1990/02/1369
City Hall, Anaheim, Ca%~fornia
COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
The City Counc~l of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahtt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
EMERGENCY SERVICES SPECIALIST: Bob Berg
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Jonathan Borrego
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:32 p.m. on February 19, 1990 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION; City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(a),to wit: Golden West Baseball
Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case
No. 40-92-46; Campanula Properties Inc. vs. City of Anaheim, et al.,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 61-46-64; Anaheim Stadium
Associates vs. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 61-46-82; Los Angeles Rams Football Company Inc. vs. City of
Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 61-46-74.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
d. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as
are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City
Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates
any of the matters will not be considered in closed session.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5:57 p.m.)
INVOCATION; A Moment of Silence was observed in lieu of the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
146
7O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
119: PROCLAMATIONS; The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council:
Vocational Education Week in Anaheim, February 11-17, 1990,
American Business Women's Week in Anaheim, March 26 April 1, 1990,
Joanne Stanton and Dr. Tom Kurtz accepted the Vocational Educational Week
proclamation and Marlene Montooth and Vtckie Maynard accepted the American
Business Women's Week proclamation.
119: PRESENTATION - REIMBURSEMENT CHECK - LINCOLN AVENUE REALIGNMENT AND
OVERPASS; Mayor Hunter acknowledged receipt of the reimbursement check in the
amount of $4.5 million dollars from the State Public Utilities Commission to
the City, representing reimbursement for the Lincoln Avenue Realignment and
Overpass. This was the first time the state has reimbursed for construction.
The funds originally came out of Redevelopment. That account will now be
reimbursed to fund other planned projects. The Mayor asked the Director of
Community Development, Lisa Stipkovich and the Director of Public
Works/Engineering, Gary Johnson, to come forward and be recognized.
119~ PRESENTATION - ANTI-GRAFFITI REWARD: Mayor Hunter presented a check for
$500 to one of the City's Park Rangers, due him under the City's Anti-graffiti
reward program. The Park Ranger was instrumental in the apprehensiOn and
conviction of the person(s) responsible for defacing the City with graffiti.
119: PRESENTATION - EARTHOUAKE PREPAREDNESS: Mr. Bob Berg, the City's
Emergency Services Specialist, made the presentation. He discussed the
Emergency Services Program roles and responsibilities, those of the Council
and other City officials as well as needs to make the program more effective.
He narrated a slide presentation which gave an overview of the disasters the
City had experienced within the last ten years as well as slides showing the
damage that occurred in the Mexico City earthquake of 1985 which was an 8.1
magnitude as well as the October 17, 1989 earthquake which struck northern
California, San Francisco and environs (7.1). He explained and showed
examples of the damage that was caused in each. He outlined what the
Council's role will be should an earthquake occur in southern California
affecting Anaheim. He noted that before the Council today, under another
portion of the agenda, is a request to approve the City's newly revised
Disaster Plan - Multi-Hazard Functional Plan - one which the City can be proud
of. It was written approximately three years ago and it was adopted not only
by the state, but also FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and 96 other
jurisdictions. Final revisions of the plan are being presented today. He
briefed what the plan defines. He also noted that the City's new command site
is at the Utilities Service Center on Vermont.
Mr. Berg then defined more precisely who would be responsible in the City
structure should a disaster occur and what their responsibilities would be
(see information sheet - City of Anaheim, Office of Emergency Services
Anaheim City Council's Disaster Responsibilities and Emergency Response Table
of Organization which were documents previously submitted to the Council).
147
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M,
Before concluding, Mr. Berg outlined the Emergency Services Program needs to
improve the City's ability to effectively respond to any major disaster (see
memorandum dated February 13, 1990) - a mobile command vehicle, heavy search
and rescue training/equipment trailer, additional radios, public education
through the dissemination of brochures ("Its Time To Get The Lead Out")
automation of Emergency Services Program, a Macintosh portable computer and
the stock piling of essential emergency supplies.
Mayor Hunter thanked Mr. Berg for the thorough and extensive update.
Councilman Pickler. He also thanked Mr. Berg. He (Pickler) had asked that he
make the presentation because it is such an important issue. He asked what
the Council can do to assure that the equipment, vehicles and supplies are
provided so that the City will be ready for a major disaster such as the San
Francisco earthquake.
City Manager, Bob Simpson. He will work with the Fire Chief and Mr. Berg to
do what is necessary to see that the needs are met.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,179,829.26, in
accordance with the 1989-90 budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCE: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinance were read by the City Manager. (Resolution
Nos. 90R-47 through 90R-52, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance No. 5097
for adoption)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and
ordinance. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Councilman Pickler offered
Resolution Nos. 90R-47 through 90R-52, both inclusive, for adoption; and
Ordinance No. 5097 for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance books.
Al. 118 The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Anaheim Tennis Center for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 3, 1989.
b. Claim submitted by Rick Campbell for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 14, 1989.
c. Claim submitted by Signal Maintenance Inc. (Main action:
Teachers Inc.) for indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions of the City
on or about December 13, 1989.
148
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
d. Claim submitted by Martha Calderon Vargas for indemnity
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 30, 1989.
Application for leave to present late claim - Recommended to be
Denied:
e. Claim submitted by Charles Alert Casse for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 18, 1989.
A2. 107: Receiving and filing the Building Division Annual Report for 1989.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held
January 18, 1990.
A3. 101: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Anaheim
Stadium Exhibit Facilities by Pinner Construction Company, Inc., and
authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file said Notice of
Completion.
A4. 165; AWARD OF CONTRACT - PATTERN CONCRETE SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION;
Waiving the bid bond discrepancy, and awarding the contract to the lowest and
best responsible bidder, FAV Engineering, in the amount of $150,438.75 for
Pattern Concrete Sidewalk Reconstruction, area bounded by Olive Street,
Broadway, Harbor Boulevard and Cypress Street. Submitted was report dated
February 6, 1990 from the Public Works/Engineering Department, recommending
that the Council waive the bid bond discrepancy in accordance with the City
Attorney's opinion that the discrepancy was a minor one and to award the bid
to the lowest and best responsible bidder, FAV Engineering.
City Manager Simpson announced that someone wished to speak to the item.
Rick Garabedian, Heritage Construction Company. They were the second lowest
bidder. The principal of the low bidder did not sign the bid bond. In the
past they have had their bids rejected in Fullerton for not having signed the
bid bond. As far as he and his bonding company is concerned, if the bond is
not acknowledged, there is no bid bond.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions answered by Gary Johnson, Director
of Public Works/Engineering, relative to the look and composition of the
sidewalk replacement. A rough broom finish is being used and only the
sidewalk areas are being done under this phase. Those represent complete
pattern concrete removal in the Redevelopment area.
Council Members then posed questions relative to the bid bond and the
discrepancy noted. Mr. Johnson explained when there is some discrepancy in
the bid opening, they consult with the City Attorney's Office. In this case
the City Attorney's Office advised that the minor discrepancy could be waived.
Councilman Pickler. He is concerned generally with this item and spending
$150,000 to replace what is there at present which he feels is acceptable. He
has not received one call objecting to the patterned concrete. They are doing
something that is not needed.
149
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood. This was a decision made quite some time ago by the
Council because there were a number of complaints.
Councilman Daly. He asked if there was a way to phase in the replacement
sidewalk as development occurs rather than replacing them.
Gary Johnson. As development occurs, that is required but there is no policy
for existing sidewalks. Since this is in the Project Area, the Agency and
staff felt it is an obligation the Agency has and the Agency and Council
directed staff to remove the patterned concrete and reconstruct the
sidewalks. That is why they carried the project in the budget.
Councilman Daly. He agrees with Councilman Pickler and would rather not spend
the money on the project.
The City Attorney then clarified that the item is on the agenda to award the
contract and the Council would have the legal authority to reject all bids.
Councilwoman Kaywood. The reason it was brought up in the first place was the
hazard it posed for older people and women walking in high heels. It is
dangerous walking on the patterned concrete. The decision was made to remove
it and she would want to continue with the decision the Council previously
made.
Councilman Daly asked what effect there would be if they continued the item
for two weeks.
