Loading...
1989/01/24City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session (of January 17, 1989). PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter (Councilwoman Kaywood entered at 10:27 a.m.) ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Debra Fank A ~omplete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:30 p.m. on January 20, 1989 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Hunter called the adjourned regular meeting of January 17, 1989 to order at 10:12 a.m. on January 24, 1989 and opened the Transportation Workshop asking first to hear from staff. Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works and City Engineer. The Council has been provided with information that outlined eight strategies, which strategies are contained in the Vision 2000 Plan formulated by both staff and the Vision 2000 Task Force~ He then gave the eight strategies A through H which were listed on the agenda prepared for the workshop and also contained in staff report dated January 17, 1989. (Also posted on the Chamber wall were sheets depicting the freeways that passed through various portions of Anaheim and diagrams showing the configuration of critical intersection improvements, photos, and other related data). The following are the eight strategies/actions discussed at the workshop wherein staff gave a brief presentation giving the current status, estimated costs and subsequently answering questions which were posed by Council Members. No specific actions were generated from the workshop which was held due to Council's expressed interest in reviewing the City's transportation strategies to address transportation concerns. (See the 6-page staff report dated January 17, 1989 attached to which was Appendix A through E). The report discussed each of the eight actions including funding considerations where applicable. (Staff's presentation was a briefing of the information contained in the report). A. Implement computerized traffic signal control system; (Page 1, January 17, 1989 Staff Report). Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. At the present time, approximately 100 intersections are on line in the CR (Commercial/Recreational) and West Anaheim area. When completed, it will be a continuous operational program with dedicated personnel to keep traffic moving. Major streets such as Katella, Harbor and Euclid can be handled by the system. 36 140 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 10:00 A.M. Gary Johnson. Some cities have systems but do not actively manage them. It is necessary to update the system or it is not an effective tool. The City Council decided to dedicate staff to the system so that will not occur in Anaheim. Other cities are taking a greater interest in coordination with Anaheim. B, Develop a freeway/corridor strategy to promote widening improvements and new construction: (Page Nos. 1, 2 and 3). Gary Johnson. The corridor projects are moving ahead. The Route 57 HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane project will probably be the first constructed in the area. The Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) has made a commitment to fund that. On Route 91, the segment between the 57 Freeway and downtown Riverside is moving rapidly. Riverside County passed their 1/2 cent sales tax; they have the momey to proceed, Orange County does not. It would either be an HOV or general purpose lane, but it would be an additional lane. Relative to the I-5 (Interstate 5) the report lists interchanges and overcrossings with assigned costs received from Caltrans - (see Page-20). Those are upgrade costs not eligible for federal highway participation. Transportation Commission staff has indicated willingness to participate by 50% from the regional pool of money when and if there is a sales tax in Orange County. He then briefed all the facilities to be constructed in the City working from the posted freeway plan assisted by the Traffic Engineer. He confirmed that planning and environmental work is proceeding on schedule on the I-5 widening but unless there is major financing legislation at the state level and a sales tax in Orange County, they cannot expect to see those improvements in the City of Anaheim for some time to come. He also confirmed all existing interchanges and every bridge along the freeway will be rebuilt if the plan is to go from 6 to 12 lanes. Councilman Daly. Attention needs to be paid to the 91 Freeway but the I-5 is Caltran's priority and they are behind schedule on that even now. Caltrans does not have the money to build any of the improvements outlined in the plan on the Chamber wall. If Anaheim waits for Caltrans, it will be at least 20 years down the road. The City should develop a "wish" list locally and lobby for the changes now and begin to identify what would serve Anaheim's interest best. A brief discussion followed on the Euclid Street interchange. Mr. Johnson confirmed the only way it can be moved ahead on schedule is with local funds in the late 1990's with the sales tax increase; without the sales tax, it will be "forever". Councilman Daly. Caltrans is the driver on that all-important interchange. The City can tell them what design it prefers and a more expensive design which the City pays for, but it is still on Caltrans schedule. Even with a voter injection of money from Orange County, he surmises it is 10 years away. Gary Johnson. He emphasized that a sales tax would open up all kinds of opportunities but without such funds, the opportunities are very limited. 37 137 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 10:00 A.M. Mayor Hunter asked if the Council decides to follow the Urban Land Institute recommendation and establish a redevelopment area around the Anaheim Plaza, if it would be possible to use redevelopment funds to accelerate the Euclid interchange; Mr. Johnson answered yes. He reported further that only a small amount is budgeted from the General Fund each year. The most likely source of funds if Anaheim wants to accelerate some of the projects is developer fees; however, one of the major vehicles would be the 1/2 cent sales tax. C, Implement vehicle trip reduction measures during traffic peak hours: (Page 3). A brief report on the actions being taken in this regard was given by Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer; City Engineer Johnson also elaborated on some of the statistics gathered as a result of the Northeast Anaheim Transportation Management Market Research Study that was conducted by the Orange County Transit District (see study Page Nos. 1-25 made a part of the record). Page 6 of the report - street traffic conditions Northeast Anaheim Executives - noted that 88% of the executives expected traffic conditions to get worse in the next 5 years and 44% would consider relocating if traffic conditions got worse in the industrial area. Staff would like to think they are not going to drive industrial uses out of that area. There is a concern in that area of the City with traffic and its effect on their businesses. D. Developing innovative funding sources/strategies to fund capital intensive transportation improvements: (Page Nos. 3 and 4). Gary Johnson. He expects that the Transportation Revenue Enhancement Study authorized by the Council a year ago to look at a transportation impact fee is expected to be completed in a couple of months. Further, the federal interstate program will be completed shortly and there will be discussion regarding the federal gas tax that all cities pay for that program. The question will be where that money will go. The National League of Cities as well as the California League are asking that the money be turned back to the cities to correct urban transportation problems. In the early 1990's there could be some return to source funds from the federal government such as federal gas tax which instead of being used for interstate freeway construction would be able to be used on arterial streets as an example. E, Increase capacity on existing arterials; (Page 4 - Appendix B). Gary Johnson. He briefed the summary in the report noting this action could entail anything from widening arterials in the City to doing things such as taking parking off and adding lanes. It could be very expensive or inexpensive depending on how it is done. Time frames for some of the projects will be as long as 15 to 20 years. Some will be very difficult to do and may not have great acceptance in the community whether needed or not. Because of expense and limited resources, the only major widening projects being done are in the redevelopment area. With the foreseeable revenues and needs in the City, typically street widenings do not come out to be a very high priority. It is better to spend funds on intersection widenings or freeway improvements. Paul Singer. It is more "bang for the buck" widening intersections and that is why the critical intersection program was instituted. It is a much less expensive method of improving capacity and impacting fewer properties. Grade separations and railroad crossings are very expensive items. 