Loading...
1989/08/15City Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 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 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:25 p.m. on August 11, 1989 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. 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 meet with its negotiator rearing possible acquisition of land from the Phoenix Club located at 1566 Douglass Road, Anaheim, California. . f. 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; Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (6:19 p.m.) INVOCATION; A Moment of Silence was observed in lieu of the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE; Councilman William D. Ehrle led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 811 City Hall, A~ahetm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 15. 1989, 1:30 P.M. 119; PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter and authorized by the City Council: Fill the Boot Day in Anaheim - August 19, 1989, Ramahetm Day in Anaheim - August 21, 1989. Gary Martin and Fire Chief Bowman accepted the Fill the Boot Day proclamation. 119; DECI~TION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to George and Kae Colouris upon the 35th Anniversary of their presentation of the Southern California Home and Garden Show to be held at the City's Convention Center. MINUTES; Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held 3uly 25, 1989. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,721,845.76, in accordance with the 1989-90 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTION/ORDINANCES; The titles of the following resolution and ordinances on the Consent Calendar were read by the City Manager. (Resolution No. 89R-353, for adoption and Ordinance Nos. 5059 and 5060, for introduction) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution and ordinances. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR; On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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 No. 89R-353, for adoption and Ordinance Nos. 5059 and 5060, for introduction. Resolution Book. . Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Rimas Stropus for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 7, 1989. b. Claim submitted by Ethel Halpern for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 9, 1989. c. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell (Attn: Hal Roach, Rm. 621) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 19, 1989. 812 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M. d. Claim submitted by Montque Liljeblad for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about 3une 16, 1989. e. Claim submitted by Auto Club of Southern California for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 9, 1989. (Insured: Joe Benson C1#G4379217) A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes from the Community Redevelopment Commission meeting held July 26, 1989. 105: Receiving and filing minutes from the Community Redevelopment Commission meetings held July 26, 1989 (7:00 P.M. Session). 173: Receiving and filing an application before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California from Ground Systems, Inc., doing business as Airportcoach, to establish a Zone of Rate Freedom for its airport passenger fares between its authorized service areas and the Los Angeles International, Long Beach, Ontario and John Wayne Airports. A3. 106/159: Approving the modification of the Public Works - Engineering Department FY 89/90 Program budget by the addition of the Claudina Street/Cypress Street and the Harbor Boulevard north of Broadway Street improvement projects. 106/159: Amending the Public Works Engineering Department FY 1989/90 Program by increasing expenditures (Program 792) and revenues (Fund 46) by $264,000. A4. 123: Approving an agreement with Anaheim Union High School District, in the amount of $68,244 for the use of space at Trident Junior High School to operate the West Anaheim Senior Citizens Center, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. A5, 107/142; ORDINANCE NO, 5059 (INTRODUCTION); AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 7.24.040 TO CHAPTER 7.24 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HANDBILLS. (Prohibiting the distribution of handbills to guest rooms within hotels or motels.) A6. 123/106: Approving a grant agreement with the California State Department of Education in the amount of $68,113 for the period of July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1990, to provide funds for the 8% 50% JTPA/GAIN program, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement. 123/106: Approving the allocation of funds in the amount of $68,113 to the North Orange County Community College District and the North Orange County Regional Occupational Program to provide educational services to Anaheim GAIN clients, as recommended by the Private Industry Council, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement. A7. 123: Approving a lease agreement with the Anaheim Union High School District for parking consideration for H. G. "Dad" Miller Golf Course patrons in exchange for improvements made by the City to Savanna High School property. 813 City Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989,-1;30 P,M. A8, 17~/~4~: ORDINANCE NO. 5060 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON FULL CASH VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989/90. A9. 140/109: Authorizing the Library Department to apply for Public Library Fund monies in the amount of $202,614. AIO. 123: Approving an agreement with the independent consulting firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, to conduct a records management and inventory of physical records at the Police Department, at a projected cost of $29,500. Ail. 123: Approving an affordable Housing Agreement with James M. Righeimer and R. J. Work, Inc., owners of the development at 3601 West Ball Road, for 14 affordable one bedroom units (out of 43 rental units) in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3096. Councilwoman Kaywood. The age limit is a minimum 62 years except for a care taker or someone else living with the person that could be younger. She asked if the senior citizen dies can the younger person continue to live in the unit and can they also bring in someone under 62 years of age. Lisa Sttpkovich. That is a requirement of state law and is called residual tenancy. Someone cannot be evicted because one of the eligible tenants dies. If there is a lease and that person is the only one on the lease they are not entitled to bring someone else into the unit. The residual tenancy applies to them alone. Al2, 158; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-353; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. Al3. 123: Approving and executing an agreement with the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC) to provide a children's recreational child care program during their annual conference August 17-20, 1989, in the City of Anaheim. . 106/150: Increasing revenue appropriations in the amount of $16,200 (Program 01-3898) and increasin~ expenditure appropriations in the amount of $11,000 (Program 372). Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-353 duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED. 814 City Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M. 130; REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - EMPIRE CABLE TELEVISION. INC.. AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION; (CITy INITIATED ORDINANCE): To consider granting a non-exclusive cable television franchise and installation of an underground television system with microwave antenna to Empire Cable Television, to be located in the East Anaheim Hills area, namely The Summit, The Highlands and Sycamore Canyon developments. At the meeting of June 20, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89R-242 declaring its intention to grant a non-exclusive franchise for cable television to Empire Cable Television, to be located generally in the area of Weir Canyon Road in the Santa Ana Canyon, south of the Riverside Freeway. At the meeting of July 25, 1989, Ordinance No. 5057 was introduced and then adopted at the meeting of August 1, 1989, to grant to Empire Cable Television, Inc., the nonexclusive right, privilege and franchise to lay and use lines, wires, coaxial cable and appurtenances for transmitting, receiving, distributing ~nd supplying radio, television and other cable communication services along, across and upon certain portions of the public streets, way, alleys, and places within portions of the City of Anaheim. (See minutes dated July 25 and August 11, 1989). Request for reconsideration was submitted by M.L. Media Partners, L.P. and scheduled this date. Mr. John Merritt, M.L. Media Partners, L.P. (Multivision). They are requesting the Council's diligence in granting a rehearing since it will benefit the City and because a rehearing was previously granted to Yorba Linda Cable (Empire Cable). They believe a rehearing will produce discovery to help the City make a more informed decision and avoid all potential liability. It will not in any way impact Yorba Linda Cable who is now installing conduit in Anaheim Hills. The information includes but is not limited to discovery of information possibly not contained in the Yorba Ltnda franchise application as required by City ordinance. He then outlined points which he felt justified the requested rehearing. The true connection between Yqrba Linda Cable and Anaheim Hills Developers has not been explored to the fullest extent. The first application submitted by Yorba Linda Cable said there were exclusive agreements, in violation of Federal Law, with the developers and another said there were no such agreements. The April franchise application did not disclose pending litigation filed by a contractor of Yorba Linda Cable. Yorba Linda Cable has placed cable before its franchise went into effect and before the Mitigation Agreement was signed, in violation of City Charter Section 1406. Relative to a level playing field, only last week Yorba Linda Cable has already requested a variance from existing City construction standards. Further investigation of these issues is called for. There is nothing to lose by granting the rehearing but the City will gain substantial insight that it has made the right decision. Councilman Hunter moved to grant the request for reconsideration relative to the franchise granted Empire Cable Television, Inc. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. 815 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15. 1989. 1:30 P,M, Before further action was taken, Councilman Ehrle stated that M.L. and Mr. Merrltt are doing an outstanding job in providing cable service in the City of Anaheim. Mr. Merritt is doing what he feels is in the best interest of his company and those he represents. He personally cannot support another public hearing on the issue since it has been "beaten to death" in the extensive public hearings already held. Councilman Pickler. His concern revolves around the legal aspects of the issue. He understands from the City Attorney and the Intergovernmental Relations Officer that relative to the level playing field matter that it is a level one and on that issue he is going to oppose the motion. A vote was then taken on the motion to reconsider the franchise approved for Empire Cable Television and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Hunter Daly, Ehrle and Pickler None MOTION; Councilman Ehrle moved to deny the request for reconsideration of the franchise granted Empire Cable Television. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle and Pickler Kaywood and Hunter None 179; ITEM BI FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JULY 27, 1989 DECISION DATE; AUGUST 3, 1989 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 18, 1989 B1, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0036: REQUESTED BY: Debra Margaret Eastman, 944 North Helena, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 944 North Helena To retain an existing room addition with a waiver of minimum side yard setback. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Administrative Adjustment No. 0036 GRANTED (ZA89-54) subject to the property being developed substantially in accordance with plans on file with the City of Anaheim labeled Exhibit No. 1. End of the Zoning Administrator Items. 179; ORDINANCE NO. 5058: Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 88-89-03 located at 1780 West Lincoln Avenue from the CL zone into the RS-1200 zone. 816 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1989, 1;30 P.M. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5058) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 5058; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5058 duly passed and adopted. 179: POTENTIAL ORDINANCE FOR MIXED USE (RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; The City Planning Commission by motion directed that the City Council be informed that a developer has requested an ordinance be prepared to permit mixed use of commercial and residential on a single parcel. The developer has offered to pay for a study by a consultant, with consultant to be agreed upon by the City. Councilwoman Kaywood. She referred to the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 1989 (Page 1, Item 5) Which indicated that the proposed study should consider several areas of concern, Item 5 being, "other cities mixed use development ordinances and/or guidelines." She would like to see what the experience has been. Joel Fick, Planning Director. At this point it is merely a feasibility study to examine what ordinances Anaheim should look at. It is a planning wave of the future. They would like an opportunity to look at all aspects. Councilwoman Kaywood. It may be a wave of the future but it is a concept from the past where under poor economic conditions people had to live above where they worked. Depending upon the use, there could be a conflict relative to noise, traffic or people. MOTION; Councilman Pickler moved to approve the proposed study relative to mixed use of commercial and residential on a single parcel with the study to be paid for by the developer. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179; REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - RECLASSIFICATION NO, 86-87-14 AND VARIANCE NO. 3611: REQUESTED BY: Thakor and Rashmi Desai 4214 Teresa Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630 817 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1989, 1;30 P,M. LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2240 West Lincoln Avenue. The petitioner requests an extension of time for Reclassification No. 86-87-14, and for Variance No. 3611, retroactive to February 3, 1989 and to expire on February 3, 1990. STAFF RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING RECLASSIF, NO. 86-87-14; That any extension be granted subject to the legal property owner within the next thirty days (by Sept. 14, 1989) preparing and recording an unsubordinated covenant limiting occupancy of each apartment unit to no more than two persons (other than children under the age of two years old) per bedroom. Said limitation shall be included in each lease/rental agreement. A copy of the covenant shall be submitted to an approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be furnished to the Zoning Division. STAFF RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING VARIANCE NO, 3611; That any extension be subject to the legal property owner within the next thirty days (by Sept. 14, 1989) amending an existing agreement with the City of Anaheim, which agreement was executed-on October 13, 1987, to specify that the rental controls approved by the City of Anaheim be for a period of not less than thirty years. At the meeting of June 13, 1989, Council denied the extensions of time on Reclassification No. 86-87-14 and Variance No. 3611. The applicant's attorney, Floyd Farano, Farano and Kieviet requested this item be resubmitted on the agenda. Submitted was staff report dated August 2, 1989 from the Planning Department. Councilwoman Kaywood. Her concerns with the request are that it has been three years since the project was approved and many other changes have occurred. Relative to parking, there are 84 tandem spaces and these spaces do not work in an apartment complex. People park on the street rather than maneuvering out of or into tandem spaces. Instead of 84 spaces, there are really 42 spaces. She is opposed to granting a rehearing and at this point would like to see the project go back to the Planning Commission in order to conform to today's codes. Further, setback is 12 to 17 feet from Lincoln Avenue where there is supposed to be a 50-foot setback.' There is no frontage and there would have to be an easement in order to get into the project and more curb cuts on Lincoln making it that much more hazardous driving. Councilman Pickler asked for a briefing from staff. Sfnce so much time has elapsed, he has lost the concept of the project. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The project does, with the exception of waivers granted, comply with Code as it stands. There is a pending modification relative to tandem spaces but that is not yet in effect. The problem was getting necessary recorded covenants. If Council wishes to see the project come closer to code, it would be appropriate to deny the time extensions and then the developer would have to resubmit through the Planning Commission. There is no way they can modify it without reducing the unit count. 818 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15. 1989, 1~30 P,M, MOTION; Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the request for extensions of time on Reclassification No. 86-87-14 and Variance No. 3611. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler asked to hear from the petitioner. Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard. He is representing Mr. & Mrs. Vito Bucaro. There have been some improvements of the plans originally presented. Having checked with staff this afternoon, the project is in compliance with code. Rather than putting the petitioners in a very difficult position, he is recommending the Council allow his clients and architect to bring the plans back to make sure the City Council is reacquainted with the project and with the modifications and improvements that have been made since the owner is ready to pull Building permits. Councilman Pickler. He would like the plans brought back to the Council for review. He asked to hear from staff. City Attorney White. The procedure would be to continue the request for the extension of time and have the plans brought back at a subsequent Council meeting for the Council to review and then to make a decision whether or not there has been a change in circumstances in the intervening years that would necessitate going back to new hearings. Answering Councilman Daly, Mr. Farano stated his understanding relative to the changes that have been made are in appearance landscaping, changes in the outer facade of the building, etc., but not so significant that they have not been considered as being in substantial compliance with the original approvals granted by the Planning Commission and the Council. Councilman Pickler moved to continue the subject request for extensions of time and that plans be submitted to staff for subsequent review by the Council. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Zoning Admtnstrator stated that a continuance would have to be at least two weeks from the time they ~ubmtt plans to staff and then reschedule it for the Council agenda. Joel Fick, Planning Director. He suggested if Mr. Farano could get photo reductions of either the renderings or site plans they could be distributed to staff and City Council and staff could also recirculate to the Council the original staff reports when the project was submitted. The Council would then have a good perspective of the project. Councilman Daly. In the interest of good planning, the unusual nature of the site and the fact that there has been a turnover on the Planning Commission and Council since the project was approved 2 1/2 years ago, he cannot support a continuance. He would prefer that the project go back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Hunter asked for a Roll Call Vote on the motion on the floor to deny the request for extensions of time. The motion carried by the following vote: 819 City Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15. 