City Attorney White. Normally the bonds are valid for only a limited period.
After conferring with the City Engineer, it was determined that there would be
sufficient time if the Council wished a two-week continuance.
MOTION: Councilman Daly moved to continue the award of contract on patterned
concrete sidewalk reconstruction in the subject Redevelopment area for two
weeks. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A5, 176; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-47; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (89-3A) (Setting a date for public hearing
to consider abandoning an easement located on the south side of Cerro Vista,
west of Lakeview - suggested public hearing date is March 20, 1990.)
A6. 158: Finding and determining that the proposed sale of City-owned real
property located on the south west side of Short Street in Tract No. 13130 is
in the best interest of the city; accepting the offer in the amount of $1,753;
and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the grant deed.
A7. 170: Approving Parcel Map No. 89-327, said parcel being located on the
southeast corner of Cypress Street and Philadelphia Street, for relocation of
two historical houses.
150
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
A8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Custom Floors, Inc., in the amount of
$348,661 for recarpettng the Civic Center, in accordance with bid #4757.
A9. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis presented by
the Director of Finance for six months ended December 31, 1989.
AIO. 184: Approving the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (format developed by
Federal Emergency Management Agency) as the basic guide for disaster
operations in the City of Anaheim.
All, 161.123; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-48; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT
NO. 74 FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY.
Al2. 175.123: Approving an agreement with R.W. Beck and Associates, at a cost
not to exceed $114,754 for engineering consulting services for an electric
system transmission study, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board, at
its meeting of November 16, 1989.
Al3. 153: RESOLUTION NO, 90R-49; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 16 VACATION, AS SET FORTH IN
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-166. (Effective February 16, 1990.)
153~ RESOLUTION NO, 90R-50~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 17, SICK LEAVE AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION
NO. 88R-166. (Effective February 16, 1990.)
153; RESOLUTION NO. 90R-51: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CREATING PERSONNEL RULE 32, PAID LEAVE PROGRAM. (Paid Leave Program
for Fire Battalion Chief, effective February 16, 1990.)
Al4. 108/142; ORDINANCE NO, 5087 - CONGEALABLE FIREARMS AND RESOLUTION FOR
FEE ESTABLISHMENT: Adding new Chapter 4.98 to Title 4 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code relating to the retail sale of concealable firearms. The
ordinance was introduced at the meeting of January 9, 1990. When the
ordinance was scheduled for adoption on January 16, 1990, extensive discussion
and input was received (see minutes that date) and adoption continued to
February 6, 1990. Originally submitted was report dated December 13, 1989
from Chief of Police, Joseph Molloy, recommending adoption of the ordinance
and establishment of the proposed fee by resolution. Also submitted was a
four-page report dated February 2, 1990 from the Police Department which was
supplemental to their report of December 13, 1989.
The following people spoke/reiterated their opposition to the proposed
ordinance (also see minutes of January 16, 1990):
T.J. Johnston, 862 Granite Circle, Anaheim Ca.
Kathy Tolley, 862 Granite Circle, Anaheim Ca.
Glenn Clover, 825 South Valley Street, Anaheim
Tom McBride, 2540 East Balmont Court, Anaheim
92806
92806
Ca. 92804
151
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M..
Michael McAffee,. 1727 Glenoaks, Anaheim
David Brttton, 1820 East Diana, Anaheim Ca. 92805
Ed Werley, Director of Citizens for Constitutional Integrity
Varden Bratntzel, 6042 San Lorenzo Drive, Buena Park
Kevin Wagner, 17834 Center Street, Orange
Robert C. Young.
Some of the main points of contention were as follows: The proposed ordinance
is unnecessary and a duplication of regulations already in place; a $200 fee
is extraordinary and punitive for the 60 businesses involved; concern that
authority is being given to the Chief of Police to regulate an additional
license; there is nothing in state law that states the Police Department has
to administer the licensing procedure; FFL (Federal Firearms License) holders
are already licensed by the Federal Government; the ordinance needs to be
revised and any licensing be under the jurisdiction of the City Treasurer's
Office or the Business License Division; the Police Department should not be
burdened with licensing activities; an exception should be made in the case of
infrequent sale or transfer of hand guns; the Police Department has already
reviewed their businesses by doing a background check and subsequently
approved them so that they could do business in Anaheim; the additional
licensing procedure is redundant; the proposed ordinance is discriminatory
which is taxation without representation; it should not be the responsibility
of local law enforcement to keep track of businesses, the Attorney General
should not be allowed to tell the City how it should be run.
Chief of Police, Joseph Molloy. The Attorney General's opinion is that the
City must comply with Penal Code Sections 12070 and 12071 by adopting a local
ordinance. The City Attorney feels the City must comply with what the
Attorney General says. The fee was established by surveying other agencies.
A consultant is now reviewing City fees including this one. The Department
will not be hiring another investigator or police officer to run the program.
Presently the Department has to do the same with 19 other types of businesses
in the City. It is not something new. Chief Molloy then briefed portions of
his extensive report (see report dated February 2, 1990 giving detailed
information - made a part of the record). His presentation included an
explanation of zoning regulations in the City of Anaheim relative to retail
sales noting that although the City has permitted accessory uses in
residential zones, "no sale of a product on the premises shall be permitted."
Individuals who have received permits have to obtain Home Occupation Permit
(HOP) from the City which allows the occupant to do business from a residence
but not to sell products. The FFL people or ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms) have said if a private dwelling is involved, at least a portion must
be opened to the public. If that is the case, and what the state says is that
the transfer has to take place at the place of business, then some Home
Occupation Permits have been issued in error. He then gave an overview of the
60 FFLholders in the City and their business license/HOP status. This is not
a gun control issue but a business issue and a public safety issue. At this
time it is the Police Department's position that although they have better
things to do, they must abide by the Attorney General's opinion which is
confirmed by the City Attorney. Since that is the case, he is bound to do so.
152
64
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
Chief Molloy and City Attorney White then answered questions posed by Council
Members. The City Attorney explained that his office consulted with the
Police Department in developing the proposed ordinance. In his opinion, in
its current form, it does not conflict with, violate or exceed the authority
provided by state law. There are policy issues before the Council today - who
the licensing authority should be, whether the Police Chief or some other
person or entity within the City, and the second is the fee. The ordinance is
needed to comply with the mandates of state law; it does comply. He then
commented on other issues and the staff report submitted by the Police
Department and explained where he felt there was a misinterpretation of some
of the provisions contained therein relating to advertising. He concluded
that the ordinance as currently proposed can be legally sustained. On the
other hand, if the Council wishes to give other directions to staff, they will
follow those.
Mayor Hunter. If the ordinance is enacted, he does not feel there should be a
fee. Secondly, the City has a business license on which the individual
indicates it is a weapons business which then goes to the Police Department.
He asked if that could not be construed as being in compliance with the
Attorney General's opinion.
City Attorney White. He does not believe so. As he explained in the previous
meeting, the City's business license tax is not regulatory. It raises money
that more than meets the cost of processing the licensing. The proposed
ordinance provision is regulatory in nature and a license, once issued, can be
revoked for a violation. A regular business license is not revocable - it is
not regulated - and no conditions have to be met to maintain the license. The
proposed licensing procedure is meant to be a regulatory license so that if
there are violations of the Penal Code, that license is revocable and
prohibits the transaction of business within the City.
Mayor Hunter. The opinion of the Attorney General was rendered in 1975 (when
Evell Younger was the Attorney General as reported by the City Attorney). He
wanted to know why the City had done nothing relative to that opinion for the
last 15 years; City Attorney White stated that he did not have an answer to
that.
Councilman Ehrle. It is a two-part issue - should the City comply with state
law and how much should the City charge for people to comply. He agrees the
City should be in compliance with state law. However, he does not fee'l the
fee should be $200. There should be an application fee and renewal fee each
year. The fee charged should be the same as for other businesses.
Chief Molloy. His Department was asked to cost out what the fee should be and
$200 is the amount they felt it would cost. If the Council feels it is
exorbitant and the amount should be changed, they have no problem with that.