38 138 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 10:00 A.M. F. Implement critical intersection program: (Page Nos. 4 and 5). Gary Johnson. Ail of the intersections indicated in the report are presently in the City's General Plan (GPA No. 210) which is part of the circulation element. A public hearing is scheduled on January 31, 1989 to specifically discuss critical intersections under that plan. They are proposing to put a number of critical intersections in the next 2-year Budget primarily in the Stadium and northeast industrial area where there are severe traffic problems. Relative to funding, the ones selected are in the Stadium Area Fee Program and in the Redevelopment Project Area. These have already been discussed with Redevelopment staff and their intent is to finance some critical intersections in the La Palma corridor since the survey indicates there is a tremendous need in that area. Paul Singer. There are six intersections in the northeast industrial area eligible for redevelopment funds - Kraemer/Orangethorpe, Lakeview/La Palma, Imperial/La Palma, Imperial and Orangethorpe, Tusttn/La Palma and Kraemer/La Palma. The latter intersections will be in the next 2-year budget. Since the critical intersection program has been in operation for the past two years, staff has managed to identify 2/3 of the funding for the program and believe as time goes on will be able to fund the entire program. G, Implement super street program: (Page 5). Gary Johnson. The OCTC has identified a number of streets in Orange County as super streets. Beach Boulevard is the first super street project. He is hoping that the next designated super street will be Katella Avenue which would include the portion from the 605 Freeway to the 55 Freeway. H, Implement people mover projects; (Page 6). Council Members posed questions to staff relating to the projects listed in the report. Mr. Johnson noted that the projects Las Vegas super speed train, elevated guideway, commuter train - Los Angeles to San Diego, commuter train - Riverside to Irvine - are the four areas in the Vision 2000 plan which they see as having some feasibility of construction. Relative to the 1/2 cent sales tax, the OCTC yesterday authorized a 90-day study to look at transit, light rail, etc., that may be melded into a sales tax measure. Before concluding, Councilman Ehrle noted that later in the day the Council was going to be considering approving a consulting fee regarding the feasibility of undergrounding utilities in the Disneyland area. He has talked with people from Fluor Corporation who are thinking of integrating utility lines into people-mover systems which appears to be cost effective. He feels it is important to look at that possibility as an alternative. RECESS: Councilman Hunter moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:45 a.m.) AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (11:59 a.m.) 39 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, ~0:00 ADJOURNMENT' Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn the adjourned regular meeting of January 17, 1989. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:00 noon) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 40 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER: Arthur Daw TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:30 p.m. on January 20, 1989 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 12:00 noon. 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; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership, O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59. b. To discuss labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. c. To discuss personnel matters Government Code Section 54957. d. To confer with its Attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). e. To consider 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: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (1:46 p.m.) INVOCATION: Reverend Louis Rohrs, Trinity United Methodist Church, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William Ehrle led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 36 48 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. 119; PRESENTATION - DISNEYLAND 1989 AMBASSADOR; Wendy Freeland, the Disneyland 1989 Ambassador, accompanied by Judy Nuzum of Public Relations, Disneyland, was presented to and introduced to Mayor Hunter and Council Members. The Mayor congratulated Miss Freeland and presented her with roses. The Council wished her well during her 1989 reign. 119: PROCLAMATION; The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Hunter and authorized by the City Council: Cable Day in Anaheim, January 24, 1989. The proclamation was accepted by John Merritt Vice President, Multivision Cable TV along with Dave Boltz, Production Manager and Karen Ptsette, Customer Service. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held December 20, 1989. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,530,996.37, in accordance with the 1988-89 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions on the Consent Calendar were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 89R-16 and 89R-17, both inclusive, for adoption) Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 89R-16 and 89R-17, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claimz rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Marilyn Curren for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 11, 1988. b. Claim submitted by IPS Managements Co., Inc. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 4, 1988. c. Claim submitted by Stephen A. Marion for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 11, 1988. 37 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1:30 d. Claim submitted by Alan Martone for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 24, 1988. e. Claim submitted by Jack & Carol Mattson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 28, 1988. f. Claim submitted by Harbans Singh for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 14, 1988. g. Claim submitted by Louis R. Valencia for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 4, 1988. h. Claim submitted by Robert Lee Weaver for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 3, 1988. i. Claim submitted by John Wright for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 23, 1988. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim Denied: Recommended to be j. Claim submitted by Nadia Hajjo for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 16, 1988. A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meeting held December 8, 1988. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting held December 8, 1988. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission meeting held December 14, 1988. 103: Receiving and filing correspondence from the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California regarding an application filed by Ruben Diaz Sr., Ruben Diaz Jr., and Ruben Prayones dba 3R EXPRESS, to establish a Passenger Stage for transportation. A3. 123/158: Approving the consent to grant of easement (Four Corners Pipeline Company) which lies under an equestrian trail easement offered for dedication to the City on Tracts 9721 and 9524. A4. 106/172: Approving expenditures in the amount of $20,000 from the Council Contingency Fund for the City rideshare program. A5, 176; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-16; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HGIHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (87-18A) (Declaring the intention to abandon a portion of Cypress Street, extending from Evelyn Drive to a point approximately 132 feet west of Coffman Street, and setting a p~lic hearing date of February 28, 1989, at 3:00 p.m.) 38 City Ha]~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. A6~ 150: Approving an amateur boxing exhibition/tournament conducted by the Anaheim/YMCA Boxing Club to be held at the Anaheim Family YMCA on February 11, 1989, in accordance with section 7.04 (Boxing and Sparring) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. A7, 109/150: RESOLUTION NO, 89R-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR CHILD CARE LOCAL COORDINATION FUNDS. (Approving the application for child care local coordination funds to develop a plan to accommodate the changing family structure in Anaheim) AS. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order without solicitation of sealed bids to Sign West Inc., in the amount of $11,997 for removal of the roof top electronic display sign at the Convention Center. A9. 160: Accepting the low bid of Buena Park Wholesale Electric, in an amount not to exceed $36,167.20 for 50,000 feet of 336.4 KCMIL A.C.S.R. Wire, all in accordance with bid #4659. Al0. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis presented by the Director of Finance for five months ended November 30, 1988. Ail. 175/123: Approving an agreement with Resource Management International, Inc., at a cost not to exceed $146,212 for the preparation of a preliminary design, construction estimate, and written report for an Underground Electrical Utilities Study in the Stadium and Disneyland/Convention Center areas, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Daly commended both the Public Utilities Boards and staff for their fine work on the subject effort. He is looking forward to great things from the study. Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager. He reported for Councilman Pickler that the time period of the study is approximately 13 weeks. Councilman Ehrle. In the Transportation Workshop this morning, he reported on his discussions with people from Fluor Corporation who put forth the idea of incorporating utility lines in a people-mover or monorail system that would be cost effect. Gordon Hoyt. If the people-mover comes along in an appropriate timeframe, they can look at that possibility. There may be some advantages to putting conduits in an overhead structure which is already being done on bridges that cross the river. Al2. 144: Approving the continued participation of the City of Anaheim (for the final year) in the Orange County Hazardous Waste Joint Powers Authority; and appropriating $909 from the Council Contingency Fund for Anaheim's share of the 1989 membership fee for the Regional Hazardous Waste Joint Powers Authority. 