical, especially for him, to grant a Variance on the height limitation when for eight years he voted down many requests. He is in favor of the proposed use in the neighborhood but is not in favor of a Variance on the height limitation. He does not know what that will do to the third floor. He reiterated, he is inclined to continue the hearing for at least 30 days and have the applicant come back with a redesign that conforms with the height limitation which will dictate the amount of people they are going to have in the home which will probably be less. MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to continue the public hearing for 30 days and at that time limit the public hearing to the issue of the redesign of the building and to the degree of non-conformity. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White stated that he would suggest broadening the motion to not only indicate.the hearing will be for the roof issue, but also will be for any of the issues relating to revised plans whether site distance, clearances, side yard encroachments or the roof issue. The City cannot require the Eli Home to submit a revised plan. It is up to them. They have every right to get a decision on this plan. If they desire 440 City Hall. Anaheim, Cal£forn£a - COUNCIL NINUTEE - &uqust 2, 1994 - 5~00 P.N. the opportunity to submit a revised plan, he would suggest it be in the possession of the Planning Department at least two weeks before the date that the hearing is continued to, to allow both the City staff the opportunity to review the plan as well as the public. Council Member Hunter amended his motion accordingly - that it be for revised plans and not just the height issue. City Attorney White. The motion would be to re-open the public hearing for the limited purpose of allowing the applicant to submit revised plans and that the hearing be continued to September 13th for the sole purpose of taking any additional testimony or evidence relating to the revisions that may be made to the plans. If the applicant does not submit revised plans, there would be no testimony taken. Jack Rubens. He will be out of town on September 13th. The first week he will be back will be September 27th. Council Member Hunter. He again revised his motion to reflect what the City Attorney articulated and to include that the hearing be continued to September 27, 1994. Council Member Feldhaus. He asked if there 'was consensus this is a proper land use; the City Attorney answered no. The applicant will probably come in with an additional revised plan and additional testimony will be taken on any revisions, but the ultimate decision will be that of the Council - whether this is an appropriate land use and meets the five criteria in the zoning code." Council Member Hunter confirmed his motion is to continue the matter to September 27, 1994 and re-opening the public hearing for the limited purpose of allowing the applicant to submit revised plans. Council Member Daly agreed in his second. Council Member Pickler voted no. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Mr. Farano asked if they come back with a plan without the dormers, is the project approved without the dormers. If so, his client would agree just not to include the dormers. City Attorney White answered no. What the City Council said is before the Council furthers considers this project and makes any decision as to the land use, it wants to see a revised plan that at least excludes the dormers and any other changes that the Eli Home may propose to make. There is no assurance this is going to be approved if they delete the dormers. RECESS: By General Consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (9:27 p.m.) AFTER RECESS= The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (9=45 p.m.) D3. 170= PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED SITE PLANS FOR TRACT NOS. 13513r 13514, 13515. 13516, 13517. AND 13518 THE SUMMIT OF ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN SP 88-2 CDEVELOPMENT AREA 101~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281= OWNER= Baldwin Company, Attn= Ron Freeman, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION= Tract Nos. 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, and 13518 (Development Area 101) of' The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2). Property is approximately 85.7.acres, located at the eastern 441 City Hallr Anaheimr California - COt,-'NCIL MINUTES - Auqust 2r 1994 - 5~00 P.M, terminus of Bailey Way, and being located approximately 550 feet east of the centerline of Taylor Court. Petitioner requests approval of a revision to the previously approved site plans for Tract Nos. 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, and 13518 within The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) in order to construct 155 single family structures ranging from 3,395 to 3,911 square feet. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSIONs Approved Revised Site Plane for Tract Nos. 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, and 13518 (4 yes votes, 2 no votes, i absent). EIR NO. 281 Previously Certified. HEARING SET ON~ The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Douglas Mahaffey, Mahaffey and Cadden on behalf of the homeowners in his letter dated June 22, 1994. PUBLIC NOTICE REOUIREMENTS MET BY= Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - July 21, 1994 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 21, 1994 Posting of property - July 22, 1994 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 13, 1994. