1988/02/09City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
SENIOR PLANNER: Mary McCloskey
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Leonard McGhee
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:00 p.m. on February 5, 1988 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. 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 0.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59.
b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(b)(1).
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:10 p.m.)
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: Dr. Laurence Downing, Anaheim Adventist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Fred Hunter led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: DECLARATIONS OF RECOGNITION: Declarations of Recognition were
unanimously adopted by the City Council recognizing the Loara High
School/Denny's Restaurant Partnership Program and Gilbert High School/Denny's
172
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Restaurant Partnership Program - a unique relationship between a public
school, students and a chosen partner from the community.
119: PRESENTATION - ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Commemorating the opening of
the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Center. Mr. Robert Sloane, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Anaheim Memorial Hospital, briefed the Council on the
opening of the Hospital's new Magnetic Resonance Imaging Center, the latest
breakthrough in diagnostic imaging using a non-invasive technique. Directors
of Anaheim Memorial Hospital were present in the Chamber audience along with
Allan Hughes, Chairman of the Board. Before concluding their presentation,
the hospital's representatives presented the Council with pins commemorating
the facility's 30th anniversary and other tokens marking the opening of the
Hospital in Anaheim in 1958 when there were 56 beds.
Mayor Bay and the Council congratulated Mr. Sloane and the Directors, stating
that Anaheim was fortunate to have such a fine Hospital within its boundaries.
119: PRESENTATION - GIFT FROM CORNELIA (SHETL~R) VOGT AND EMMA (SHETLER)
FLOWERS: Gift of $1,000 was presented to the City of Anaheim from Cornelia
Vogt and Emma Flowers for purchase of materials for tne Anaheim History Room.
Making the presentation where Elizabeth Schultz, Emeritus Member of the
Library Board and Opal Kissinger, retired curator of the Anaheim History
Room. Mrs. Schultz explained that she tried but was unable to convince
Cornelia and Emma to attend the meeting today but Councilman Ehrle will give a
short presentation.
Councilman Ehrle, as liaison to the Library Board, gave a short history of the
Shetler Family who were "pioneers" in the City of Anaheim having arrived in
1911.
Mayor Bay and Council Members expressed their thanks on behalf of the City for
the generosity of both Mrs. Vogt and Flowers.
Councilman Bay moved to accept the gift of $1,000 allocating it to Account
Nos. 01-3192 and 01-1705125. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTI0~
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
American History Month In Anaheim - February, 1988.
Mrs. George Zuerlein accepted the American History Month proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held January 26, 1988. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,986,650.58, in
accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved.
173
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickier, 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. 88R-51 through 88R-65, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 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 Paul Wisniewski for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 12, 1987.
b. Claim submitted by Jay Kauble for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 7, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by Walter Miller for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 9, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by Angelo Lardas for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 29, 1987.
e. Claim submitted by Kimberly Vanover for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 17, 1987.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Minutes of the regular meeting of the Anaheim Library Board,
December 23, 1987.
b. 140: Anaheim Public Library Statistical Reports for November and
December 1987.
3. 179: Granting a one-year extension of time expiring on February 18, 1989,
to Conditional Use Permit No. 2727 so that the applicant (California Lutheran
Homes) may comply with conditions of approval.
4. 179: Granting a one-year extension of time expiring on January 29, 1989,
to Conditional Use Permit No. 2634, so that the applicant (William P.
Draganza) may comply with conditions of approval.
5. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $25,873.46 for four
Compaq 386 computers, operating software and one color monitor in accordance
with Bid Proposal #A-4533.
6. 123: Authorizing cooperative maintenance agreements with Buena Park for
traffic signal maintenance at Crescent/Dale and Knott/Lincoln.
174
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
7. 123: Approving the amendment to agreement with Safety Striping Services,
Inc. for pavement striping marking to provide for a 5% annual cost adjustment,
increasing the contract to $194,460.
8. 164: Authorizing an assessment of liquidated damages in the amount of
$4,070 from John T. Malloy, Inc. Contractor, Wagner-Sunkist Storm Drain
Improvement and granting an extension of time of 21 days.