Councilman Hunter moved that if the ordinance is enacted that it be revisited
approximately January, 1991 to determine whether or not it is to be kept in
effect and that there be no fee charged. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
153
61
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5~30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned that there will be an outcry
throughout the City and nobody will want to pay a fee for anything. The
budget is always a problem. User fees are supposed to be covering costs
expended and the Police Chief has stated that the $200 will cover the cost.
Councilman Daly. He is going to oppose the motion. The Police Chief has
explained his recommendation very well. County government has taken this
step. The fee the county is collecting is double the amount proposed for
Anaheim. A study is in progress to look at fee charges. The ordinance is
legitimate and the City should collect the fee to recover the cost to
administer it.
Mayor Hunter. They are already being charged a business license fee and a fee
for their FFL license where they are investigated thoroughly. The Attorney
General's opinion is 15 years old and nothing has been done about it until
now. He personally has doubts about the ordinance altogether whether they
will not be duplicating something already in effect.
Councilman Pickler. He noted that the Mayor had asked the City Attorney
whether the license fee could be administered by the Treasurer's Office and he
said yes. He suggested that they maintain the status quo and the licensing be
administered by the Treasurer.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion amended to include that the City
Treasurer be the licensing authority - the motion was clarified as follows:
That the City Treasurer/Licensing Division will be the licensing authority
under the proposed ordinance - that no fee is to be charged, and that the
ordinance be revisited in one year to determine the experience over that
period.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter
Daly and Kaywood
None
City Attorney White. It would then be appropriate to have the ordinance
introduced again including the changes made.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance 5087 for amended first reading.
ORDINANCE NO, 5087; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER
4.98 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE RETAIL SALE OF
CONCEALABLE FIREARMS.
Al5, 158; RESOLUTION NO, 90R-52; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
154
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
Al6. 106: Authorizing an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1989/90 Resource
Allocation Plan by increasing expenditure account 92-965-6325 by $1,300,000
(Hilton Hotel Settlement.)
Al7. 123/135: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and approving an agreement with
Gordons Irrigation Consulting for design and bid specification for replacement
irrigation system at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, in the amount of $31,000
for all phases of work to be performed.
This item was withdrawn by staff.
Al8. 123: Approving a Supplement to Parkway Landscaping Easement Agreement
with Sycamore Canyon Master Association to maintain landscaped areas located
within the City right-of-way on Serrano Avenue in Tract 12993.
Al9 179: ORDINANCE NO, 5097 - INTRODUCTION; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 18.03.030 OF CHAPTER 18.03 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-47 through 90R-52, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (7:54 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:01 p.m.)
134/179/179, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(READVERTISED), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 272 (READVERTISED).
RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-23 (READVERTISED). WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT
(READVERTISED). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3214 (READVERTISED):
OWNER: JAFARJAHANPANAH
520 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
AGENT: Ronald J. Crowley
1700 Ratntree Road
Fullerton, California 92635
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1585 West Katella Avenue. The
request is for a change in zone from RS-10,000 to RM-2400. Petitioner
requests an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing a
redesignation from the existing Commercial Professional designation to the
155
59
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
Low-Medium Density Residential designation. To permit a 24-unit, RM-2400
condominium complex with waivers of maximum structural height, minimum
building setback, minimum recreational leisure area, and maximum fence height.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: General Plan Amendment No. 272
DENIED (PC89-295, Reclassification No. 89-90-23 DENIED (PC89-296), Waiver of
code requirement DENIED, Conditional Use Permit No. 3214 DENIED (PC89-297).
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested
by Councilman Pickler and Councilman Ehrle at the meeting of December 12, 1989
and public hearing scheduled 3anuary 16, 1990. At that meeting, extensive
discussion and input was received at the conclusion of which the public
hearing was continued to February 6, 1990. At the public hearing of
February 6, 1990, the hearing was continued to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Published in the Anaheim Bulletin, January 4, 1990.
Posting of Property, January 5, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 4, 1990.
STAFF INPUT:
See Staff report to the Planning Commission dated December 4, 1989.
Mayor Hunter first asked staff to give an update on the status of the project.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
The public hearing was continued from the meeting of January 16,
1990 (and again on February 6, 1990 as requested by staff) to
give staff the opportunity to review new plans that were
submitted and to address the concerns expressed by the Council
and staff relative to the location of the trash enclosure which
has now been relocated to the center of the project at a "T"
intersection, that there be an adequate turn around area on the
interior of the site, on-site sidewalks, waiver of the front
setback along Katella. Of the four items, the trash enclosure,
emergency turn around, private sidewalks and code waivers, two
items were satisfied but the other two have not been fully
satisfied.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Phil Schwartze, PRS Group, 1484 Yorba, Tustin.
He and Mr. Robert Mickelson have been working with Massoud
Monshizadeh trying to find a solution to the problems which
arose. They have resolved the issues of the trash enclosure and
the Fire Department issues. The other problem is the ongoing
sidewalk situation. As noted in the staff report with the
reduction of a great number of units off the property, it is
possible to accomplish that. However, it does not appear to be
prudent to lose that number of potential units simply to
accommodate a sidwalk for only a few yards out to the street
156
6O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
when there is 28 feet of pavement to allow a person to walk out
in any case. They have also been working diligently with
adjoining property owners. In their judgment, in the near
future they may be approaching the Council with a master plan
for the entire area for a similar kind of development program.
The requirements for the City of Anaheim are substantially over
those of adjacent cities. It is difficult with a property of
this size to find a way to meet all the code requirements. If
carried to the limit, only 10 to 12 units could be built on the
property but still comply with the zone which is promoting a
higher development. They are requesting approval of the General
Plan Amendment, Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Margaret Patino, 1243 Laster Street, Anaheim.
As a member of the City's Housing Commission, she took part in
the draft of the Housing Strategy which outlined needs and
objectives for the City. One of the objectives was directed
towards neighborhood preservation. A main concern was the
mixing of multiple units with single-family residential such as
what has occurred in the downtown area. Neighborhoods were to
be compatible with surrounding land use. The subject site is
zoned for commercial and professional use. By adding the
24 condominium units proposed, she questioned who will be
receiving the best use for their investment. She is concerned
about some of the waivers being requested. She understands
there are supposed to be 3-bedroom units. If so, she asked if
there were greenbelts for children to play in. Off-site parking
is very congested. She understands there is to be compact
parking. She is concerned about neighborhood businesses wherein
it was stated that some to the east wanted to improve their
land. If the subject project is approved, she questioned what
they will do. Anaheim does need housing and she is for housing
but she does not believe this project is the solution.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Phil Schwartze.
There are no compact car spaces. There has been an attempt over
the years to put commercial and other uses along this area and
he believes it was the Judgment as stated by the Planning
Commission and others that this area would be more appropriate
for multiple family residential and this would be the first step
moving towards that.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
157
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She noted from the 3-page staff report dated February 6, 1990,
that even though changes were requested to be made by the
Council, that none were made on dwelling units. She is
concerned that the project is on Katella at the entrance to the
City's CR area and would have a setback of only 10 or 11 feet
from this very major street~ To her that is unthinkable. For
safety purposes and for every other reason, the 20-foot setback
should be adhered to. Millions of dollars have been spent for
acquiring right-of-way and she would hope the Council would not
even consider anything less. When they are beginning to allow
RM-2400 for condominiums, what the City can end up with is worse
than an apartment project because there is no on-site management
and that is a great concern.
Mayor Hunter.
He is also concerned with some of the variances requested. The
Council has been encouraging pride of ownership which this
project represents. At this time there is not one neighbor who
is opposed. It is a good project but he still has concerns
relative to the setback and the sidewalks, the only two issues
left.
Councilman Daly.
The only thing to do is approve the General Plan Amendment and
Reclassification but deny the Conditional Use Permit. Of
special concern to him is the setback on Katella. Not only is
it necessary to have that setback for practical reasons, but the
aesthetics require at least some landscaping between the
sidewalk and the project. In this case there would be a wall
right on the sidewalk and that is not acceptable in that area.
Annika Santalahtt, Zoning Administrator.
She clarified for the Mayor that 24 units are being proposed.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
Also clarified that parking is to code, there are no small car
spaces, but all standard size and there are no tandem parking
spaces.