39 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 89R-16 and 89R-17: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 89R-16 and 89R-17 duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. 127; MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION FISCAL IMPACT REPORT - ADOPT PROPOSED ORDINANCE OR SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION: Ordinance No. 4984 - Adding a chapter to the Anaheim Municipal Code providing procedures for the review of Mobilehome Rents, and establishing a commission to exercise the duties and powers provided therein, was introduced at the meeting of December 13, 1988, (see minutes that date) which was the date the City Clerk provided the Council with the Orange County Registrar of Voters Certificate as to Verification of Signatures for Initiative Petition. Mayor Hunter, noting the large audience present on this issue, stated that 15 minutes would be given to both proponents and opponents to make their presentations after which the Council would discuss the matter and make their decision. He first called upon the proponents. Melody Burtt. The Anaheim Political Action Committee (APAC), people have worked and labored over their petition. There was no misrepresentation. She feels confident that between their people, the help of the City Clerk's Office and their attorney, the petition is sound. Theirs is a serious problem and it is still a problem after two years. Mobilehome owners are victims and the Council has been presented with a mandate. It is only the second time in the history of Anaheim this has been done. They stand before the Council proud. Clyde Romney, Attorney at Law, 613 West Valley Park Way, Escondido, partner in the Law Firm of Peaks, Fletcher and Mack in San Diego. He is present to share their views on the validity of the petition and the necessity for having the issue brought before the voters. It is a matter of providing relief from rapidly escalating rents in mobilehome parks in Anaheim - a curve which goes up much faster than ~he cost of living and exceeds the cost of operation of the mobllehome park facilities. There are approximately 8,000 residents who find themselves without bargaining power on an individual basis to effect fair rents. The park owners are highly organized, well funded and represented by able Counsel. Titanic efforts have been mounted by park owners to prevent the residents' efforts to seek relief by joining together as members of APAC to place the matter before the voters. He is urging the Council to place this measure on the ballot for a Special Election as required by law if they do not adopt the ordinance. Mr. Romney then elaborated on the significant reasons for doing so. Approximately 24,000 signatures were gathered by unpaid volunteers. Twenty-four thousand people are anxious to have their issue come before the City or approximately 1/4th of the City's registered voters. Recently 4O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. representatives of his client have forwarded to him a series of communications received by the City Council. He does not believe he is qualified to speak to the various items of fiscal impact although he disagrees in terms of the cost effectiveness and the means by which other ordinances were, in his personal experience, adopted and implemented throughout the state. The opinion of the Counsel in San Francisco is that the petitions circulated were somehow flawed or defective and the City Council, therefore, has a duty to reject them. He vigorously disagrees with the opinion of Mr. Fadem. A careful review of the ballot petition in the section which he is holding in his hand indicates they are vastly differently situated than the litigants in the case of Myers vs. Patterson. As provided in the Elections Code which has to do with the placement of such items as the notice of intention to circulate petition, the title of the ordinance as prepared by the City Attorney, the summary of the ordinance by the City Attorney and their relative placement vis a vis, the signatures, all of those items appear on the first page of the petition. Council can probably see from where they are sitting that the title prepared by the City Attorney as required by law appears at the top of the page. There is no possibility that the most thoughtful and most casual person trying to decide whether to sign the petition would ever be mislead. There is no argument a court will ever buy. He then offered his conclusion relative to the Myers vs. Patterson case. In closing, Mr. Romney stated they did not put all this effort into soliciting signatures to come before the Council simply to have the petition rejected putting them back to square one or putting the onus on the proponents to go to court to seek an order asking the judge to tell them to do that. He does not believe that was what was contemplated when California's ballot initiative language was adopted many years ago. He asked that they take into account when making up their minds the efforts that went into the matter the important and the deep felt need for relief of Anaheim's Mobilehome Park residents. Mayor Hunter asked to hear from those in opposition. Mr. Daryl Wold, Reid & Davidson, 3151 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa. His firm represents the Anaheim Taxpayers Association (ATA), a committee of individuals and property owners in Anaheim who are opposed to the proposed initiative to impose rent control on mobilehome parks. It is clear that the petitions that have been submitted to the Clerk were invalid and should have been rejected and may not be used to submit the measure to the voters for two basic reasons. They completely fail to comply with the form and content for petitions set out in the Elections Code. As a result, they are blatantly misleading so they do not represent the informed will of the voters who signed them. The measure itself suffers serious and pervasive constitutional infirmities. Because of those two reasons and so that the Council will have the benefit of knowing that his client is challenging the legal sufficiency of the petitions, as a precautionary measure, his firm filed suit yesterday in Orange County Superior Court to challenge the legal sufficiency of the petitions. He has given a copy of the pleadings in that case to Mr. White, the City Attorney, but he has not yet served that action on anybody depending on the action of the Council today. His clients preference, rather than litigation, is that the petitions be rejected and that the Council not set any 41 4] City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M election day in order to avoid the necessity of having to proceed with that litigation. Mr. Wold then briefed the Council relative to defects in the petition he considers not minor technical matters but much more extensive than Mr. Romney indicated. The defects go to the heart of the Elections Code designed to ensure signers are not misled and are fully informed before signing. After elaborating on the defects and referring to letters previously sent to the City Attorney wherein various court cases were cited, Mr. Wold stated that the law is for the benefit of all citizens and all citizens must comply. The provisions of the law in the Elections Code that specified the required form and format of the petitions so that voters who signed those petitions are not misled are simple, clear, explicit and they must be followed. They were not followed in this case and the petitions are, therefore, invalid. Further, the petitions do not contain any request that the measure be submitted to the voters at a Special Election. Without that explici~ request, even if the petitions are otherwise valid, the measure cannot be submitted at a Special Election but the earliest is at the next regular Municipal Election which is November, 1990. The action he is urging be taken today is that the City Attorney advise the City Clerk to withdraw her certification of the signatures on the petitions, to reject the petitions in their entirety and to return them to the proponents because of the extensive misleading defects. His firm and others including one consulted by the City have all given written opinions to the City and City Attorney concerning the defects in the petitions. He feels it is appropriate for those opinions all to be made public so that there will be no question that the interested members of the public have the same information as the City Council and that everyone be fully informed concerning all of the legal questions. Paul Bostwick, 1411 South Anaheim Boulevard. He is stating opposition to the initiative. The petition initiative is not necessary. A survey of spaces and rents in Anaheim shows that of the 3,564 spaces in 26 mobilehome parks, 1,078 have rents under $325 or 30% 1,182 have rents between $325 and $400 or 33%. Sixty-three percent of the spaces in Anaheim have rents less than $400 a month. In Anaheim there are at present 82 persons receiving Section 8 assistance for their rent with 40 on a waiting list, out of 3,564. Reading from the report Council received, part of which was from the Urban Land Institute, stated that rent controls are unfair to owners of rental properties and damaging to some of the very low income renters they are supposed to protect. Many of the benefits they provide in the short run are consumed by non-poor renters. Rent controls are an inefficient means of attacking tenant poverty. That is what is needed - attacking tenant poverty and not rent control. Mayor Hunter closed the public input portion of the discussion. Mayor Hunter. Ordinance No. 4984 is on the floor for adoption. He asked if anyone wished to offer it for adoption at this time; no Council Member offered the Ordinance for adoption. 