9. 124/123: Approving the terms and conditions of agreements as follows in
connection with the sale of Community Center Authority Lease Revenue Bonds,
Series E, in the approximate amount of $62 million for financing of Betterment
III Expansion, Convention Center Parking Structure and the Stadium Concourse
Area Renovation Project.
124/123: Agreement employing Jones Hall Hill & White as bond counsel
regarding the sale of lease revenue bonds for Convention Center Betterment III
Expansion, Convention Center Parking Structure and Stadium Concourse Area
Renovation Project.
124/123: Agreement employing Seidler-Fitzgerald Public Finance as financial
advisor to the City regarding this competitive sale of lease revenue bonds.
10. 150/i52: Ratifying the terms and conditions of an agreement with Jones
Hall Hill & White to provide legal services in connection with escrow
restructuring - $31.2 million Certificates of Participation (1986 Refinancing
Project A), in the amount of $i,000; and a letter agreement with Peat Marwick
Main & Co. to provide mathematical verification services in the amount of
$2,000.
11. 160: Approving a permit for the Anaheim Athletic Boxing Club to conduct
an amateur boxing exhibition/tournament at the Martin Recreation Center on
February 21, 1988.
12. 160: Accepting the low bid of Leonard Chaidez, DBA: Leonard Chaidez Tree
Service in the amount of $13,980 for tree trimming removal projects, in
accordance with Bid Proposal #4546.
13. 160: Accepting the low bid of Woody Chevrolet in the amount of $33,756.51
for two one-ton trucks with service body, in accordance with Bid Proposal
~A-4540.
14. 160: Accepting the bid of Woody Chevrolet in the amount of $421,777.71,
for thirty 1988 Caprice police patrol sedans per Bid Proposal #A-4544.
15. 160: Authorizing the Purctmsing Agent to issue a purchase order, without
competitive bidding, to McMahan Desk, Inc., Anaheim, California, in the amount
of $13,347.86, for modular workstations and accessories at the Police
Department Records Bureau.
16. 123: Authorizing the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to the
Disposition & Development Agreement by and among the City, the Housing
Authority and Chevy Chase Anaheim Partners, allocating an additional $300,000
in rehabilitation loans to the project.
175
1!
City Hall, AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, i988, 1:30 P.M.
17. 123: Approving a contract with Korn/Ferry International for recruitment
services to fill the positions of Public Utilities Assistant General Manager -
Engineering; Electrical Engineering Manager, and Principal Electrical
Engineer; and further authorizing relocation expenses based upon the Public
Utilities General Manager's recommendation.
18. 123: Approving the First Amendment to the Agreement dated August 10, 1982
with Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Service, Inc. establishing an hourly
rate of compensation of $250 and a not-to-exceed annual total of $20,000.
19. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-51: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR
CERTAIN CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT.
(to adjust salary range upward to SR05 for Public Utilities Financial
Requirements Analyst; and to create a new management classification of Public
Utilities Financial Services Analyst at salary range SR04, effective
February 5, 1988)
20. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-52: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-362 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE RATES OF
COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT. (to adjust the salary range structure by 5%)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-53: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-363 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE RATES OF
COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (to adjust the salary range structure by 5%)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-364 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE RATES OF
COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY. (to adjust the salary range structure by 5%)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-365 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE RATES OF
COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT PAY POLICIES FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS
PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT. (to adjust the salary range structure
by 5~)
21. 000/140: RE§0LUTION NO. §8R-56~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISNING FEES TO BE CF~kRGED FOR USE OF VIDEO CASSETTE
CIRCULATION BY ANAHEIM PUBLIC LIBRARY.
22. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-57: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTIONAND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Route 91/57
Overcrossing Approach Landscaping Improvement (Bids to be opened March 17,
1988, 2:00 p.m.)