Councilman Pickler.
He has the same concerns as Councilman Daly. He wants to see
sufficient landscaping on the project which he feels can be
worked out with staff. He feels it is a good project and with
the pride of ownership the Council is looking for. He confirmed
for Councilman Daly that he is supportive of the project with
the requested waivers.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She reiterated her concerns relative to the waiver of the
setback emphasizing that the 20 feet must b6 maintained.
158
58
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
Katella is a very noisy street and it is not a good living
environment. The Planning Commission denied the project.
Looking for a waiver of the setback on Katella is unbelteveable.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
If the project is approved, he is requesting that an additional
condition be added - that site distance be provided for the
driveway in conformance with Engineering Standard 137. The
brick wall is coming all the way to the back of the sidewalk.
Anybody exiting has to be able to see oncoming traffic.
Annlka Santalahti.
The proposal as represented by the posted drawing shows the
lower building with a lO-foot landscaped setback. The north one
does not. It shows a recreational space with a 6-foot block
wall around what would otherwise be the setback area. Coming up
the street, the 6-foot block wall would be visible and whatever
landscaping there is would be on the far side of the wall. The
reason was to improve the private recreational space situation.
The front setback cannot be counted as private space unless it
is enclosed and made private.
Paul Singer.
If the condition of Engineering Standard 137 were to be adopted,
it would result in a green area but it could not be planted
higher than 2 feet. That would provide some landscaping at the
same time providing for a visually unobstructed view of oncoming
traffic.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how that would cut back on the
recreational area inside the site.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
That is already a waiver and would further reduce what they
have. The proposal is for 500 square feet, 750 square feet
being required. It would probably reduce the recreational area
by 1,000 square feet overall for the front units.
Councilman Daly.
Along Katella Avenue it is necessary to stick to the City's
setback requirements. It is important to make sure that
projects will be aesthetically pleasing to the City's visitors
and passers by. There are condominiums right in the same
neighborhood that have setbacks to code with appropriate
landscaping and they work fine.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
159 .
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTIONS; The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 90R-53 through 90R-55, both
included, for adoption)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-53 for adoption, granting General
Plan Amendment No. 272; and Resolution No. 90R-54 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 89-90-23, subject to City Planning Commission conditions;
and Resolution No. 90R-55 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit
No. 3214. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-53; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 272, EXHIBIT "B".
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-54; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-55; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3214.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Kaywood and Hunter
Ehrle and Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-53 through 90R-55, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
Mayor Hunter.
The Council has approved the General Plan Amendment and
Reclassification. The project has to be built to code without
requesting three, four, five or six waivers.
179; CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 3227 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
OWNER: B. U. Patel, Tarsadia, Inc.
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1910
Costa Mesa, California 92626
AGENT: Farano and Kieviet
100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 340
Anaheim, California 92805
160
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M,
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1326 South West Street. The
request is to permit a 4-story, 166 room hotel with waiver of minimum number
of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission DENIED Conditional Use Permit No. 3227 (PC89-320),
DENIED Waiver of Code Requirement and DENI'ED the Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal was submitted by the Agent, Farano and
Kieviet and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of
January 23, 1990 to February 6, 1990. On February 6, 1990 the meeting was
scheduled to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in the Anaheim Bulletin, January 11, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 10, 1990.
Posting of property, 3anuary 12, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 18, 1989.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Tom Kieviet, Farano & Kieviet, attorney representing the
applicants, the Patel Family (who were present in the Chamber
audience) and their family-owned company, Tarsadia, Inc.
The proposal is to develop a 5-story, 166-unit hotel that
complies with all development standards in the CR zone. He
referred to the large rendering posted on the Chamber wall,
reduced copies of which were submitted to the Council. He also
referred to an aerial photo containing a rendering of the
project in place on the site.
While the application made reference to a parking variance, he
stipulated to the fact that the project will provide sufficient
parking to comply with Code. The project initially contained
small car spaces but those are no longer allowed under code.
All spaces in the project will be standard - 136 spaces are
required by code and will be provided by the project. The
previously submitted parking analysis by Greer & Company
submitted to the City concluded at peak demand only 114 spaces
would be required. They have worked with the City's Traffic
Engineer to provide adequate circulation. There is also
adequate area in the middle of the site to provide for bus
boarding with enough room for cars to circulate within the
site. The Traffic Impact Analysis submitted shows there will be
no adverse impact on traffic in the surrounding area. They have
also provided an independent sewer study which has concluded
there will be no adverse impact on the existing sewer system in
the area. The project's size, height and setback
characteristics all comply with current development standards
within the CR area.
161
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Mr. Kieviet then gave the historical background on the steps
they have taken so far (see letter dated February 9, 1990 from
Farano & Kieviet attached to which was a listing of the
chronology of events that have taken place concerning the
Dunes Hotel from 1961 to December 18, 1989 which was the date
the Planning Commission denied the project - (made a part of the
record). Mr. Kieviet stated in view of the fact that the
proposed project will comply with all existing development
standards and the studies show it will not have a significant
adverse effect on the surrounding area, there are no legitimate
grounds to deny the project.
They are replacing a small hotel with a larger hotel. There
will not be a change of use and there will be no adverse impacts
because of the project. They were also informed by staff that
the West Street Realignment Study may take six to nine months to
complete and the realignment may not ultimately be established
until even later. No one is sure if the realignment will go
through the property and if so, by how much. No one knows when
the alignment will ultimately be done. They are willing to
condition the pulling of building permits until after the
Realignment Study is complete. This will alleviate concerns of
the City that the City would have to move or pay for a new hotel
building that would be in the way of the realignment. He then
outlined the reasons for wanting approval of the project at this
time before the Realignment Study is complete.
They have reviewed the staff report on the project and are
willing to accept all of the conditions imposed with the
exception of Condition 19 that calls for the legal owner of the
property to execute and record an unsubordinated covenant in a
form approved by the City Attorney's Office agreeing not to
contest the formation of an Assessment District which may be
formed to finance the undergroundtng of utilities in the CR
area. While the Patels are willing to concede on that point,
they cannot control the underlying property owner who may refuse
unless they agree to increased rent similar to the situation
involving the dedication of the street frontage. He is asking
that condition be removed or modified to require only the ground
lease lessee to execute the covenant instead. Further, the
Planning Commission denied the negative declaration status of
the project. The applicant believes the project is entitled to
a negative declaration subject to the conditions recommended by
staff. The project does not warrant a full blown EIR and their
willingness to stipulate to not pulling building permits until
after the Realignment Study is complete should adequately
address this concern. There is no basis for denying the
negative declaration previously recommended by staff. He asked
that the Council give serious consideration to approving the
proposed project subject to conditions recommended.by staff with
the exception of Condition 19 and with the further condition
162
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13. 1990, 5;30 P.M.
that issuance of a building permit be contingent upon completion
of the West Street Realignment Study.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to speak at this time.
Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet.
He wants the Council to appreciate the total futility in which
the lessee finds himself. On one side is the property owner who
owns the underlying fee and he is present tonight. He would
like nothing better than to have the Patels make a mistake on
the lease so that the property reverts back to him. Then there
is the lessee who has a lease which has 70 years yet to run.
They cannot operate anything other than a hotel business. Under
the circumstances, it would not make any difference to them if
the City said a hotel is not the proper use on that property but
that it should be a restaurant. The only way they could change
the defined use of the property is for what it is. It can only
be done by the Patels relinquishing their lease to the Schlunds
or the City condemning both the leasehold interest and legal
ownership in order to join the two interests in one. The
Council has to review the project in that context. They also
want the Council to recognize that the continuation of the
matter until the road alignment is made is likewise futile. He
is asking that the Council help them out of the dilemma because
they are in a dilemma in which they are not able to help
themselves.
Mayor Hunter then asked if anyone else wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak Mayor Hunter closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Ehrle.
He supports the project. The property owner has certain rights
to develop. The land will be improved. He also referred to a
recent newspaper article noting a recent study by Leaventhol &
Horwath which stated that the room demand grew 8 percent in 1989
for Anaheim making it one of the ten cities nationwide that
experienced growth in the hotel trade. He reiterated, he
supports the project.