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission. He noted that the custom home tract provided a minimum of 12 different front elevation designs to preserve a custom look and that the four-car garage option be limited to 25% of the lots with the remaining being three-car garages. The proposed homes are 5 to 20% smaller than those previously approved, but they do offer one additional floor plan. At the Council's May 3, 1994 meeting, these same proposed units were approved for one of the partially developed tracts within the gated community containing 10 undeveloped lots. Four (4) of the 10 undeveloped lots were approved for model homes to be used for production units later on. Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and asked first to hear from the applicant. Ron Freeman, Second Vice President - Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale, Irvine. Staff has summarized the salient points. They agree with the Planning Commission conditions and ask that the Council reaffirm same. Douglas Mahaffey, Mahaffey and Cadden. He first referred to page 5 of the subject staff report addressing the 12 different front elevations giving an analogy to illustrate his point. The decision of the Planning Commission completely disregarded page 5 of the staff's notation, "considering that lots have been sold and developed with custom homes and customized tract homes under the original site plan approval, staff believes that the proposed revision would not be ¢0nsistent with the partial development of current buildings or with original intent for an upscale, customized single family residential product." At the Planning Commission Hearing on June 13, 1994, there was not a single comment he noted about why that staff reco~unendation should be wholeheartedly disregarded. The request of the homeowners is to remand this back before they let building permits issue. Looking at the proposed revised plans, they look entirely different from the homes that are to be built in Tract 13514. Instead, they look like Summit Spring Homes. The City Council approved these type of custom homes in 1989. His statistics show 442 C£t¥ Hall~ ~Belmt Cal£forn~a - COUNCIL HINUTES - &uqust 2, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. that was 10% of the custom lots in the city in the Summit Spring Tract - 210 homes. Baldwin has proposed that 165 now be re-architecturally designed entirely and they are just tract homes. The only thing, that has happened, economics have changed. That reduces the percentages of custom homes in the City to 2%. After researching the law, it is not a basis for disregarding the City plan. Mayor Daly. He asked for clarification that staff recommended approval of the design changes in all the other tracts; Mr. Mahaffey stated that was correct. The custom homes in Tract 13514 really are the same homes in the other tracts that were proposed, originally. Diane Schenken, 1062 Sunstream Lane, Anaheim, Tract 13514. She was sold a semi-custom home and a build-to-suit. She was led to believe by the marketing staff that they would continue to build those types of homes in that area so that she could have the right of enjoyment for her investment. That was her reason for moving to a planned community. If they do need to go ahead with building other homes, they should somehow separate the current homeowners. The issue needs to be reconsidered. Harvey Casey, 1031 S. Taylor Court, Anaheim. He is President of Setco Plastic in Los Angeles with large manufacturing facilities in Anaheim. When he built his plant, he had a lot of cooperation from the City. Regarding his home, he was assured the strict CC&R's would be maintained throughout the entire development and never dreamed that Baldwin would undermine and undercut the existing homes. They did not listen to their own staff. If he knew what he knows now, he would not have bought a home in this development. He urged the Council not to let the Planning Commission make this mistake. (He confirmed for the Mayor he was a resident of Tract 13512.). Marl Penny, 8125 Oxley Court, Anaheim. When Baldwin does again build in their neighborhood, the residents are concerned about a construction entrance. There is only one ingress and egress and that is the front gate. There is a dirt road in the back of the complex which goes down a hill and which people can use. They have had trouble in the past with anybody getting up there so it has been blocked off. They did not want that to be used as a construction entrance. There are 41 homes and almost 40 children under the age of 14. They are very concerned about safety. They would absolutely not want any construction vehicles to go in the front entrance. They would prefer a construction entrance up the rear of the property and have a guarded gate so no one else could get in after construction hours. Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer, Public Works. She confirmed for the Mayor that she did not believe the Planning Commission had acted on that issue. She has met with the City's field inspector and the construction entrance that should be used is Blue Sky Way which is around the back and not the front entrance on Taylor Court. She believes the Specific Plan has adequate language in it right now to allow the City to direct the construction traffic to that area. Robert Minnow, 1071 Taylor Court, Anaheim. At the meeting of May 3, 1994 (see minutes that date), he stated to make a decision on this tract and homes, they must follow the guidelines of the Specific Plan of Anaheim Hills. Instead, the City Council disregarded the Specific Plan and made its decision relating to economics. He reiterated many of the concerns expressed at the May 3, 1994 meeting wherein Baldwin requested revised plans for Tract Map No. 13266 which were approved by the Council. They want to maintain the integrity of their homes architecturally with the same style, size and type of home they presently have. They do not want basic tract homes in their community. He 443 C~tv Hail. Anaheim. Cal£forn~a - COUNCIL MINIJTES - Auqust 2r 1994 - 5~00 P.M. lives in Tract 13512. Tract 13514 should be totally custom and semi-custom homes and his tract should be as well. He urged that they rescind the previous decision. If they approve the motion, they should limit the builders access as discussed. Ron Freeman, Baldwin Company. It was his impression at the Planning Commission hearing that a condition had been imposed regarding construction access through the back side of the project except during inclement weather or if the road became impassable. He thought he had agreed to that although they have to do actual grading to be able to use the back side. The Specific Plan language gives the staff the ability to have Baldwin do that. Relative to the comments about the plans not being consistent with the Specific Plan, those have been addressed in a number of Planning Commission hearings and the experts on staff have determined that they are consistent. Joel Fick, Planning Director. The Planning Commission did impose one condition that required that the construction road at the northeast corner of the development area be upgraded to be suitable for dry weather travel and further that road is required to be the primary road of travel for construction traffic. Council Member Hunter. He voted against all the revisions the last time and he is going to do so this time. He feels if Baldwin would wait awhile, they could start building nice homes again. An example, going down Santa Ana Canyon Road, custom homes are being built called Ana-Peralta selling for around $700,000 and also a project off Moehler which is another beautiful project. He feels Baldwin can still build what they wanted to build originally. In Tract 13514, some People have built million dollar homes. They are custom lots and the lots overlook the canyon. They are some of the most exclusive lots in Anaheim Hills. In his opinion, the promises made by Baldwin relative to the kind of community that was to be built were never kept. If the request is approved, he asked that Baldwin consider putting a more quality project in the area. MOTION - CEOA Findina - EIR No. 281= On motion by Council Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Simpson, the Council determined that Environmental Impact Report No. 281 previously approved was determined to be adequate for the amendment to Specific Plan No. 88-2. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION= Council Member Pickler moved that the revised Site Plan for Tracts 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, and 13518 within the Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan No. 88-2 be approved subject to Conditions Nos. 1-5 as previously approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 13, 1994, upon a finding that the revised Site Plan is consistent with Specific Plan No. 88-2 and the Design Guidelines set forth in the Zoning and Development Standards for the Summit as adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 4976 in that the proposed residential structures (1) meet the structural size requirements for Development Area No. 101 as set forth in the Specific Plan and (2) will have a high quality appearance consistent with the aesthetic character of the community based upon the reasons set forth in Paragraphs 11- 22 and subparagraphs 1-3 of Paragraph 26 of the June 13, 1994 Staff Report. Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Council Member Hunter stated something for Baldwin to think about is to have a gated coa~uunity within a gated community or where the back side road can become a secondary road. Baldwin ought to "foot the tab." 444 City Hall, Anahe~, Californ£a - COUNCIL NII~TES - Auqust 2, 1994 - 5:00 A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion: AYES: NOES= Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Daly Hunter Cl. COUNCIL COMMENTS= 114= Fixed Guidewa¥ System= Council Member Pickler. Anaheim belongs to a group called the Orange County Fixed Guideway System. He will get material to the Council for the next meeting through Kristine Thalman for the Council to review so that they might be able to take some action. The City is paying $10,000 to belong to the group and he feels it is time for the City to back away from the organization. Mayor Daly. He asked if he (Pickler) had a chance to talk to the Council Member from Costa Mesa who chairs the group~ Council Member Pickler stated that he had run into him three or four times but he did not seem to want to discuss the matter. Mayor Daly. He had expressed concern that Anaheim not withdraw but the Council can talk about it when it comes back to the Agenda. C2. 112= REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS= City Attorney White announced a unanimous vote of the Council approving the following: Settlement Agreement in the matter of Marquez vs. City of Anaheim in the amount of $61,263.07. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consensus the City Council adjourned. (10:25 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 445