42 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood. She understands there is also throughout Orange County additional assistance to those who need it; Mr. Bostwick answered that the Orange County Manufactured Housing Educational Trust has a rental assistance program available to persons who qualify, similar to Section 8 which provides rental assistance until they are under the Section 8, program. Vickie Talley, Orange County Manufactured Housing Educational Trust. In the 13 months since the program went into effect, there have been 7 applicants from the City of Anaheim. Five have qualified and five are currently receiving a subsidy. Two did not qualify because they did not meet income requirements. Every mobilehome resident should have been notified of the availability of the program through various publications. Abraham Squires, Anaheim Shores. He knows people in his park and other parks who have too much pride and do not want to beg and borrow in order to satisfy the greed of the park owners. Many have been leaving Anaheim and going to places such as Sun City and Hemet in order to survive. Mayor Hunter. It has been said there are defects in the petition there are legal loopholes and legal problems and, therefore, the Council should not put the issue out to a Special Election. It is difficult for him to sit as judge and jury with Mr. Wold saying there are defects and Mr. Romney disagreeing. Whether there are defects or not, he is not the judge of that but an elected Mayor who has to make decisions that affect the whole. They have a petition initiative with enough signatures to put it to an election to let the voters decide. He is of the firm belief that in the democratic way, they cannot.go wrong by putting the matter to vote of the electorate. He recognizes that the petition initiative contains defects which may be sufficient to subject the City Council's action to legal challenge if they are either to adopt the measure or call an election based solely upon the perceived mandate of the initiative petition. However, he also recognizes that the issue is of extreme importance and concern to many citizens of the City. Mayor Hunter thereupon offered the resolution calling a Special Election on this measure for April 25, 1989, not based upon the petition or any legal mandate resulting therefrom, but based upon the City Council's independent power to call an Election on this measure pursuant to the City Charter and Section 4017 of the Elections Code of the State of California. Before any action was taken, Councilman Ehrle stated he was the first in the City to initiate a successful initiative petition process designed to place a Charter amendment on the ballot. It takes a great deal of dedication and effort. He is a strong believer in the rights of people to petition their government and to be able to vote on issues when they become important. This is one of those issues, as evidenced by the gathering of over 23,000 signatures. He is also a strong believer in the free enterprise system and the rights of property owners and he cannot support rent control. He has never supported such controls. He believes the people have earned their right to have an election. He also believes there are deficiencies and that is why he asked for a legal opinion relative to the initiative petition so that 43 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1;30 P,3 citizens will know what they will be voting on. Even though there are defects, he will support the resolution to hold a Special Election. The necessary signatures were gathered and based on that, it is warranted that there be an Election. Councilman Pickler. A Special Election is to the advantage of a certain group of people. He could understand if the issue went to the General Election in 1990 in order to have a consensus of the majority. He is also concerned with the costs associated with special elections as well as the fiscal impacts of the measure indicated in the report submitted. Thinking of the City, he must do what he feels best and also to take the legal advice of outside Counsel. Councilman Daly. He recognizes the entire issue is heading for the courts. It is a legal "nightmare" and a cloud will hang over City Hall for as long as the rent control issue faces the City and as long as there are people in Anaheim who want to force the issue of rent control on the majority of citizens. A legal opinion has been rendered by outside Counsel who is an expert in the rent control field and the opinion has come back that the petition is invalid and misleading. He (Daly) has been elected by all the taxpayers to uphold the rule of law in the City and to live under the laws of the State of California. There are clear procedures for the petition process. Based on the decision of outside Counsel, he is going to offer a motion on the issue. Mayor Hunter interjected asking for a roll call vote on the resolution he offered calling for a Special Election. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO, ; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1989, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF A MEASURE CONCERNING MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle and Hunter Daly, Pickler and Kaywood None The resolution failed to carry. MOTION: Councilman Daly moved that the City Council reject the Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Initiative petition submitted to the City Council on December 10, 1988 and instruct the City Clerk not to schedule an election on 44 4O City H~i~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. su~. measure or otherwise process said petition on the grounds that said petition is invalid for failing to conform to mandatory requirements of the Elections Code of the State of California. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Pickler and Kaywood Ehrle and Hunter None RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (2:46 p.m.) AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:57 p.m.) 179: ITEMS BI - B6 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1989 - INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JANUARY 26, 1989: B1. RECLASSIFICATION NO, 88-89-24, VARIANCE NO, 3877 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: HAROLD C. J. COYKENDALL, 2890 E. La Palma, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: ANDREW HOMES, 4400 MacArthur Blvd. #900, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 206 North Coffman Street For a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-1200; to construct a 3-story, 20-unit apartment building with waiver of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit and (b) building and structural height limitations. Reclassification No. 88-89-24 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC89-01. Variance No. 3877 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC89-02. Approved Negative Declaration. B2, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3105 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: JAMES H. ANTONOWITSGH AND KATHLEEN ANTONOWITSGH, 12341 Gilbert Street, Garden Grove, GA 92641 LOCATION; 222 West Ball Road To permit a 16-bed alcoholic rehabilitation center within an existing single-family residence with waivers of (a) required improvement of parking area and (b) required side yard setback. CUP NO. 3105 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC89-03. Waiver of Code Requirement GRANTED by the Planning Commission. Approved Negative Declaration. 45 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M B3, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3107 AND NEGATIVE OWNERS: Vivien Fermtn and Edgare Fermin, 1180 Hazelwood Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION; 1180 Hazelwood Street To construct a 780 square-foot addition to an existing adult care facility for a maximum of ten (10) adults with waivers of (a) maximum lot coverage and (b) minimum rear yard setback. CUP NO. 3107 DENIED by the Planning Commission, PC89-04 Waiver of Code Requirement DENIED by the Planning Commission. Approved Negative Declaration. B4, VARIANCE NO, 3887, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1: OWNER: EAST ANAHEIM CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 2216 E. South Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: J. W. SHELLEY, BOARD CHAIRMAN, F. L. Wood, Facilities Chairman, 2216 E. South Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION 2216 East South Street To waive required improvement of right-of-way in conjunction with construction of a previously approved caretakers/ministers quarters. Variance No. 3887 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC89-05. Councilwoman Kaywood. Staff had recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request to waive the improvement of right-of-way. The Planning Commission approved it on a 6-1 vote. She feels a review is necessary. Mayor Hunter. He has met with the minister who informed him they contacted all members of the Planning Commission who then visited the site. They are not doing anything major and the waiver is similar to the exception requested by Frank Feldhaus some time ago which brought about a change in the Code. A lot of effort went into the matter which resulted in approval by the Planning Commission. Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer. Staff did recommend against the waiver of the fee for relocation of the improvements. Staff's opinion was that the estimated cost was not excessive in relation to what was bein§ proposed by the church. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Members Kaywood and Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. B5. VARIANCE NO. 3867 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: DURFEE GARDENS, PARTNERSHIP, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, CA 92635 AGENT: DR. RONALD CROWLEY, 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, CA 92635 LOCATION: 747-755 North East Street To waive (a) minimum site area per dwelling unit, (b) minimum front 46 City ~i~.~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. yard setback, (c) minimum rear yard setback, (d) minimum recreational/leisure area and (e) maximum structural height to construct a 21-unit "affordable" condominium complex. Variance No. 3867 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC89-06. Councilman Daly expressed concern that the agenda indicated the project was a 21-unit affordable complex with five waivers, yet the most recent Planning Commission action on a revised plan approved 20 units and two waivers. City Clerk Sohl explained that if the Council were to set the matter for a public hearing, she would advertise in accordance with the original application because it is potentially possible for the Council to approve the project the way it was requested originally. If there is no action taken before the end of the appeal period, the project will be approved for the 20 units the way the Planning Commission approved it. Councilman Daly stated he would like to reserve the right to set a public hearing on the issue before the end of the appeal period on January 26, 1989. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: B6. 127: REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE "RS-7200" ZONE; Request from Paul Bostwick, Midway Mobile Home Park, to permit mobile homes as a conditional use in the "RS-7200" zone. The Planning Commission directed staff to draft amendment to permit mobilehome parks in the RS-7200 zone, subject to conditional use permit, excluding the SC zone. Councilwoman Kaywood. Rather than rezone the whole City, as an alternative a waiver could be granted on the two lots the petitioner is requesting be rezoned. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The existing zoning is RS-7200. The method under the existing Code without modification.is to change the property to an appropriate zone and concurrently to request a conditional use permit. The request is just a method to try to do it at a lower cost to the developer but would open up the RS-7200 zone. Rezoning with a CUP would be the most appropriate alternative without any Code chan~es. City Attorney Jack White. The action being sought is whether the Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation and wishes to direct his Office to prepare the proposed amendment. He heard Councilwoman Kaywood say she would prefer that staff advise Mr. Bostwick that he has the alternative procedure available which is to make application for a rezoning and file for a CUP and not direct his Office to prepare an amendment. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct staff to advise Mr. Bostwick that he has the alternative procedure available which is to make application for a rezoning and file for a CUP and not direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare an amendment to the Code. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 47 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24. 1989, 1:30 155/179/170; ITEMS B7 - B8 FROM THE pLANNING CO~MI~SION MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1989 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JANUARY 26, 1989: B7, SUPPLEMENT TO EIR NO, 281 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) REQUEST TO AMEND CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 13458. 13459, ~3460, 13461, 13267, 13492, 13493, ~3494. 13495 AND 13268, AND SPECIMEN Tp~EE REMOVAL PERMIT NOS. 88-02. 88-03, AND 88-07: OWNER: BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 AGENT: DIANA HOARD, VICE PRESIDENT, THE BALDWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: Subject property, which is described as the 591-acre The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) development area, is located approximately 1.1 miles southeast of Weir Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway intersection, and is bounded on the north by the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan development, on the west by The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan development, and on the south and east by unincorporated Irvine Company property within the County of Orange. Petitioner requests approval of the amendment of certain conditions of approval of previously-approved Tentative Tract Map Nos. 13458, 13459, 13460, 13461, 13267, 13492, 13493, 13494, 13495 and 13268, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit Nos. 88-02, 88-03, and 88-07 to provide consistency with the recently adopted The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) conditions of approval. Tentative Tract Map Nos. 13458, 13459, 13460, 13461, 13267, 13492, 13493, 13494, 13495, and 13268 APPROVED by the Planning Commission. Specimen Tree Removal Permit Nos. 88-02, 88-03, and 88-07 APPROVED by the Planning Commission. NOTE: The Specimen Tree Removal Permits have a 22-day appeal period and will appear on the Council agenda of February 7, 1989. BB. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-28, VARIANCE NO. 3890, TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 13797 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: HARRY HIROSHITA KAHAMA, HISOSHI KOHOTA AND IDA KUBOTA, C/O J.M. PETERS, P.O. BOX 7150, Newport Beach, CA 92658 AGENT: J. M. PETERS CO., P.O. Box 7150, Newport Beach, CA 92658 LOCATION: 3802, 3900, 3910 and 3920 Orange Avenue (portion of which Ss located in the City of Buena Park). For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RS-5000 or a less intense zone. To construct a 69-unit, 70-lot (1 common private street lot) single-family residential subdivision with waivers of (a) required lot frontage, (b) required garage setback, (c) maximum site coverage and (d) maximum number of bedrooms. Tentative Tract No. 13797 GRANTED by the Planning Commissionl NOTE: Reclassification No. 88-89-28 and Variance No. 3890 have a 22-day appeal period and will appear on the Council agenda of February 7, 1989. 48 City ~1~, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. End of the Planning Commission Items. ii~i?/108/142; ORDINANCE NO, 4990 - BOWLING ALLEYS AS CONDITIONAL USE IN THE Z_ ZONE: Adding new subsections .115 and .616 to section 18.61.050 of Chapter 18.61 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to bowling alleys as a conditional use in the ML zone, including the canyon industrial area. The ordinance was introduced at the meeting of January 10, 1989 and continued from the meeting of January 17, 1989, to this date. Councilwoman Kaywood. She is opposed to the proposed ordinance. Protecting the integrity of the industrial zone is of prime importance. Bowling alleys do not belong in the industrial area. There should be no intrusion by commercial or other inappropriate uses. Industrial land is a vanishing resource and a great deal of time and effort on the part of both staff and the Council was put forth in the past to develop an ordinance that would preclude uses that would attract outside people to the area. The fact that there are two uses in the subject area that did not comply does not mean the problem should be compounded. She urged that the proposed commercial use not be allowed which she feels would be sending a negative message to all industrialists. Mayor Hunter. He disagrees. One of the major employers in the City, Rockwell, is saying they welcome a bowling alley in that center which could be used by their employees for after-hour recreation. He has also received approximately 30 letters from companies saying that they would welcome such facilities in that area. Councilman Daly. He does not see this as being detrimental to adjacent land uses. The Council is not turning its back on industrial uses. He sees land lying vacant - freeway frontage between Rockwell and the Camelot recreation area. He has heard no good reasons not to allow a CUP process in the industrial zone for various uses proposed by property owners. It does not mean he is going to ultimately support the CUP when it comes before the Council. It will depend on the terms and conditions and the quality of the project. He has no problem supporting a conditional use process for bowling alleys in the ML zone. Councilman Ehrle. He has done his own research in the past week wherein it was determined through personal contact with bowling alleys in the City that league play is Tuesday through Friday night starting at 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Based on his survey, it will not impact the area and he has no problem with the proposed ordinance. Councilman Pickler. He referred to the data sheet submitted to the Council at the Transportation Workshop wherein it was reported that 88% of the Executives polled expect traffic to worsen in the northeast industrial area and 44% would consider relocating if that does occur. The subject area does not warrant a bowling alley. There have also been problems with young people congregating in the area around Camelot and its recreational uses. The industrial area must be protected. 