163
51
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DENIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by
Councilman Hunter, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council does
hereby deny the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment, particularly sewage needs and
the traffic. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-56)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-56 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 3227. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-56: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3227.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
Ehrle
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-56 duly passed and adopted.
174: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 16TH YEAR (1990-91) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND BUDGET; To consider the recommendation
submitted by the Communttywide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee for a
total of $2,223,445 CDBG allocation plan and an alternative program and budget
of $2,280,445 in the event a higher level of funding is allocated. Submitted
was report dated January 22, 1990 from Bertha Chavoya, Housing
Manager/Community Development Department, recommending the above plans,
attached to which was the Committee/staff recommendations for the 1990/91
budget, list of funding requests received, minutes of the November 15 and
December 6, 1989 Communitywide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee meetings
wherein public input was received, and requests from non-profit organizations
(previously made a part of the record).
At the public hearing of February 6, 1990, input was received and there was
extensive Council discussion (see minutes that date) at the conclusion of
which the public hearing was closed and continued to this date for a Council
decision.
Submitted was additional report dated February 8, 1990 from Lisa Stipkovich,
Director of Community Development, which contained supplemental information
requested by the Council on February 6, 1990.
164
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13. 1990, 5;30 P,M.
MOTION; Councilman Hunter moved to approve the basic budget recommendation
and the alternate recommendation just as submitted by the Communitywide CDBG
Citizen Participation Committee for a total of $2,223,445 CDBG allocation plan
and an alternative program and budget of $2,280,445 in the event a higher
level of funding is allocated. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
134/179; PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PiAN AMENDMENT NO. 281. RECLASSIFICATION
NO, 89-90-34, VARIANCE NO, 4013 AND NEGATIVE DECI2%RATION:
OWNER: City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
Orange County Flood Control District
400 Civic Center West,
Santa Ana, CA 92701
AGENT: BrookhollowApartments (Anaheim Associates)
c/o The William Lyon Co.
4490 Von Karman,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION - General Plan Amendment No, 281 and Reclassification No, 89-90-34;
Subject property is the 1.92 acre portion located on the northeast corner of
Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street
Variance No, 4013: The property is approximately 5.83 acres located at the
northeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street and has
approximately 550 feet of frontage on the south side of Gramercy Avenue and
210 feet of frontage on the west side of Valley Street.
REQUEST: The request for an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General
Plan proposing a redestgnation from the existing General Industrial and Flood
Control Channel designations to Medium Density Residential and a
reclassification from RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) to RM-1200
(Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less intense zone with waiver of minimum
site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, and minimum distance
between buildings in order to construct a 4-story, 228-unit "affordable"
apartment complex on the entire 5.83-acre property.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: GPA No. 281, Exhibit "A" approved
(PC89-321) (5 yes votes, 2 absent); Reclassification No. 89-90-34 granted
(PC89-322) (5 yes votes, 2 absent); Variance No. 4013 granted (PC89-323) (a)
minimum site area per dwelling unit-granted, (b) maximum structural
height-granted, and (c) minimum distance between buildings-granted. (5 yes
votes, 2 absent.)
HEARING SET ON:
A public hearing is required due to General Plan Amendment No. 281.
165
49
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 1, 1990.
Posting of property January 31, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 2, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 18, 1989.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
The project was submitted some time ago involving a smaller
amount of acreage. Property was added on and that is why it is
again before the Council. Revision No. 1 is posted on the
Chamber wall, and if approved it will be for Revision No. 1
plans rather than as it reads in the staff report and the
Planning Commission resolution.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Margaret Patino, 1243 Laster Street.
As Chairperson for the Housing Commission, they are excited
about the project and look forward to more of the same kinds of
projects in the future.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Gary Keifer, 604 North Magnolia.
He sees a number of problems with the proposed project for their
area. The main concern is the additional traffic problems that
will be created. While land has been donated by the William
Lyon Company, there is a small section that borders on
Brookhurst street (south of Gramercy Avenue) that belongs to
someone else and that area would not be involved. Brookhurst
would still be a two-lane road in that area. This will cause a
bottleneck at Brookhurst and Crescent Avenue because it is the
only intersection for children to use to get across the street
from apartments on the east side of Brookhurst. During morning
rush hour, there is a great deal of congestion in that area even
now. He then briefed the problems already existing in the
immediate area including the intersection of Brookhurst and La
Palma as well as what he believes to be safety concerns for
children in the area due not only to traffic problems, but also
because of no crosswalks or sidewalks. He also explained what
he considers will be problems relating to the big rigs which
exit and enter the adjacent industrial area as well as the
problems which may be caused with Fire Department vehicles
exiting the station located on Crescent and Valley. There is
also an open access to the railroad tracks of Southern Pacific
Railroad at the end of Valley Street. He is concerned with the
impact the density of the project will have on the area and the
quality of life of the residents. With the number of units
166 .
5O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
proposed, it will also create an impact on the school system.
He is asking that the entire project be denied and the property
restored to its preindustrial use or that the project be held to
code in order to downscale it.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, Mayor Hunter closes the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 90R-57 through 90R-59, both
inclusive, for adoption)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 90R-57 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 281, Exhibit "A"; Resolution No. 90R-58 for
adoption, approving Reclassification No. 89-90-34; and Resolution No. 90R-59
for adoption, granting Variance No. 4013, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-57; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PlAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 281, EXHIBIT "A".
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-58: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
REsoLUTION NO. 90R-59: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 4013.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 90R-57 through 90R-59, both inclusive,
passed and adopted.
167
47
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
134/179: PUBLIC NEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 284 RECLASSIFICATION NO,
89-90-36 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 284: Subject area is approximately 3
acres generally bounded by the alley south of Lincoln Avenue to the north,
Grand Avenue to the east, Del Monte Drive to the south and Topanga Drive to
the west. Excepting the southerly 365 feet.
LOCATION - RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-36: Subject area consists of 2 parcels
of land bounded by the alley south of Lincoln Avenue to the north and Harding
Avenue to the east, having combined approximate frontages of 135 feet on the
south side of said alley and 99 feet on the west side of Harding Avenue.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 284: A City-initiated amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan redesignating subject area from the Medium Density
Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation.
RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-36: A City-initiated reclassification of subject
properties from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-family) Zone to the RM-2400
(Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less intense Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; GPA No. 284 Exhibit "A" was approved
(PC90-09) (6 yes votes, 1 absent); Reclassification No. 89-90-36 withdrawn;
approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
This item was set for a public hearing due to General Plan Amendment No. 284.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 1, 1990.
Posting of property 3anuary 31, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet February 2, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 13, 1990.
Jonathan Borrego, Associate Planner.
The property consists of three acres. Current land uses within
the area are a mix between single-family and some multiple
family development. The multiple family is relatively low
density. The reclassification portion was withdrawn. It was
discovered the property in question had recently been rezoned to
RM-2400 which they originally recommended so that all properties
in the area would be consistent with the low medium density
designation being recommended and in order to match the existing
density within the area and provide a transition between the
commercial uses along Lincoln and the single-family residences
immediately south of the study area.
168
48
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-60)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO, 90R-60: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 284, EXHIBIT "A".
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-60 duly passed and adopted.
179; PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-33 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: Property is approximately 1.26 acres generally bounded by the alley
north of Broadway to the north, Atchison Street to the east, Broadway to the
south and Melrose Street to the west. Excepting the easterly 125 feet.
Reclassification of properties from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family)
zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less intense zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Reclassification No. 89-90-33
granted (PC89-328) (4 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 2 absent); approved Negative
Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by
Stanley E. Dunford, P.O. Box 6121, Anaheim California 92806 and public hearing
scheduled this date.
169
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 1, 1990.
Posting of property January 31, 1990.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet February 2, 1990.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 18, 1989.
Jonathan Borrego, Associate Planner.
This is in conjunction with the City's ongoing housing study.