1989, 1;30 Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Kaywood and Hunter Ehrle and Pickler None Anntka Santalahti. Answering Councilwoman Kaywood relative to compact parking spaces there is a change pending. By the time the project comes before the Planning Commission, the change in progress eliminating small car spaces will be in effect as well as perhaps tandem spaces. Councilman Ehrle. He asked for a reconsideration of th~ Council's vote on the motion because he is not sure it is fair. Staff is saying the project is in compliance with standards and the developer is now ready to pull permits. With a continuance of two or three weeks to allow the developer to update the Council on the plans and with a staff report, the Council could make a decision which ultimately they will have to make within two or three months if it goes back to the Planning Commission. After further Council discussion and debate pro and con relative to a continuance of the matter vs. having the project start through the process over again, Mr. Farano asked instead if they could take the same application and plans back to the Planning Commission for their review, make suggestions and then bring the plans back to the Council which would shorten the 3 to 5-month time frame if they have to start from the beginning. City Attorney White. The situation as it now stands based upon the Council's denial of the extensions of time by the previous motion, the originally approved reclassification and variance have expired. Therefore, any plans that would be submitted based upon the conditions in those two original actions would be irrelevant at this time because those approvals have expired. If the question is: "Can the project be built without coming back through any process?" before either the Planning Commission or Council if it meets all existing codes, the answer is yes. He reiterated because the reclassification extension has been denied, he is not sgre that would be possible because he believes a zone change would be necessary. He does not know at this point any way to proceed with the project without going through the process of a new application based upon the Council's decision tonight. No further action was taken by the Council. The motion to deny the extensions of time was the final Council action. 114: DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO NIGHT COUNCIL MgETINGS; Mayor Hunter. He has been speaking for night Council meetings since 1984. To him the issue is access to government. The majority of the households in the City and County are dual working households. He believes Anaheim should go along with all the other cities in Orange County and have all night Council meetings. Councilman Hunter thereupon moved that subsequent to the meeting of August 29, 1989, that all City Council meetings in Anaheim be night meetings. 820 City Hall. ~nahetm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1989. 1:30 P,M, Councilman Daly. He will second the motion for purposes of discussion. Working people must take time off from their jobs to attend day meetings. Meetings should be scheduled at a time that encourages citizens to attend and participate in local government to the greatest extent possible. Councilwoman Kaywood. Having two day meetings and two night meetings a month is a good and fair way to operate the City. A letter has also been submitted from the Chamber of Commerce asking that the discussion on night meetings be postponed for seven days so that the Chamber could have an opportunity to review the proposal. She has received a large number of phone calls from people who do not want all night meetings and feel it is fair as it now stands. The Council has never turned down requests for night hearings when warranted. It is also unfair to staff who are still expected to be present to answer inquiries the next morning even if they have worked late into the night before. Councilman Pickler. He also referred to the letter received from the Chamber of Commerce asking for a continuance. He feels that two night and two day meetings has worked well. Other cities in the County may have night meetings but some of those cities have only one meeting a month, some two. There are many people who cannot come to evening meetings or who are concerned about coming out at night. Those people as well as business people should be taken into consideration. Even though he does not hold a full-time position, he is an early riser and functions better if he does not have to be at meetings until 11 or 12 at night. He has not heard any call for more night meetings by citizens. The request is coming from the Council. The only people who called him are the Chamber people and he feels the matter should be continued to give the Chamber an opportunity to speak to the matter. Councilman Ehrle. In 1986 he campaigned for night meetings, in 1987 he called for night meetings, and again in 1988 campaigned for night meetings. People have the time to come to Council meetings in the evening. He also received the letter from the Chamber and further talked to Alan Hughes of the Chamber. People attend the Council meetings because they have a particular interest. They will come to meetings if there is a consistency in,knowing that there is a night meeting every week. He whole-heartedly supports the motion. MOTION; Councilman Pickler moved to continue consideration of all night City Council meetings for one week in order to give the Chamber of Commerce an opportunity to give their input. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Daly stated he is going to oppose the motion because he does not feel there will be any new information to be gained by a continuance. After additional Council discussion on the issue, a vote was taken on the motion to continue and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: 821 City Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler and Kaywood Daly, Ehrle and Hunter None Councilman Hunter repeated his motion that there be all night City Council meetings starting the first Council meeting in September or September 12, 1989 since the Council will not be meeting on August 29 and September 5, 1989. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White stated he is assuming implicit in the motion is that he should draft the necessary ordinance and resolutions to affect the change to night meetings and unless he is told otherwise, he will agendize these for the next meeting. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion that there be all night City Council meetings starting the first Council meeting in September or September 12, 1989 and carried by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: George Brody, P.O. Box 16532, Irvine, Ca. 92713. He owns apartments in Anaheim. Throughout the years he has seen many changes in neighborhoods, some good, some bad, specifically in the southeast portion of Anaheim, Mountain View, Orangew0od, Pearson, Leatrice area, but which he feels applies to many other neighborhoods as well. They are experiencing a rapid rise in crime, drugs, high population density, etc. He feels they are going to turn into a slum unless something is done. He has talked to several apartment owners. Some landlords are concerned but do not know what to do while others do not care. Others feel that Anaheim could help by focusing some attention on the problems in those areas. Secondly, he is concerned about the cleanliness of the City and neighborhoods, especially with regard to trash and waste management. City streets do not have waste receptacles or containers where people walking can discard their trash. Such waste receptacles do exist but only in the redevelopment area. Waste containers (metallic waste baskets or concrete aggregate) should be located at major intersections in the City so that people walking by or children can discard their trash. He would like the City to install and service some of the those waste receptacles in high density areas of the City. Larry Halbeck, Tamara Lane. He lives in a neighborhood where people are afraid to go to bed at night. They are afraid of being shot. There have been nine incidents of gun fire in the last five months. He sent the Council a registered letter on August 23, 1989 explaining the problem. He has not received a response. 822 City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Hunter. His letter was likely referred to the Police Department and Mr. Halbeck will get a response directly from that Department. He talked with the Police Department last night. The City has the same number of police officers they had many years ago. The City has budget constraints. There are going to be additional discussions relative to the City budget and on supplemental packages that were requested. He feels the City needs more policemen. Mr. Halbeck. The Police Department is basically a responsive unit. What they need is not responsiveness. Response does not help when someone is being shot. They need preventive type help in their situation. They apparently have had some response from the Police Department. There are frustrated people who live in the City ready to sell their homes to get away from the situation. He represents 18 or 20 families that live on one street who are appealing for help. Ron Bimnoshae, 1751 South Nutwood. He lives in the same neighborhood. Since the letters were sent out about a week ago there have been two other shooting incidents. He believes in Anaheim and the family. His children and their friends play on Tamara. He does not want harm to come to them. He likes to see a visible police force in his neighborhood. The shootings are probably drug related. There is also gang activity which is not new to Anaheim. People are intimidated and fearful. There needs to be more police visibility in the neighborhood. If it takes budgeting a few more police officers, he does not think the residents will fight that. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (7:32 p.m.) AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:43 p.m.) 176; CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 89-1A; In accordance with application filed by The Karcher Barry Company, 200 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim Ca. 92805, public hearing is to be held on proposed abandonment of the following streets located generally north of Romneya Drive west of Harbor Boulevard: Marlboro Avenue, Arlington Avenue, Chevy Chgse Drive, Robin Place, Wren Street, Bluejay Lane, Robin Street, and Brewster Avenue, in order to create a gated community - old Chevy Chase area, pursuant to Resolution No. 89R-227, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin on June 29 and July 6, 1989 and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated June 6, 1989 was submitted, recommending approval of the abandonment noting that Karcher Barry has agreed to comply with all Departmental requests regarding the project. The abandonment is, therefore, subject to compliance with those requests. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 89R-227 at the meeting of June 13, 1989, declaring its intention to abandon certain streets located generally north of Romneya Drive and west of Harbor Boulevard, in order to create a gated community - old Chevy Chase area. The public hearing on Abandonment No. 89-1A was continued from the meetings of July 18, 1989 and August 1, 1989, to this date, as requested by the applicant. 823 City Hall, A~aheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, .1;30 P,M, Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition to proposed Abandonment No. 89-1A; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Daly. He asked if there will still be adequate access to Manzanita Park from the subject community. Lisa Stipkovich, Director of Community Development. Staff has been working with the Parks and Recreation Department, and although the area will be closed off to vehicular traffic, it will not be closed off to pedestrian traffic until night time hours. She believes there will be a gated entry to close the park access off to the neighborhood. They do plan on having he park accessible by foot. It mostly serves the neighborhood and is not a regional park. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. He asked that a condition be included that the gates and cul de sac conform to City Engineering standards. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION; On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the City Council ratified the determination of the City Engineer 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-354) Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 89R-354 for.adoption, approving Abandonment No. 89-1A, subject to the gates and cul de sac conforming to City Engineering standards. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 89R-354: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING ALL OR PORTIONS OF WREN STREET, BLUEJAY LANE, ROBIN STREET, ROBIN PLACE, MARLBORO AVENUE, CHEVY CHASE DRIVE, ARLINGTON AVENUE AND BREWSTER AVENUE. (AB 89-1A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-354 duly passed and adopted. 824 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1989. 1;30 P.M. 179; CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE NO. 3938 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: OWNER: Gerald D. & Deborah M. Barnes 743 South Thrasher, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: William R. Edwards Associates 234 E. 17th Street #205, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 7051 Avenida de Santiago; Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a single family dwelling. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: Variance No. 3938 was approved by the Zoning Administrator, under Decision No. ZA89-26; approved EIR Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Pickler at the meeting of May 23, 1989, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of June 20, 1989, to August 1, 1989. At the meeting of June 27, 1989 the Council granted the request from Farano & Kieviet to continue the public hearing to today's date in conjunction with Grading Plan No. 1336. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 6, 1989. Posting of property July 6, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 7, 1989. PLA/FNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator dated May 4, 1989. 170/155; CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GRADING PLAN 1336 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: OWNER: Gerald D. & Deborah M. Barnes 743 South Thrasher, Anaheim 92807 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 7051 Aventda de Santiago. The request is grading for construction of a single family home. STAFF ACTION: Grading Plan 1336 was approved by the City Engineer on May 8, 1989. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the City Engineer's decision was submitted by Dianne L. Wilktns, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of July 18, 1989 first to August 1, 1989 and then to this date, in conjunction with Variance No. 3938. (See minutes of July 18 and August 1, 1989). 825 City Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15. 1989, 1;30 P,M, City Attorney White clarified for the Mayor that both public hearings could be conducted concurrently since they involve the same piece of property but decisions should be made separately on each since they will be subject to different findings. Floyd Farano, Farano & Ktevtet, attorney for the applicant. He is present on behalf of the owners, Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Barnes. He first referred to letter submitted dated July 14, 1989 regarding Grading Plan 1336 as well as booklet submitted with photographs and index of photographs showing various homes throughout the Anaheim Hills area accompanied by a map with numbers corresponding to the photographs showing where the pictures had been taken from and the visibility of those homes from those locations (made a part of the record). He first addressed the wall proposed to surround 85% of the property explaining in his presentation why the wall would not present any kind of visual intrusion. The letter of July 14, 1989 with map listed the height of the wall at various locations ranging from 7/10 of a foot to 7.2 feet. He also explained that the wall will be capped and finished in plaster or smooth concrete, painted, and with landscaping around the wall. Relative to Variance No. 3938 regarding height, there are special circumstances that apply to the subject property that do not apply to other properties under identical zoning circumstances. Special circumstances are the lot shape, location, size of the property and the setbacks. The lot does not block or impact the view of any surrounding property. The closest dwelling is approximately 100 feet from the proposed structure. The project and structure are isolated and the views of other properties are oriented away from the location. The strict application of the code limiting the height to 25 feet will deny privileges enjoyed by other properties. It will impose a restriction limiting the architectural design. There will be no significant environmental impart. Originally 19 people signed in objection to the project; six have withdrawn their objection. The property is zoned RS-HS-22,000, it is 3.8 acres, 25,000 square feet are in a pad, the pad is 3.5% of the entire property and 96.5% of the property is left in open space and will be appropriately landscaped. Mr. Farano then briefed letter dated March 8, 1989 from Mr. John Upton addressed to the City Planning Department, recommending that the existing height restriction of 25 feet be increased to a maximum height of 35 feet and to 37 feet for chimneys from the existing natural grade (see letter made a part of the record). He also briefed other submittals relative to the project. Mr. Farano then narrated a video presentation showing the site for the proposed home and by the use of poles on the property the views that residents would have of the home from the 826 City Hall, Ahaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 15. 1989. 1;30 surrounding area. He concluded that the house will be an asset to the City. It is the only undeveloped lot on Avenida de Santiago. They have made the showing that the Council has granted other variances under similar circumstances. The pictures and other evidence introduced indicate that the house is not objectionable. They have fulfilled the requirements and burden to indicate that strict enforcement of the 25-foot rule would be unreasonable and not productive of any benefit to the City. He is requesting that the Council grant the variance. He then introduced Bill Edwards, the architect on the project and Stewart Woodard, architect and lecturer on Hillside development. Mr. Bill Edwards, Principal Architect, William R. Edwards & Associates. He gave a brief synopsis of site planning and building design criteria as they relate to the project. The lot supports a residence of the size proposed. A 25-foot height limitation would not only severely impact the design and traditional proportions of the home so as to destroy its architectural appeal and correctness but also would create a low slope roof as a solution and a building mass such that it would appear to have a flat roof from the sites below. The proposed design is the optimum proposal to their client's program. Stewart Woodard, 245 Fisher Avenue, Costa Mesa, Architect. He has had 20 years experience in Hillside development. If he felt the proposal was an improper.use of the site, he would not be present tonight. This is a very large lot in an environment that has 7,200 square foot lots. He then gave his input on the issue drawing from his extensive experience. What has to be considered is that there will be 3.5 acres of open space around the home on which nothing will be built. He does not see where the architect or the client have done anything at all to jeopardize the environment or take advantage of things that might be a negative impact to the adjacen~ homeowners. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Brent Jones. He has been on the pad itself, below it and looked up, and above it and looked down. Because of the slope of the surrounding area and size of the lot, he does not see how it could impact anybody. It is a beautiful house and something to be proud of in Anaheim. The variance should be granted. Ralph Krumes, 236 Owens Drive. He has appeared before on the height issue. As he has done several times in the past, Mr. Krumes reiterated his concerns relative to the restrictive height limits imposed in Anaheim which he and many others are opposed to. He urged the Council to approve the height variance. 827 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1989, 1;30 P.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Dennis Wilktns, 1070 So. Armstrong Circle. He is speaking on behalf of his family and at the request of many of his neighbors on Armstrong and Columbus Circles, several of whom had to leave due to other commitments. Their area is immediately below the proposed home. Their concern is not only for the impact on them personally but also they feel strongly there is a definite detrimental impact to a large area of the Anaheim Hills community. Relative to the Grading Plan, the statement made by Mr. Farano that homeowners had withdrawn their appeal to the Grading Plan is not correct and has never been the case. Relative to the retaining wall which is proposed to run around the majority of the property, he does not understand how the City Engineer, as stated in his letter of August 7, 1989, does not feel that 250 feet of wall has minimal or no impact on the people who live immediately below. If the project is approved, they are requesting that the landscaping be dealt with as a condition of approval. A statement was made by Mr. Farano indicating how the wall would be constructed and what it would look like. They have no problem with that if it is built to those standards. They want assurance it is built to quality standards and that it be safe so that neither it nor the slope collapse on the people below. Relative to the height, the scenic corridor standards have been in existence, including the 25-foot height limitation, for over 18 years and it is a standard that has served the area well and they want it maintained. They are concerned over the height of the house and location of the wall as it impacts the appearance of the Hills area. The home is not in Hidden Canyon. It is a flag lot below Avenida Del Sol on the north facing slope of the Hillside. It is very visible to hundreds of homes and passers by. Mr. Wilkins then narrated a video presentation showing the site of the proposed home and the visibility of the lot and proposed home from not only the surrounding area but also the visibility of the home two miles away as well. Staff figures show that 51% of the roof area would exceed 25 feet. A point addressed in both issues having to do with the Grading Plan, it would require that the pad height be raised about 18 to 24 inches over what was seen in the video. Putting the house on top of another 2 feet would make a 33.5-foot house 35 feet. In order to be approved for a height variance, the application must meet certain criteria. He then briefed each of the criteria. He also emphasized that a key phrase used by Mr. Farano was special circumstances. He (Wtlkins) sees no special circumstances. He also briefed the Zoning Administrator initial findings and commented on each which he felt were no longer valid. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Wilkins stated that the Zoning C~de was designed to protect property rights. Options 828 City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, 1;30 P,M, are available to any owner when a true hardship exists on a piece of land. This property does not meet that definition. Further, although there were people who did withdraw their objection, others have since joined in the opposition. Dick Poffenberger, 7117 East Columbus Drive, in the Sunset Ridge tract. Seeking height variances generally have little to do with hardship and special circumstances but are usually self-serving. The 25-foot height restriction was implemented in order to maintain the integrity of the Hills and prevent extreme intrusion into the environment. The issue is that a 25-foot height limit is in place to ensure development which blends into Anaheim Hills and complements rather than detracts. They feel the 25-foot height restriction is a sound one to achieve the goals of encouraging and maintaining living areas which preserve the amenities of Hillside living and retain the low density, semi-rural uncongested character of the Santa Aha Canyon area. It should not be necessary for residents to bring this to the attention of the City. The City should point that out to those who seek the variances and send them back to the drawing board to conform to those ordinances which support the General Plan. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Floyd Farano. He will have a difficult time rebutting a statement that the proposed house is objectionable to be seen. The objection by the neighbors is that the house can be seen. He showed additional slides which depicted present homes in the area. He Cannot see how this house would be more objectionable than seeing a house with the garage door open and a camper in front. Relative to the Grading permit, they will stipulate that the wall will be built as he explained and as proposed in the documentation. It will be constructed in the manner stated. He will give the original letter to the City,Clerk for the record. It is true he glossed over the Grading Plan. They were told and led to believe with the changes made and the manner in which they explained the situation and the various heights they gave that the objection to the Grading permit would be withdrawn. The Barnes' are ready, willing and able to landscape the hill so that it is much more attractive than now. He cannot imagine the home being an intrusion to the environment. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Mayor Hunter. He was in favor of the 25-foot height limit under the newly adopted code. He voted for it and advocated it but on the subject Variance and Grading Plan with 3.8 acres of land, he believes the applicant has made a reasonable showing to him. The Zoning Administrator also approved the project. It is 829 City Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, 1;30 P,M, reasonable under the circumstances. He favors the Grading Plan as well and the City Engineer sees no problems. Mr. Farano has stated they will build the wall as stated and they will screen it. Because of the large piece of land, he will deviate from his adherence to the 25-foot height limit upholding the Zoning Administrator decision and the City Engineer's decision relative to the Grading Plan. Councilwoman Kaywood. What the 25-foot height limitation is all about is that the hills are the focal point. To lose sight of the hills, when the tops of ridge lines have all homes and huge houses have great visual impact and the hills can no longer be seen, it is no longer Anaheim Hills or what it was all about and the beauty of the rural area which is so worthwhile keeping. The home is certainly a magnificent one but she cannot approve it. She believes in preserving the hills. Councilman Pickler. He has been to the area and walked it. If he felt the proposal was going to take away from the Hills area, he could not vote for it. It will add to the area. It is a $2.8 million home. When someone says it will depreciate his home again he cannot buy that. He does not feel these homes detract but sometimes add and can enhance and beautify an area. Councilman Ehrle. He voted against the 25-foot height limitation only because he feels that such a limitation is fine for RS-7,200 lots. Anytime someone proposes going above that and into a custom home of 1/2 acre to an acre and in this case 3 acres, that is a different situation. The Council stated it would be considering custom homes on a case-by-case basis. He has a difficult time accepting that Anaheim Hills is rural. The proposed home makes a statement. 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. WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-355) 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-355 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3938, upholding the decision of the City Zoning Administrator. Refer to Resolution Book. 830 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 15. 1989. 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO, 89R-355; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3938. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-355 duly passed and adopted. 170/155; GRADING PLAN 1336 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Councilwoman Kaywood. Her comments are the same for this public hearing. What is trying to be "pushed off" tonight is that everything is 7,200 square feet in Anaheim Hills. That is not true. The Mohler Drive area is a minimum of 22,000 1/2 acre lots, the Peralta Hills area is a minimum one acre lot. Those areas all adhere to 25 feet. Under the Grading Ordinance, something in the Engineer's report stated that they do not care about aesthetics but just the safety factor. With Planning having battled so many years relative to aesthetics, it is impossible to separate the beauty of an area from just the safety factor. It is necessary to consider both. 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. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve Grading Plan 1336, including the finding that the conditions set forth in Section 17.06.