49 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 Traffic Engineer, Paul Singer. He briefed the Council on a San Diego study relating to traffic generation from bowling alleys. He also noted that should the applicant come before the Council for a CUP to put a bowling alley in that area, one of the things he would have to provide would be a traffic study specific to that area. After further Council discussion and questioning of staff during which Council Members Kaywood and Pickler reiterated their deep concerns over such a use in the industrial area, Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 4990 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4990) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO, 4990; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS .115 AND .616 TO SECTION 18.61.050 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle and Hunter Pickler and Kaywood None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4990 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4991 (ADOPTION): Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 88-89-08 located at 1500 West Broadway, from RS-A-43,000 and RS-5000 zones into the RM-3000 zone. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4991) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4991 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO, 4991: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 88-89-08 located at 1500 West Broadway, from RS-A-43,000 and RS-5000 zones into the RM-3000 zone) Roll Call Vote: 5O City Mall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter NC£S: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ~.~TAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle ~SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4991 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO, 4992 (INTRODUCTION); Councilman Hunter offered Ordinance No. 4992 for introduction. ORDINANCE NO, 4992; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 73-74-55 (8) located on the southwest corner of Woodland Drive and Magnolia Avenue, from ML into the CL zone) 176; PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO, 88-2A; In accordance with application filed by Newport Pacific Development Corporation, 4400 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92660, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of Teri Circle, a cul-de-sac which is no longer in use, extending northerly from Lincoln Avenue approximately 484 feet east of Bel Air Street, and certain easements for public utility easements surrounding Teri Circle, pursuant to Resolution No. 88R-430, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Submitted was report of the Director of Public Works and City Engineer dated December 13, 1988 and January 23, 1989. Councilman Pickler. He referred to the January 23, 1989 staff report which he just received and moved that the matter be continued two weeks in order to provide an opportunity to analyze the data presented. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. City Attorney White. It would be appropriate as part of the motion to continue to determine if the applicant has a concern relative to time constraints. A1 Marshall, Newport Pacific Development. They have been held up during construction for almost five weeks and another two weeks would be financially very difficult for them. The property was closed some time ago and they are paying a high interest rate daily. An additional two weeks would be an undue burden. Councilman Daly thereupon withdrew his second and Mayor Hunter then opened the public hearing. 51 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1:30 A1 Marshall, Newport Pacific Development. The situation relative to payment by the applicant of $236,250 for the value of the proposed abandonment was a complete surprise to them. It is his understanding that the City has never required the developer to pay for the recapture of property originally deeded to the City by the original developer. Further, Tert Circle is unique in that it does not give them additional side property or property that would benefit the site other than to be assumed by the total configuration of the property. They bought the property under the assumption that Teri Circle was to be abandoned and recaptured by the developer, Newport Pacific Development. Given that the City's policy has consistently been not to charge a developer for recapture of property, it would be extremely unfair to them. It is difficult to understand why after the fact they would be hit by a charge that is significantly impactful. They have concern about equal treatment and because of that are asking that they be granted the abandonment of the property free of charge as initially planned when they bought the property. They have already undergone severe financial impact on the property due to previous problems and errors made by contractors who did work for the City which he explained and which they corrected at their own expense. There was also an increase in park and recreation fees of $100,000 on the project over what they understood the fees would be. In concluding, Mr. Marshall stated he had reviewed a copy of the supposed appraisal presented to the City. It states that the appraiser's job is to compare like-kind properties and eventually to come up with a dollar value for the land. In this case that value was astronomical. He finds no comparable sales or no abandonment sales that have been made similar to this. It is a dollar figure that comes out of the air. He has serious legal concerns about the validity of the appraisal under this set of circumstances. Magdy Hanna, Newport Pacific Development, 4400 MacArthur B~ulevard. The City allowed them to grade the property which they do not own. The grading is finally completed but they could not obtain the building permit to build on the property because of the abandonment which was a surprise to them. It was never an issue during the public hearing. He also reiterated some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Marshall. The real problem is if he has to pay the money to the City for the abandonment, he will not be able to build the project. Right now he has a crew of 30 people standing idle. Mr. Marshall then explained for Councilman Daly that it was approximately three weeks ago when they heard for the first time they were going to have to pay for the property. 52 Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Daly. If the City is going to start charging for abandonments, that fact should be announced loud and clear which was not done in this case. At the same time, he feels some type of compensation is due the City and that is why he thought a continuance would be in order. Mayor Hunter. What needs to be done is to agendize the issue and request that a draft ordinance be prepared that the City will be charging for abandonments. Up to now, that has not been done. If it is going to be Council policy, it should be known to everyone that the City will charge for abandonments. He is of the opinion that the developer should not be charged in this instance. City Attorney White. The action is to approve the abandonment of the public right-of-way that would allow construction of the project. Council's options are to either approve the resolution conditioned upon the payment of the appraised value or to approve it on the condition of a payment of some lesser value or without requiring any payment. The next step he would recommend is to include in Council Action a finding that such approval is in the public interest at this time. He also pointed out that the City had expended $1,900 for the appraisal. If the charge is zero to the developer, the City will end up with a deficit of $1,900. Councilwoman Kaywood. She recalls it was requested by the Council to look into the subject of abandonments. Mayor Hunter. The Council needs to adopt publicly an ordinance that states it is now Council Policy to have appraisals done and charge for abandonments. That policy was not in effect when this project was started. This developer or any other not aware of this policy should not be punished. There is no public policy at this time requiring payment for abandonments. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Non6. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: None. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. 53 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P Councilman Ehrle. He agrees with the Mayor that this or any other developer who is not aware of the new policy relating to abandonments should not be responsible for payment. Developers in the future should know that this will be so, so that the additional cost can be penciled into their projects. Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer. The new wording used was based upon verbal instructions they received about three weeks ago at which time the Council indicated their intent to receive just compensation for abandonments. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION; On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council finds that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-18) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-18 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 89R-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A PUBLIC STREET TERI CIRCLE AND CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS. (ABANDONMENT NO. 88-2A) Before action was taken, City Attorney White recommended that a finding be included that the conveyance and abandonment is in the best interest of the City as contained in Charter Section 1222 based upon the testimony that the past practice of the Council has been not to charge for abandonments, that the current property owner relied upon Council's past practice and this project will increase the rental housing supply in the City which will be in the public interest. Councilman Pickler. He raised the issue of the $1,900 expended by the City to pay for the appraisal. MagdyHanna. They will be happy to pay that cost. 54 City ~11, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Art Daw. The Engineering Department at this time has 25 other abandonments pending that would fall into the same category. He assumed that it is Council's intent not to seek compensation for these abandonments. They were processed prior to the time that action was taken to receive compensation for the abandonment. The people were not informed. Action at the Planning Commission was prior to the change. Mayor Hunter. The Council wants to do what is fair and equitable and to have full disclosure. Prior Council's history has been not to charge for abandonments. That has changed but there is no documentation showing that is what is going to happen. He has difficulty charging for abandonments in process without the knowledge that there has been a change. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution by Councilman Pickler, including that the developer not be required to pay compensation for the abandonment but that the $1,900 appraisal fee be paid by the developer and incorporating by reference the language of the City Attorney regarding the findings of the public hearing. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter Daly None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-18 duly passed and adopted. City Manager Bob Simpson. Staff has all the direction necessary relative to the 25 oth~ abandonments in process as well as Council's direction to formalize the new policy. City Attorney White. He will be preparing a resolution to be submitted to Council next week which will contain the new policy on abandonments. Art Daw. It is the Engineering Department's intent to also modify abandonment forms to indicate on the face that compensation may be requested. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3076 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: OWNERS: EXXON Corporation 1200 Smith St., Houston, Texas 77210-4415 55 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 AGENT: Taft & Associates 800 N. Eckhoff, Orange, CA 92613 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2791 East Lincoln Avenue. The request is to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales, fast food sales and off-sale beer and wine with waiver of minimum enclosed retail sales area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3076 was denied by the Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PC88-314; Waiver of Code Requirement was denied by the Planning Commission; approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal was submitted by the Agent, Taft and Associates and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 12, 1989. Posting of property January 13, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 12, 1989. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 21, 1988. City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated January 20, 1989 had been received from Richard Taft of Taft & Associates, requesting that the item be continued. Richard Taft, Taft & Associates, 800 Eckhoff, Orange. After denial by the Planning Commission, they redesigned the floor plan but that plan has not yet been approved by their people in Houston. For this reason, they are requesting a continuance. Mayor Hunter. He has problems with that. The project was denied by the Planning Commission and now the applicant is before the Council indicating they are going to do something different and asking that the Council approve the revision. If plans are changed, they should go back to the Planning Commission rather than coming before the Council to have the Council assist in the redesign or doing something that the Planning Commission denied. Richard Taft. One of the concerns of the Planning Commission was having a unisex restroom. Under the new revised floor plan, they are going to have two restrooms - one for men and one for women. 56 City ~11. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P,M. Mayor Hunter. He asked if the main issue was the denial of beer and wine rather than the unisex bathroom; Mr. Tait answered, partly. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The basic reason the Planning Commission denied the CUP was the request for off-sale beer and wine in conjunction with gasoline sales. That particular combination of uses has been a great concern to them. Almost every time, they have denied that combined request. This one did include waiver of the enclosed retail sales area. Mr. Tait also mentioned the unisex bathroom and there was also a question of driveway location. She reiterated the basic reason was probably the off-sale beer and wine with gasoline sales. Richard Tait. If the Council feels that the beer and wine is the main issue, they would be willing to withdraw the request for beer and wine at this time. Mayor Hunter reiterated his concern that he feels the applicant is speaking to the wrong forum. He does not favor a continuance but that the public hearing take place. Mr. Tait stated he is being put in a difficult position. Further, he has no presentation prepared at this time. He feels he does not have any choice other than to go back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Pickler. In the past, applicants have appeared before the Council with changes. The Council has reviewed the changes and then made a decision accordingly. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: None. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Hunter, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, 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. 57 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-19) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-19 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 3076, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 89R-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3076. Roll Gall Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter Pickler None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-19 duly passed and adopted. 179; PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO, 3885 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: OWNERS: Roberson and Vazquez, a California Limited Partnership ATTN: Hugo Vazquez 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION/REQUEST: The properties are located at 2767 and 2775 W. Ball Road and 910 S. Dale Avenue. The request is to waive (a) minimum building site area, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage and (d) minimum structural setback to permit the construction of a 4-story (previously 3-story) 106 unit "affordable" apartment complex. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Variance No. 3885 was denied by the Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PC88-348; approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Hugo Vazquez, and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 12, 1989. Posting of property January 13, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 12, 1989. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 19, 1988. 58 3O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24. 1989, 1:30 P.M. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Hugo Vazquez, 202 So. Olive Street, Anaheim. He referred to his letter dated December 27, 1988 which explained the reasons for his appeal (made a part of the record). The issue is relative to what is regarded as floor area. They pulled building permits over nine months ago. They were originally going to build the garage floor out of wood but because of negative feedback from Planning Commissioners who toured a building adjacent to his office where there was such a wood floor system, he stopped the project for six weeks to hire an engineer to design a concrete floor system. It was at the time plans were resubmitted that the lofts were noticed by the Planning Department. They interpreted the lofts to be a floor. Under the Uniform Building Code a loft does not constitute a floor. The issue is that the Planning Department has one interpretation of what a loft is and the Building Department has a different interpretation. As long as the loft does not exceed 1/3 of the area it looks into, it is not a floor. That is why they received a permit to build a loft. A loft creates a certain quality of life for the complex. The building is already constructed. His loan was funded on the basis that there will be lofts in the complex. The units without the loft are approximately 830 to 840 square feet and with the loft about 1,000 square feet. He feels the loft is an important amenity and is asking that he be allowed to keep the lofts. The building height has not changed and the look of the interior is no different. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The project was approved in two parts under separate variances totalling 106 units, 2-story in one case and 3-story in another. Somewhere a loft was added which is considered a floor area. It was clearly intended to be inhabited. The information did not appear on zoning variances processed earlier. Although it has the same "foot print" as indicated on the Chamber wall, even though they readvertised the whole package, the modified waiver is waiver (b), maximum height, which instead of being 2 and 3-story buildings includes 4-story elements where the loft iS located. Councilwoman Kaywood. The loft areas were never to be habitable but only for aesthetic appearance. Hugo Vazquez. On the original building permit pulled there was a bathroom in all of the lofts. When they came back for a concrete floor system, the Planning Department went through the plans. The Planning Department said lofts were never advertised and they 59 27 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. never understood that was really a loft. It does state on the permit that you build at your ow~ risk. The interpretation made by the Planning Department at that time over the counter was to remove the bathrooms. He did so and came back in and he was then told he would have to remove the lofts altogether. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, a member of the Magnolia School District Board of Trustees. They consider the building of apartment complexes in their area as a serious problem. The Board passed a resolution which they would like to present to the Council. Before doing so, she read portions of the resolution (made a part of the record), which requested that the Council and Planning Commission cease and desist from approving zoning exceptions that allow the building of multi-level apartment complexes within the Magnolia School District citing that such apartments encourage a transient population within an established single-family community. It puts the District in a difficult position to provide classroom space. They overload community services and create living conditions not conducive to student safety or appropriate physical, emotional and social development. In concluding, she stated that there are no 4-story apartments in West Anaheim. If approved, others will request the same, creating higher density. Tandem parking is not a good method of parking. She is speaking for a number of people who are very concerned about this project. Barbara Clendineng, 2861 Roland, Anaheim, member of the Magnolia School District Board of Trustees. Once complexes are built and people are in the community, they have to deal with the situation in various ways. It creates a need for additional teachers, books, supplies, etc. and they do not have the funds to handle new ehildr.n coming in. This project will also set a precedent for other builders who will want to have the same opportunity. Ruth W. Good, 1359 Cheryl, Anaheim, Magnolia School District Board of Trustees. The project is adjacent to Dale Jr. High School. It will have an impact not only on elementary schools but the Junior High Schools. There is already a traffic and parking problem at Dale. There are cars on the street parked bumper to bumper. People are going to be parking in single-family home areas and possibly the school parking lot. She understands the project was approved for 3-stories but the builder added a 4th floor 60 City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. under the roof without approval and now wants approval after the fact. He should be required to tear out the illegally built rooms. Joann Stanton, 1509 Harle Place, Anaheim. They are not against thoughtful, realistic quality development. She does not want to see a precedent set with 4-stories. They have worked with the Traffic Engineer for many months to come up with solutions to the traffic problems around Dale Jr. High School and a traffic signal was finally installed. This project is going to impact traffic that much more. Dr. Robert Lamb, 2784 West Haven Drive, Anaheim. He does not want to see a 4-story apartment built behind him where there can be intrusion into his backyard. These plans are different than those posted at the Planning Commission meeting. He has not seen stairways on any of the plans on any of the floors. At the Planning Commission it was understood what are now loft spaces were attic areas. They are bedrooms with bathrooms. The Plan includes only nine affordable units and the developer has been granted many considerations because of those few units along with other waivers. He does not see any problem having the developer's architect design for a 3-story building and tearing off the top floor. He feels the whole thing was a hoax and the design was intended to be 4-stories in the first place. The property is overbuilt and additional traffic problems will ensue. Art Stahovich. He asked if the loft was going to be considered a bedroom. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Staff considers it a bedroom. Mr. Stahovich felt that if occupancy was limited in the units he does not see any difference with having a loft. People should be entitled to have it. Annika Santalahti. She explained that thi~ project wa~ not approved with occupancy limitations. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Hugo Vazquez. He understands he would have a limitation on the number of people who could occupy the units. It was advertised that they are providing two and three bedrooms and there is no other way they could provide three bedrooms without a loft. When he pulled his building plan it was not something that could be hidden. His plans clearly stated there was a loft and there were fire places and bathrooms in the loft. It was overlooked by the Planning Department. When they reviewed the plans, it 61 City Hall, AnaheSm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1;30 P.M. was not picked up until they proposed the concrete floor system. The Planning Department asked them to take out the bathrooms which they did. Planning staff made an alternate decision to take the loft out all together. He paid $42,000 to tear out the stairs. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood. When the project was heard by the Council, she never heard of 4th floor lofts being bedrooms. If there are stairs going up to another floor it is 4-stories. Hugo Vazquez. When they resubmitted plans with the concrete floor system and the Planning Department determined the loft to be a floor, the only way he could proceed with building was to white out every single page that said loft and call it an attic because construction was stopped for a whole month. Councilman Pickler. The project is there. The Council can eliminate the loft. Mr. Vazquez had not come back to install a better floor, he could have gone ahead and completed his project without any problem. If Annika Santalahti. She does not know if it would have worked out that way because plans were approved as variances for 2 and 3-stories with basement parking. Building sometimes uses the term "loft" differently than Planning but a full staircase going to a full ceiling height at over 100 square feet is clearly a room. Apartments do not have attics with full staircases leading to them. There were modifications made to the drawing that staff accepted which is typical when they get to working drawings. This kind of thing can happen but on the other hand she feels it takes a little assistance. Councilman Pickler. He has been in many buildings with lofts and they are an enhancement. He feels it will be a burden on the developer to take out lofts and stairs that were approved. If it is going to be an attic then they can have the developer stipulate to that. He should not be penalized because he wanted to change the garage floor. It is not fair to the developer. Annika Santalahti. This is a new variance. The applicant has two others that are still existing that allow the construction minus the loft. 62 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Council would be able to deny this variance in full in order to eliminate the loft. The applicant would then be under the prior zoning actions. Hugo Vazquez. The floor is already built. He has removed to stairs to get to the loft and closed up the wall. If the Council feels that the loft should not be there, he asked if they would be opposed to putting in wall space and having it as a storage area; Mayor Hunter stated that it is not the Council's intent to make that kind of decision. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Hunter, seconded by Councilman Daly, 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. 89R-20) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-20 for adoption, denying Variance No. 3885 in full, upholding the City Planning Commission findings in total. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 89R-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3885. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter Fickler None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-20 duly passed and adopted. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST' Dr. Robert Lamb, 2784 West Haven Drive, Anaheim. He suggests in the future particularly when multiple dwelling projects are proposed that people within a 1/2 mile radius be notified instead of just 300 yards. (It was confirmed that notification is to those within a 300-foot radius). He had no opportunity to object to the original project proposed by Mr. Vazquez (see the foregoing public hearing). Consideration should be given to notifying people within a larger radius who will also be impacted. 63 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 24, 1989, 1:30 P.M. 114; MASTER CALENDAR - COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE: City Clerk Sohl referred to the proposed Master Calendar submitted to the Council and asked if the Council would like her to schedule the matter for discussion. It was determined that Council discussion on the proposed master Calendar schedule of Council meetings take place at the Council meeting of January 31, 1989. ~DJOURNMENT: Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn. Gouncilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:35 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 64