Originally the recommendation for this block along Broadway was
to reclassify the property from RM-1200 to RS-5000. The
Planning Commission determined, given the location of the
properties adjacent to Broadway and an alley that runs directly
behind the properties that perhaps RM-2400 would be more
appropriate. Since the Planning Commission acted on the
reclassification, the area in question was also the subject of a
General Plan from medium density residential to the low medium
density residential designation.
APPELLANT'S
STATEMENT:
Stanley E. Dunford, 3640 Vista Glen Circle, Yorba Linda.
The reclassification affects eight properties and one vacant
lot. He and his brother own one of the properties at 519 East
Broadway. The proposed reclassification will change the
development pattern that has existed a long time on Broadway and
reduce the value of the eight properties involved. The
surrounding properties on Broadway are primarily commercial,
industrial and medium density apartments. Changing the zoning
for these eight properties will require that the development
pattern change which is not fair to the property owners. He
then described the surrounding land uses which included the main
fire station and the Chinese Baptist Church noting that almost
the whole south side of Broadway is commercial or industrial.
On the north side from Olive Street east it is a mixture of
single-family and multiple family residences. He has pictures
of the affected properties and also the properties in the
surrounding areas for 200 yards in each direction. He
understands and agrees with the need to preserve low density,
owner occupied neighborhoods. Broadway is a secondary arterial
highway and is not like a residential street. It is properly
zoned RM-1200 and they would like to see it remain that way.
All the eight properties front to Broadway and have good alley
access that is a natural for higher or medium density
apartments. He had submitted a letter to be read a6 the last
Planning Commission meeting but it was not read.
Relative to the historical preservation issue, he believes the
eight properties are also under the preservation area; however,
many of the properties have been modified and thus their
historical value has been destroyed. Reclassifying the
170
46
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
properties will make it less attractive to potential buyers and
would negatively affect property values by $20,000 to $40,000
which will affect him. He has no intention of developing the
property and did not buy it with that intention. He and his
brother purchased it in July, 1989 for $200,000 because they
thought it was the best investment they could make in Orange
County. He would not like to see that investment be changed to
where he has no control. He went door to door to the eight
affected properties to survey the owners. Only six of the eight
were available and four of the six would like to see the zoning
remain the same. Two of the six would like to see it changed
but it was not important enough for them to be present. He was
not able to contact the seventh owner and he does not know who
owns the vacant lot. It is unfair to him as a property owner to
let development occur all around his property and then to
restrict his property from the kind of development pattern that
has existed for many years.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak Mayor Hunter closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION C~J~RIED.
WAIVER OF RF~ING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 90R-61)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION C~/RRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 90R-61 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 89-90-33. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 90R-61: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
171
43
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 90R-61 duly passed and adopted.
142; REPORT AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1989/90 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE;
Joanne Barnett, 313 Plantation Place, Anaheim, Ca. 92806, Chairperson of the
Charter Review Committee. The Committee concluded its work last Wednesday and
recommendations by the Committee were forwarded to the Council. She
acknowledged Janice Billings and Floyd Farano, two of the Committee members
who were present in the Chamber audience. If the Council has any questions at
this time, they will be happy to answer them.
Mayor Hunter. On behalf of the Council, he commended her as Chairperson and
the entire Committee for the extensive work they had done over a long period
of time. Each Committee member individually did a very conscientious job.
The final report and recommendations are outstanding. It was an arduous
task. The Committee has reviewed all 15 articles of the City Charter, had 18
Committee meetings and two public hearings. He also recognized the City
Attorney Jack White and City Clerk Lee Sohl who worked with the Committee. He
again thanked and commended the Committee.
Each Council Member individually expressed their thanks to Mrs. Barnett and
the Committee for the great deal of time and effort they expended in
completing the charge given to them by the Council which at times may have
been difficult since several controversial issues were involved.
MOTION; Councilman Pickler moved to receive the final report and
recommendations of the 1989/90 Charter Review Committee. Councilman Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hunter. He is not prepared to go through the final report tonight. He
recommended that the matter be placed on the next Council agenda; City Clerk
Sohl confirmed that the next Council meeting will be February 27, 1990.
By general Council consent, consideration of the Charter Review Committee's
final report and recommendations will be scheduled for the meeting of Tuesday,
February 27, 1990. Before concluding, Councilman Ehrle asked that
declarations be prepared for each of the Committee Members to be presented to
the Committee at a Council meeting.
179; ITEMS Bi - B2 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 1990
- DECISION DATE; FEBRUARY 1, 1990 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
FEBRUARY 16, 1990;
B1,
VARIANCE NO. 4019 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: KEVIN HUBEN, 7827 Stuart Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90045
AGENT: GERALD GOLOB, 23011 Mouton Pkwy., Ste. 1, Laguna Hills, CA
92653
172
44
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
LOCATION; 1503 and 1515 Benmore Lane
Waiver of minimum landscaped setback to construct a 2-story, 3-unit
apartment building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4019 APPROVED (ZA90-05).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B2,
VARIANCE NO, 4015 - AMEND DECISION NO, ZA90-1, NUNC PRO TUNC: LOCATION: 612-616 South Harbor Boulevard
To correct conditions of approval (delete Condition No. 4) of
Decision No. ZA90-1, signed on January 18, 1990. Variance No. 4015
is to construct a 2,165 square-foot, 2-story addition to an existing
1,532 square-foot existing office building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR;
Amend Decision No. ZA90-1, nunc pro tunc, APPROVED (ZA90-06).
End of the Zoning Administrator Items.
155/179/170; ITEMS B3 - B13 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
JANUARY 29, 1990 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 20, 1990;
B3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 273 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) IN CONJUNCTION
WITH CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. VARIANCE NO. 4017 - REVISION NO, 1 TO
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS, 12689. 12690 AND 12691 AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
OWNER: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Attn: KEVIN SHARRAR, 22659
Old Canal Road, Yorba Linda, CA 92686
AGENT: FRANK ELFEND, ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES, 4675 MacArthur Court,
Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: Property comprises three (3) tentative tract maps totaling
approximately 144.4 acres (including Deer Canyon Open Space acreage),
generally bounded on the north by the East Hills Planned Community,
on the west by the Mohler Drive area, on the east by Sycamore Canyon,
and on the south by The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan
Development Areas 2 and 3 and further described as The Highlands at
Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) Development Area 1 and adjacent
Deer Canyon Open Space acreage.
Petitioner proposes to revise previously-approved vesting tentative
tract maps to develop approximately 206 single-family detached
residential structures in a private gated community in The Highlands
at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-1) Development Area 1 as
follows: (A) Petitioner requests waiver of required lot frontage on
a public street, and minimum lot width and frontage in order to
revise prevtously-apRroved Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12689,
12690, and 12691. (B) Revision No, 1 to Tentative Tract Map No,
12689 and Site Plan to establish a 77.0 ac., 74-1ot (including 70
residential lots, 1 open space lot comprising a portion of Deer
Canyon Open Space acreage and 3 private street lots) single-family
detached residential subdivision. (C) Revision No, 1 to Tentative
173
41
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
Tract MaD No. 12690 and Site Plan to establish a 30.3 ac., 82-1ot
(including 79 residential lots, and 3 private street lots)
single-family detached residential subdivision. (D) Revision No, 1 to
Tentative Tract Map No. 12691 and Site Plan to establish a 37.1 ac.,
61-lot (including 57 residential lots, 1 open space lot, and 3
private street lots) single-family detached residential subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4017 GRANTED (PC90-22) (a) waiver of required lot
frontage GRANTED, and (b) waiver of minimum lot width & frontage
GRANTED (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Revision No. 1 to Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12689, 12690, and 12691
and Site Plan Approval APPROVED.
EIR No. 273 (Previously Certified) in conjunction with CEQA Negative
Declaration APPROVED.
NOTE: Tentative Tract Maps appeared on the agenda of February 6,
1990, Item Bg.
B4.