~46 of the Anaheim Municipal Code have been met and affirming the decision of the City Engineer. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS; By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (9:27 p.m.) AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (9:35 p.m.) 179; PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE NO, 3968 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: OWNER: George Bach 2925 Rtcker Way, Anaheim, CA 92806 831 City Hall, A~ahetm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, 1;30 P,M, LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2925 Ricker Way. The request is for waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to make interior improvements to an existing industrial building. PROJECT AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR; Variance No. 3968 was approved, ZA89-47: approved EIR Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal was submitted by R. J. DeBlasi, President, Cai-State Auto Parts, Inc., a business located across the street at 2920 Ricker Way. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 3, 1989. Posting of property August 2, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 4, 1989. APPELLANT'S STATEMENT: Richard DeBlasi, President, Cai-State Auto Parts, Inc., 2920 Ricker Way, directly across the street from the subject location. They are opposed for the following reasons: They moved their business from La Palma in 1989 to Ricker Way. Their business grew and they needed more office and warehouse space and desperately needed more parking. They bought a bigger building where they could have large office space and parking mandated accordingly. The subject tenant bought a building and is proposing to convert 75% to an office type building. It is an industrial warehouse type park. By law and by code they are required to have so many parking spaces for so much office and/or warehouse space. They have 16 spaces instead of the required 22. They are requesting a 30% variance which indicates to him they are in the wrong building. Many times they have to park two and three vehicles out in the street because there is no room in the parking lot. If the variance is granted, he questioned what will happen, if in five y~ars the building is sold and the new owners feel they have a building with 75% office space. The building should have 22 spaces and not 16. It is basically a warehouse building. It is a misuse of the property already evidenced by the parking on the street. George Bach, 2925 Ricker Way. The vans parking in the street are not their employees. They discovered that there were two "lovers" who used to meet in front of the building. His is a soils engineering company and cannot operate in an office complex. They have dirt samples and a drill rig. They have a lot of equipment that needs secure storage. One room is a surveying equipment room. The room next to that is a library, another is a file room. It is a warehouse, not office space. They.have 13 employees, six are in the field all the time. They do not bring their personal cars to work. During the day there are four people in the office a part-time typist secretary and a geologist or six employees. As 832 City Hall, ~naheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, 1;30 P,M, to the cars in the parking lot, those cars belong inside the building. The reason they are there now is that the materials they need for the addition are inside the building. They will put the classic cars, which they plan to restore, inside the building. There is also a boat, engine and a motor that should be inside the building. When they finish the interior, they will all be inside. They cannot go into an office park because of the business they are in. They need a warehouse type building. Joel Fick, Planning Director. The Zoning Administrator looked at the site parking available when she was there and a parking demand study was reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and approved. If the Variance is approved, in view of the testimony given, staff would suggest that any parking on site be exclusively available for daily parking for customers and employees and that there be no other on-site storage of any of the parking area. Mr. Bach stated he had no objection to the recommendation by the Planning Director. As soon as they can, they will move the classic cars and boat inside. Mr. DeBlasi. The pictures he submitted were of Mr. Bach's tan van. The white pick up truck belongs to one of his employees. He asked that they not be misled by the "lovers" vans on the other side of the street. The Council should think of the future. There is a mass of offices and extremely little warehouse space. If full in five years and occupied as an office, there is totally inadequate parking. Joel Flck, Planning Director. One of the findings could be that this is granted recognizing this is for a soils testing firm which is.a permitted industrial use and any future uses would have to be industrial in nature. With this application, the Council would not be approving any other type of land use on the project. Mr. DeBlasi stated that would be agreeable as long as it is protected from becoming an office building. Mr. Bach stated he does not have any problems with that. They bought the building because they plan to stay there. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed 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 833 City HalL, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, '1;30 P.M, 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-356) 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-356 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3968 with additional stipulations relative to the 16 permitted on-site parking spaces being available for customer and employee use at all times and that those spaces shall not be used for outdoor storage purposes and finding that any future use of the building would have to be industrial in nature. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 89R-356; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3968. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-356 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO, 3747 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - MODIFICATION OF CONDITION; LOCATION: Tract No. 12576 is located north of Nohl Ranch Road, northeast of Old Bucket Lane. REQUEST: Petitioner requests modification of a condition of Resolution No. 88R-108 (Variance No. 3747). The variance is for a waiver of maximum structural height to construct up .to 38 sin§le-family residences at a height not to exceed 35 feet on property on Tract No. 12576. The City Council granted Variance No. 3747 on March 8, 1988 subject to maximum structural height on lots 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 being restricted to 18 feet with the balance of the lots allowed at 35 feet. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 3, 1989. Posting of property August 2, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 4, 1989. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Tom Mungari, 15432 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 210, Lawndale. He is present with Isco Industries and its President, Ivano Stamegna. This matter was before the Council approximately 1 1/2 years ago. (The last public hearing on the issue was 834 City Hall, A~nahelm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15. 1989, 1;30 P.M. held March 8, 1988, see minutes that date). They are seeking an amendment to Variance No. 3747 which was approved under Council Resolution No. 88R-108. There are 41 lots involved. The applicant at the time brought the application for 38 of those lots on which he was seeking a 35-foot height limitation. There was an emotional debate and the Council restricted five of those lots to an 18-foot height limitation. The variance allowed 35 feet on the remaining lots. He believes a second look is reasonable at this time. Six lots have been sold and are under construction. All structures are 2-story ranging from 7,500 square feet to approximately 13,000 square feet. Those houses will set the standard of those to follow. The lots with the 18-foot restriction are all contiguous and located on the east side of the development. They are being restricted to single-story homes which is creating a distinct appendage in the development. They questioned the rationale of the Council's decision 1 1/2 years ago. There were three lots that were not included in the applicant's initial request for variance. For some reason in the outcome, two additional lots were added and the height for those lots was reduced to 18 feet. Lot 37 is not going to impede any view since it backs up to Nohl Ranch Road and is further restricted by a storm drain easement. To construct a house on that lot that meets the minimum square footage in the CC&R's will be difficult. It will have limited landscaping and will appear quite distinct. Lot 33 is adjacent to Lot 31 on the map but it is substantially lower than Lot 31. He asked the Council to take another look at the situation 1 1/2 years after the emotions have subsided. Since the time the application was filed, three of the lots have been sold and no longer owned by Ivano Stamegna. The owners are present and join in the request. Mayor Hunter. There have been extensive public hearings on the issue. In reading the minutes of March 8, 1988, the~e was a great deal of compromise worked out with a lot of people. His "gut" reaction is that they are trying to renege on something agreed upon. He was also not under the understanding the requested modification of conditions was being brought by several people and that the Council will have to deal with more than one owner. Larry Souza, President of Sogar Construction. He is speaking for the street of Copa de Oro. They just sold a house for $2.2 million. It will probably be the most influential street in all of Orange County. There will be five lots that can only build to 18 feet. They have to do something to make the total street compatible. They have to consider what is going to happen to the rest of the street. D.J. Hellier, 5317 Clear Ridge Terrace. She is prgsent on behalf of the petitioners and owners of Lots 33, 34 and 36. She has been involved with all of the buyers and 835 City Hall, ~naheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES August 15, 1989, 1:30 P.M. their plans. She is fully aware of the height restriction on the five lots. She also attended the hearings when the 35-foot height was given to the other lots but never got a clear understanding as to why the five subject lots were restricted to 18 feet. They are at the very bottom of the hill. There is not one 1-story house being constructed in the development. These people have to adhere to the same CC&R's and bylaws as all other people who build 2-story homes. They should not be disciplined. Perhaps the Council could make some kind of compromise, something between 18 feet and 35 feet so as to have conformity throughout the community and allow those people to build 2-stories. Relative to Lot 37, she spoke to an Engineer, Hall Raab. The storm drain easement will take about 1/3 of that pad. She asked some kind of reasonable agreement so that these five people could also build 2-story homes. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: Alex Wtlk, 340 South Coyote, owner of Lot 33. In order for him to build his dream house he needs to build 2-stories. The house is not disturbing anything. He questioned how he could build an English Tudor house only 18 feet high. He asked that the Council give him something so he can build his house. Ralph Krumes. Until they get a realistic height ordinance in Anaheim, they will have people present on a regular basis. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Don Ptliero, 411 Brook Lane. He was surprised that the variance has come up again. Many people were present but had to leave. District Attorney Joe Smith and Mr. Don Van Hoff have allowed him to speak for them. The most important issue is the unanimous request by the Planning Department to reject the variance modification request as outlined in staff report dated August 8, 1989. He then briefed a few points from the many long hours of previous hearings before the Council. Mayor Bay stated all the builders come purporting innocence yet they know of the restrictions in Anaheim Hills and the intent from the start is to overturn the variance and the CC&R's. He also stated if the residents give the developer must also give. The 29 homeowners in the development on the east came before the Council and the Council by a four to one vote restricted the height on the five lots to 18 feet and stated the integrity of that decision would be protected and that the Council in the future would not allow the argument of the 36 other lots to take issue with their height vs. the subject five lots. The residents were concerned about that occurring in the future. The reason was when the Council 836 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, 1;30 P.M. was made aware of the reality that on those five subject lots that the pads were originally raised anywhere from 20 to 25 feet, it would create a situation where if 35 foot homes were built on those eastern lots, the obstruction to their views, homes and quality of life would be 17 feet of home, not roof line, sitting behind them. It was stated that the residents' artists rendition overstated the situation. Councilman Pickler had stated they may have exaggerated the roof line because the roof line would not be uniform. The integrity of the Council must be kept by upholding their promise and commitments to their constituents. Twenty-nine homeowners have all signed a petition and he is speaking for them. This situation is not the same as the previous hearing where 3.8 acres was involved. Developers say they are going to do things and their concern is for the neighborhood. The residents have been at meetings for two years, but they have never been contacted by the developer to show the residents what they plan to do. They also state they are surprised about the variance and the restrictions. He questions how _that could be since the restrictions are in the covenants. They came before the Council knowing the restrictions and then appealed that they be overturned. He then briefed some of the statements made at the last public hearing relative to a compromise. Councilwoman Kaywood had pointed out that the pads had beer raised, now they were asking for additional height on three more lots. They want all the lots. They have no concern for the neighbor's quality of life or their rights. It was stated that Copa de Oro will be the center of Anaheim and all the rest of Anaheim will pale in comparison. He thought the issue was the variance request, the hindrance, the deterioration of the quality of life of the residents - and not economics. They appeal to the Council to uphold their commitment to them. The residents made compromise after compromise. They do not want the c6ndtttons of the variance to be overturned. He then submitted photographs of the homes presently under construction, some of the lots in the tract, the view from Rolling Hills Drive and the house built on Lot 32 with a single uniform unbroken roof line, one which Councilman Pickler had stated he would not allow. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that it does affect their view but they conceded that view because it was stated it was a far view. However, the lots behind them are directly adjoining their property. He also contacted Blue Ribbon Builders, a reputable builder in Orange County asking what the minimum home pad lot would be for them to build a 5,000 square-foot single-family home that they would recommend to anyone; the answer, 8,000 to 11,000 square feet. The subject pads are 19,000 to 23,000 square foot. There is no hindrance or hardship. They want to build those houses behind 837 City Hall, ~nahetm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, 1;30 P,M. the residents. Their quality of life will be destroyed. Relative to Lot 37 butting up to Nohl Ranch Road, the house will also abut the house in the corner on Brook Lane. There is no intrusion on Nohl Ranch Road but that is not where the residents homes are located. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive. The City Council and Planning Commission some time ago listened to many days of arguments and compromises made by both sides. Now the issue comes back and the owners want to compromise away some of the things that the homeowners have given up. The residents want to hear that the Council has the integrity and credibility to live up to agreements that have been made in the past. The people coming in to buy the lots which would, in fact, block the view of the neighbors to the east, presumably when they bought the lots, should have been informed by the sales agent that tkere were restrictions. They knew what the restrictions were but are now saying they are not being treated fairly. The Council should have the integrity to abide by previous decisions and protect the homeowners on the east side. He was involved in looking at the lots when they were first evaluated. Test balloons were sent up to show the heights. It was determined that the 35-foot height would block the view of the homes adjacent to the eastern lots of the development. It is important to remember that when making a decision tonight. To him it is a matter of integrity. PETITIONER'S STATEMENT: Tom Mungart. He does not believe the idea of the integrity of the City Council will be impugned by a second look at the project. It is a different perspective and a different issue. Looking at those five lots, they do not impede any views, particularly Lot 37. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Councilman Ehrle. He was in on the balloon tests and everything else they went through. At this point, he is not quite sUre why they chose 18 feet. He does know why they chose not to have 35 feet. It was because of the balloon tests and line of view. He does believe things have changed. He feels 35 feet is too much but that 18 feet is too restrictive. Only single-family homes can be built. Not even a 2-story Spanish design could be built. It would at least have to be a minimum of 25 feet. He would support 25 feet. Mayor Hunter. The homeowners to the east were there before the Vic Peloquin (Peralta Hills East) project was conceived. He referred to and quoted portions of the minutes of the March 8, 1988 public 838 City Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 15. 1989, 1;30 P,M, hearing when the Council granted the variance with the condition allowing only 18-foot homes on Lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37. The residents to the east bought their homes because they were expecting some enjoyment from their houses in being able to have a view. Mr. Krueger is right. The Council has a duty to maintain their integrity which will not be maintained this evening if they vote other than they did in 1988. After many public hearings and a great deal of testimony, they came to a compromise. He had stated at the March 8, 1988 meeting if a compromise was not worked out, he was ready to deny the requested variance in total at that time. He could not vote differently today than he did previously. Councilman Pickler. He was the lone vote opposed to the 18-foot height restriction at the previous public hearing. He feels if they leave the 18-foot height restriction on those five lots, they will be penalizing the area. Don Piliero. The 18 feet was not a height limitation picked out of the air. It was because when the information was substantiated that the lots and pads were raised 22 feet and not built to the original terrace that they had, Mayor Bay stated that at anything above the 18 feet, the roof of the house will now start appearing. That is why the height was established at 18 feet. The residents made all the compromises. Councilman Ehrle. According to the newly adopted code, there is a new measurement device. Before it was finished grade and now it is the first level. He asked staff if that would make a difference relative to height. Joel Fick. . On this project he would say no. At the time the variance was approved, the measurement was specific to the pads. Councilman Daly. There is probably no perfect solution either way but a fair solution, and it applies all throughout Anaheim Hills, is a 25-foot limit. Homes in the neighboring tract are 25 feet. He does not think there is any right or wrong and that is a fair standard the Council can apply. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by Councilman Pickler, 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. 839 City Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15. 1989. 1;30 P,M, WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-357) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-357 for adoption, granting the modification of the condition of Resolution No. 88R-108, Variance No. 3747 allowing a 25-foot height limit on Lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 89R-357; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN VARIANCE NO. 3747 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-108. Before action was taken, City Attorney White asked for confirmation if it is the Council's desire to allow 25 feet from finished grade which is not what the current ordinance would be without applying the variance. The current ordinance would measure from the finished floor and would allow,-in some instances, higher than 25 feet for a portion of the roof line. There are two ways to go - the Code would allow 25 feet from the lowest finished floor plus it could be higher than 25 feet for a portion of the structure, up to 30 feet, or the other measurement is to simply change the 18 feet to 25 feet. It would still be measuring from finished grade and would not allow any projections above the 25 feet.- Joel Fick, Planning Director. The original height at 18 feet was garnered from the height where the roof line would project above the pad level from the homes on Brook Lane. Any height standard the Council would want to impose, since this is a variance with special conditions on the tract, they could choose a height measurement from the pad area or existing code standards. . Councilman Daly. To be consistent, he would recommend they apply the same standard as the rest of the hills - 25 feet with chinmey or parapet projections, whatever the existing ordinance says. City Attorney White. If the resolution is being offered that way, it would be to delete Condition No. 8 from Resolution No. 88R-108. That would then bring into play the existing code requirements limiting the height to 25 feet measured in accordance with the way the height is currently measured allowing projections the Code currently allows. Councilman Daly asked if staff saw any problems with that. 840 Gtty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15. 1989._1:30 P.M. Joel Ffck, Planning Director. He referred to the information that came from the previous hearings from the tests. They looked at two different aspects, one was a standard which they called view obstructing where one could actually look out and something would be blocking the view and another term was view impacting where homes could be seen in the distance. His recollection is that the 18-foot height limit was imposed because beyond that was considered to be view obstructing from the homes to the east. Based upon the previous pad elevation information submitted, going above 18 feet would mean that the roof lines would be visible and view obstructing to the homes to the east. Councilman Daly. Architecturally speaking a 2-story home could be built at 25 feet with chimneys and all the other things at 25 feet and there would be no severe architectural problem in doing that. Joel Ftck. That is correct. When they did the overall examination of the 25-foot height limit, they found some architectural styles are hampered by a 25-foot height limit. He does not recall any variances having been applied for since the new ordinance has been passed. Sonja Grewal, 400 South Canyon Ridge Drive. There are some figures that did not get to the Council. Mr. Fick mentioned view obstruction. With a 25-foot structure, because the pads on the lots have been raised, reading from the builder's height study "with a 25-foot house, the people on Brook Lane will be looking into 13 feet of roof, 9 feet of roof on three of the lots, and 7 feet of roof on the others." This is looking out so that their view is totally obstructed. With 18 feet they would be able to look over the structure. Prior to the Grading, they could have looked completely over even a 35-foot home. ' Councilman Pickler clarified that the offering of his resolution was to the current Code. City Attorney White confirmed that the action would be to delete Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. 88R-108 which would have the effect of allowing the five lots to be built in accordance with the current height limitations in the Code, 25 feet above the lowest finished floor area with certain projections allowed. Councilwoman Kaywood. She asked that the offering at least be the 25 feet without the projections. The new Code did not exist at the time the matter came up previously; Councilman Pickler reiterated that the offering of the resolution is under current Code (25 feet with projections allowed). 841 City Hall, ~nahetm. California COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15, 1989, 1~30 P,M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she is going to have to support what the Council originally approved. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution, deleting Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. 88R-108 with the building heights on Lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37, not to exceed 25 feet except as otherwise permitted by Code. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle and Pickler Kaywood and Hunter None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-357 duly passed and adopted. City Attorney White. There are existing covenants recorded against the five lots limiting the height to 18 feet. The Council, by motion needs to authorize the execution of a release of the covenants. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize the release of the covenants recorded limiting Lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 to 18 feet. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Hunter voted no. MOTION CARRIED. 179/114: ALTERNATIVES ON COMMERCIAL-RECREATION STANDARDS REVIEW; Councilman Pickler referred to the memorandum the Council received from the Planning Director relative to the 130-room hotel proposed on West Katella which the Council denied on July 25, 1989 after several public hearings. It seems that the hotel can 'still be built without the requested variance. He does not like the prospect of putting a moratorium in the C-R area but is wondering if there is some way a design review process could be put in place so that the Council can be aware of what is occurring in that area. A report is in process that will be coming to the Council from the Planning Department relative to the C-R area that could change standards in the area. He is cogcerned that the hotel is going to be built before they have the benefit of the input from the report which could change things. Councilman Daly surmised that Councilman Pickler's concern was that the City's Building Code standards may be raised in a few months in that area, but in the meantime the developer can meet Code and build a proposed hotel. City Attorney White then explained the legal aspects of two types of zoning ordinances that could be adopted and take effect immediately if the Council so desired. Councilwoman Kaywood commented on the fact that the proposed project on both sides on the property line were going down to 20 feet with steel reinforcement. If this is done and it works, if that is a sign of the future, there will not be an inch of space on any site. 842 City Hall, ~naheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - August 15. 1989. 1:30 P.M. Joel Ftck, Planning Director. Answering Councilwoman Kaywood, he stated according to the plan, the number of units would remain the same. The project would still be constructed on an aerial view quite similarly but the frontage in terms of the City Council denial of the plan will have quite a different impact. They are complying with all Code requirements relative to landscaping. Parking would also have to be in compliance with Code. Councilman Pickler. The reason he does not want a moratorium is because other people are building in the area and coming in with something positive. He does not want to hold them up. Councilman Daly. He asked that staff suggest alternatives to the Council that would apply during the interim period. It could be that they will stick with the current Code. Mayor Hunter stated there should be some type of interim stop gap until the C-R study is.completed. 107/114; PROACTIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned that when Code Enforcement Officers go into the field and see violations other than the ones they were called out on, they are not allowed to investigate that violation. She believes they should be allowed to do so and to cite the violation at that time. She asked that the matter be placed on the Council agenda next week for discussion. The remaining Council Members indicated no objection to placement of this item on the agenda. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION; Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to Closed Session to consider the balance of the items listed under the Closed Session agenda. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:03 p.m.) AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (11:30 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT; Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn. seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:31 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK Coun§tlwoman Kaywood 843