VARIANCE NO. 3993 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION'
OWNER: LESLIE CROWELLAND ARLENE CROWELL, P.O. Box 1728, Lucerne
Valley, CA 92354
LOCATION; 1110, 1112 and 1114 West Pearl Street
Petitioner requests waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces,
(b) minimum site area per dwelling unit, (c) maximum structural
height and (d) minimum side yard to construct a 4-story, 12-unit
apartment building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 3993 DENIED (PG90-23) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B5. WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3235 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: DON V. EDMUNDS AND GARNET A. EDMUNDS, P. O. Box 42, Pistol
River, OR 97444
AGENT: HARRIS, PETTETT AND KENT ARCHITECTS, INC., 2120 Main St.,
#230, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
LOCATION; 1381 Auto Center Drive
To permit an auto sales and service center with waivers of (a)
minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum structural setback, and
(c) required improvement of parking areas scattered landscaping
(15-gallon trees in wooden tub containers) required on parking roof
area).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP No. 3235 GRANTED, IN PART, (PC90-24) (6 yes votes, 1 absent)
(a) minimum number of parking spaces GRANTED
(b) minimum structural setback GRANTED
174
49.
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5:30 P,M.
(c) required improvement of parking areas GRANTED, IN PART, scattered
landscaping (15-gallon trees in wooden tub containers) required on
parking roof area).
Waiver of code requirement GRANTED, IN PART.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B6 WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3240,
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS 1:
OWNER: SO CAL THEATRES, UNIVERSITY CINEMA, 13 Corporate Plaza,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT: COMMUNITY CHRISTIAN CHURCH, ATTN: JIM HANLEY, 5435 E. La
Palma Avenue, Anaheim CA 92807
LOCATION; 5635 East La Palma Avenue
To permit a church in the CL zone with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP No. 3240 GRANTED (PC90-25) with a three year time limit (7 yes
votes).
Waiver of code requirement GRANTED.
B7, WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3229 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: NANCY BROYLES, 6732 Westminster Avenue, Westminster, CA 92683
AGENT: BHIKUBHAI PATEL, 6732 Westminster Blvd., Westminster, CA
92683
LOCATION; 280 North Wilshire Avenue
To permit a 26-unit motel with waiver of minimum structural setback.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
CUP No. 3229 DENIED (PC90-26) (7 yes votes).
Waiver of code requirement DENIED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
BS, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 287. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-38 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim CA 92803
~QC~T~QN$; 7087-3131 West Ball Road and 850-910 South Western Avenue
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 287: A City-initiated amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating subject area from
the Medium Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density
Residential designation.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-38: A Gity-tntttated reclassification of
subject area from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) and
RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zones to the RM-3000
(Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less intense Zone.
175
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES February 13, 1990, 5:30 P,M.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA No. 287 APPROVED EXHIBIT A - Low-Medium Density residential,
(PC90-29) (7 yes votes).
Reclassification No. 89-90-38 GRANTED, AS MODIFIED, (PC90-30) (6rea A
- Deleted from Reclassification, and Area B - Reclassified to
RS-5000, no change in zoning to Parcel A.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Set for public hearing before the City Council on March 13, 1990, due to
GPA No. 287.
Bg,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 288 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim CA 92803
LOCATION: 1750 West Romneya Drive
A City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General
Plan redesignating subject property from the Commercial Professional
designation to the Medium Density Residential designation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA No. 288 APPROVED EXHIBIT A, (PC90-31)
Density Residential (7 yes votes)
Approved Negative Declaration.
redesignation to Medium
Set for public hearing before the City Council on March 20, 1990, due to
GPA No. 288.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
BiO. ANACAL ENGINEERING REGARDING PARCEL MAP NO, 88-108, PER SECTION 17,06.290
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM HILLSIDE
GRADING ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO THE LOCATION OF LOT LINES ADJACENT TO
SLOPES, SECTION 17,06,120.040 AND TABLE 17-A.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved.
Set for public hearing before City Council on March 20, 1990.
Bll, ORDINANCE NO, 5098 - PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO BUILDINGS
MADE NON-CONFORMING BY RECLASSIFICATION: Amending Subsection .030 of Section
.058 of Chapter 18.02 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
zoning.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended for adoption by the City
Council.
Councilman Daly offered Ordinance No. 5098 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO, 5098; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
.030 OF SECTION .058 OF CHAPTER 18.02 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
176
4O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
B12, ORDINANCE NO. 5099 - PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THE EXEMPTION
OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS FROM FEES IMPOSED FOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS:
Amending Chapter 4.02 to exempt charitable organizations from the payment of
fees for special events.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended for approval by the City
Council.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5099 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5099: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 4.02
TO EXEMPT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS FORM THE PAYMENT OF FEES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS.
B13, ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC WORKS - REQUEST TO
DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN - Proposed sale of surplus
right-of-way which includes the southerly half of vacated Grandview Avenue in
the City of Anaheim:
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved.
No action was taken by Council.
End of the Planning Commission Items.
179: ORDINANCE NO 5094 - ADOPTION; Amending subsections .040 and .060 of
section 18.72.070 of Chapter 18.72 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
relating to zoning (SP88-2).
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5094)
Councilman Daly moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5094 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5094: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
.040 AND .060 OF SECTION 18.72.070 OF CHAPTER 18.72 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (SP88-2)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5094 duly passed and adopted.
179; ORDINANCE NO. 5095 - ADOPTION: Amending Subsection 18.84.042.030 and
adding subsections 18.84.042.040, 18.84.052.040, 18.84.052.050 and
177
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13. 1990, 5;30 P,M.
18.12.050.060 to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning.
(Permitting ground mounted radio and television antennas in residential scenic
corridor zones subject to conditional use permit.)
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE; The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5095)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5095 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO, 5095; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
18.84.042.030 AND ADDING SUBSECTIONS 18.84.042.040, 18.84.052.040,
18.84.052.050 AND 18.12.050.060 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5095 duly passed and adopted.
171/108/142; ORDINANCE NO. 5096: Adding and amending various subsections,
sections and Chapters of Title 2 and Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
relating to vacation ownership resorts. The ordinance was introduced at the
meeting of February 6, 1990.
Submitted was letter dated February 13, 1990 from Mr. John P. Erskine,
Attorney, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elltott, 650 Town Center Drive, Costa
Mesa, requesting that revisions be made in the proposed ordinance as outlined
on page 2 and 3 of his letter (made a part of the record). They have worked
closely with the City Attorney's Office over the past several weeks in
preparation of the ordinance.
Mayor Hunter stated he had no objections to incorporating the proposed changes
in the ordinance.
City Attorney Whtte. The Council has been given the proposed revised
ordinance which incorporates the suggested changes in Mr. Ersktne's letter.
There may be one or two small clerical changes that can be incorporated now or
before ordinance adoption. Because the changes being recommended are
substantive, it would be necessary if the Council wishes to consider the
revised version of the ordinance to give an amended first reading tonight and
consider it for adoption at the next meeting.
John Erskine. He has reviewed the ordinance the City Attorney has' provided
which incorporates most of the revisions suggested. On page 6, Section .100,
178
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
seventh line there is the word, "either," that modifies the remainder of the
sentence. He suggests that "either" be placed on the above line after shall,
otherwise it would not make sense. Another small change in that same section
is at the bottom and goes to the next page in parenthesis on the third line
"the manager of the facility (or if the facility has no manager the owner of
the facility)... He suggests that be eliminated. It will tighten the
ordinance to not allow a situation where there is no on-site manager. They
will have an on-site manager and they feel all timeshare projects should have
an on-site manager.
City Attorney White. As to the first recommended change, he sees no problem
making that correction. With regard to the second recommendation, he has some
concerns if the eliminate the language between the parens on the basis it
would then require an on-site manager, it would seem to him to be inconsistent
with the language under Section .0503, "all facilities will require either
on-site resident managers or 24-hour front desks". He is not sure how to
reconcile that.
John Erskine. The 24-hour front desk would be more flexible. If put in
parens, that would be acceptable. Basically since the two clauses contradict
each other, he feels they could probably live with the language in parens if
the City Attorney thinks it is a problem to remove it. It is not a big issue
with them.
City Attorney White. He would not have a problem if they were going to make
it clear that there had to be a manager. He does not think the ordinance
makes that clear. He would suggest they leave the parenthetical wording that
is in the ordinance or change Section .0503 to require that every project have
a manager.
John Ersktne. He suggests then that in Section .100 - "the manager of the
facility (or representative available at a 24-hour desk)..."
City Attorney White stated that would be acceptable.
Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5096 for amended first reading with
the changes as stated.
ORDINANCE NO. 5096; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING AND AMENDING
VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS, SECTIONS AND CHAPTERS OF TITLE 2 AND TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VACATION OWNERSHIP RESORTS.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5100: Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 73-74-09(11), located at 305 North Brookhurst Street,
from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the CL zone.
Councilman Ehrle offered Ordinance No. 5100 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO, 5100; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
179 .
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
Before concluding, Councilman Pickler stated if the area is going to change to
CL, he wants to know what is going in there. He knows it will be commercial
eventually. It is a mixed use now. He does not want to aggravate a situation
by approving an unknown use.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. She had checked with the Building
Division on whether a building permit application had been submitted. They
had no record. She will contact the principal prior to the time the ordinance
comes back to the Council for adoption.
179; ORDINANCE NO. 5101 - INTRODUCTION: Amending Title 18 to rezone property
under Reclassification No. 88-89-50, located at 227 North Coffman Street, from
the RS-7200 zone to the RM-3000 zone.
Councilman Ehrle offered Ordinance No. 5101 for introduction.
ORDINANCE NO, 5101: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11600 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME'
REQUESTED BY: RICHARD M. GENZEL, P.E., HILL WILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT
CORP., 175 Riverview Drive, Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION - approximately 1,100 feet south of Arboretum Road. Petitioner
requests a 1-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map No. 11600 (Revision
No. 2) which would expire on March 15, 1991. This tract would create a 12-lot
RS-HS-22,000(SC) subdivision.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the requested extension of time as
recommended in report dated February 6, 1990 from the Zoning Administrator, to
expire March 15, 1990. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
179; RECLASSIFICATION NO, 88-89-14 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3077 -
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME:
REQUESTED BY: DAVID SITO, ARCHITECTURE PLUS, INC., 11545 South
Street, Ste. 67, Cerrttos, CA 90701
LOCATION - 3107, 3111 and 3115 West Lincoln Avenue (north of Lincoln Avenue,
west of Grand Avenue). Petitioner requests extensions of time (retroactive to
January 17, 1990) to expire January 17, 1991, for Reclassification No.
88-89-14 (for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL) and Conditional Use Permit
No. 3077 to permit an 8,833 sq.ft., 9-unit, commercial retail center with
waivers of maximum structural height and minimum open setback abutting a
residential zone boundary.
Submitted was staff report from the Planning Department dated February 7,
1990, recommending that a retroactive extension of time be granted to expire
January 17, 1991, subject to a minimum of forty-eight (48) parking spaces
being dimensioned for standard size cars.
180
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES
February 13, 1990, 5;30 P,M.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She has concerns regarding this request especially
relative to strip commercial.
'Councilman Pickler. The property is 8,800 square feet and 9 units are
planned. He would rather see bigger units.
City Attorney White. The only authority the Council would have in this case
is to either approve or deny the extension of time. The Council could,
without a new hearing, impose conditions which would not affect the rights of
this property or surrounding property owners. Staff requested that a
stipulation be required that the parking spaces be standard spaces.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone was present on this item; there was no response.
City Attorney White. The Planning Director pointed out to him there are
actually two matters on this one item. One is the reclassification which the
Council could approve the extension as requested. The other is the CUP which
relates to the 9-unit commercial retail center. The Council could deny that
extension which would require them to reapply if they wished to pursue that or
to delete that from their project.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She suggested that the matter be continued to the next
meeting and have the applicant present so that the Council does not just deny
the extension.
MOTION; Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the subject request for
extension of time to Tuesday, February 27, 1990. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hunter. He asked that staff notify the owner to be present so that
he/she could explain the situation relative to the request.
179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3111 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME:
REQUESTED BY: BARRY KATZ, PLANTECH, P.O. Box 480212, Los Angeles,
CA 90048
LOCATION 1720-1740 West Lincoln Avenue (west of Euclid Street). Petitioner
requests an extension of time (to expire on April 18, 1991) on Conditional Use
Permit No. 3111 to permit a 19-unit 36,739 sq.ft, commercial retail center
with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, and minimum landscaping of
required yard area.
Submitted was report dated February 7, 1990 from the Planning Department,
recommending that the extension of time be granted to expire of April 18,
1991, subject to all the parking spaces being dimensioned for standard sized
cars.
MOTION; Councilman Pickler moved to approve the requested extension of time,
to expire on April 18, 1991, with the requirement that small car spaces be
eliminated. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
181
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 1990, 5;30 P.M.
ADDENDUM TO THE FEBRUARY 13, 1990 AGENDA;
179; ITEM B22 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 1990
DECISION DATE; FEBRUARY 8, 1990 - INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
FEBRUARY 23, 1990:
B22.
VARIANCE NO, 4020 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: RAFAT & THERESA SAM_a_N, 6003 E. Ridgewood Ct., Anaheim Hills,
CA 92807
LOCATION: 2520 E. Park Lane
Waiver of minimum side yard setback to construct a 2-story, 8-unit
apartment building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Approved (ZA90-07) with added conditions.
Approved Negative Declaration.
150: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE FOR USE OF PERALTA CANYON PARK BY CYPRESS
COLLEGE; To consider the request from Cypress College to waive the fee for
the use of Peralta Canyon Park on February 16, 17, and 18, 1990, for their
women's softball tournament.
Submitted was report dated February 6, 1990 from Chris Jarvi, Director of
Parks, Recreation & Community Services. It explained should the Council
approve the request, the Department will absorb $415 in direct costs and
$1,200 in lost revenue.
Councilman Pickler. He is in favor of waiving the fee but that the direct
costs of $415 be paid to the City.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services. He confirmed
that the rental would cost $1,200 and the actual direct costs for services
rendered is $415. If they charged $415, the actual revenue loss would be the
approximate $700 dollar difference. Staff did not make a recommendation only
that the Council should consider the request.
After additional questions by Council Members to Mr. Jarvt, Councilman Daly
stated he can support the request with the condition that the $415 in direct
costs be reimbursed to the City. He so moved. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108/114: VENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4725: On November 7, 1989, City Council
approved the formation of a 7-member Task Force to be comprised of 3 Vendor
representatives, 3 City Staff members and one representative from the Chamber
of Commerce for the purpose of reviewing Ordinance No. 4725, recommending any
changes, and submitting to the Council any findings.
Submitted was report dated December 28, 1989 from the Planning Department/Code
Enforcement Division requesting that the matter be continued to the Council
meeting of February 13, 1990.
182
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar¥.~ 1990, 5:30 P.M.
The matter was scheduled to be discussed at the January 9, 1990 meeting but it
was continued from that date to today's meeting. It is further recommended by
staff that the discussion be continued to the Council meeting of March 20,
1990.
MOTION; Councilman Pickler moved to continue the discussion regarding the
vending ordinance (Ordinance No. 4725) to Tuesday, March 20, 1990. Councilman
Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Ruth Van Gilder, 225 South Knott Street, Anaheim, Ca. She again reiterated
her concern over the conditions that elderly people, residents, children,
whoever uses the crosswalk at the intersection of Knott Avenue and Danbrook,
must endure. She is concerned that lives will be lost before something is
done.
Councilman Pickler. He noted that Mrs. Van Gilder was at the Council meeting
last week at which time staff was asked to be certain that all possible was
being done to have the traffic light installed at the earliest possible
opportunity. The Council is well aware of the matter and interim measures
have also been taken.
Mayor Hunter. He explained again that he has spoken to Tom O'Donnell (Police
Department) and the police are going out to the location as often as they can
to patrol the area.
Marilyn Hauk, 6071 Camino Carrer. She represents those "other people" in the
City who are waiting for traffic light installation specifically at the
intersection of Mohler Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road. There have been
fatalities at that location. She is aware the City has priorities on signal
installation and she respects those. She hopes that the Council will continue
to respect the priorities which have been set and are not taken in with
dramatics.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting of February 20, 1990, having been previously
cancelled, as part of the Master Calendar for 1990, Councilman Hunter moved to
adjourn to 3 p.m. on February 27, 1990.
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
183