23. 101: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-58: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Anaheim Stadium Exhibit
176
19-
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Facilities - Bids to be opened March 29, 1988, 2:00 pm., in the Anaheim Room,
Anaheim Stadium)
24. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-59: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Barrier Free Anaheim
No. 12) (B-1 Enterprise Corporation, and authorizing the recording of the
Notice of Completion)
25. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-60: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING AT.L PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 886 AND
DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 4323 NULL AND VOID. (in compliance with condition of
approval for Variance No. 3704)
26. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-61: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 266i AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 85R-i58NULLAND VOID. (in
compliance with condition of approval for Variance No. 3566)
27. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-62: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ATJ, PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 24i2
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 72R-442 NULL AND VOID. (in compliance with
condition of approval for Reclassification No. 87-88-05)
28. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-63: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING AT.L PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION NO.
81-82-11 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-69 NULL AND VOID. (in compliance
with condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2860)
179: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-64: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 3249 AND
DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-70 NULLAND VOID. (in compliance with condition
of a~proval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2860)
29. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-65: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING AT.T. PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 124 AND
DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 1727 NULL AND VOID. (in compliance with condition of
approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2029)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 88R-51 through 88R-65:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-51 through 88R-65, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
179: VARIANCE NO. 3706 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-492: Amending
Resolution No. 87R-492, nunc pro tunc, to delete subparagraph (b) of condition
177
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
no. 1 of said resolution, pertaining to "wing walls" in Variance No. 3706.
Submitted was report dated February 3, 1988 from the City Attorney, Jack
White, recommending adopting a resolution to amend Resolution No. 87R-492 if
it was the City Council's intention not to require the "wing walls" on the
block wall along Nohl Ranch Road to be lowered in height.
City Attorney White briefed the issue in detail. He stated this matter is
being brought back to the Council today for the Council to determine its
intention at the time the height variance was approved with regard to the
"wing walls" area. It is not a public hearing or an avenue for the Council to
change its decision from the decision made at the time of the public hearing.
If the Council desires to change its decision, that would require another
public hearing and an amendment to the existing variance that was approved.
Measurements indicated on the plan submitted shows that 311 feet plus a few
inches of wall height will be reduced.
This did not count the "wing walls" portions. The discussion concerned the
310 to 315 linear feet of the wall, consisting of seven openings which would
be lowered in height. The plan appears to conform to each of those numbers
with the exception that the resolution specifies 315 feet as a minimum and the
actual distance shown in the plan indicates approximately 3il feet.
Mayor Bay. He recalled that Council Members Pickler and Hunter made up the ad
hoc committee assigned to work the problem. The footage the Council agreed
on, if it matches that closely without considering the "wing walls", it is his
assumption that the "wing walls" were not included.
Councilman Pickler. They did meet with Mr. Peloquin and his representatives
and Bob Zemel of the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition. What stands out in his
mind is the footage. He also reviewed the matter with the City Attorney and
the Planning Department. His interpretation is that the rear setback area was
to be lowered which did not include the "wing walls" portions.
Councilman Hunter. He never had any discussion with the developer with regard
to the "wing walls". Looking at the totality of the wall which is 5/8's of a
mile, seven lowered openings consisting of approximately 311 feet is basically
100 Nards. He is certain they would all agree that the issue of the "wing
walls" is vague and ambiguous. He is not one to vote a nunc pro tunc
resolution and say that it matches the 311 feet. What the Council should do
is give everyone an opportunity to be heard and that a public hearing he held
on the issue of whether or not the Council is going to make the developer
lower the wing portions. In reading the minutes, the word recess is used more
than any other word. Recess to him means all seven openings whether the "wing
walls" or the back side of the walls. That is his interpretation. The issue
warrants another public hearing.
Councilman Pickler. He does not agree that there should be another public
hearing. With the footage there are seven openings and even though he would
like to have more, he is going to approve the amendment.
Councilman Ehrle was of the opinion that the matter should go to arbitration
just as some other issues have been settled in that manner.
178
10
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-66)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 88R-b6 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDINGRESOLUTION NO. 87R-492, NUNCPRO TUNC.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
Ehrle and Hunter
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-66 duly passed and adopted.
175.]23: EDISON ANAHEIM AMF2qDMENTS TO TRANSMISSION SERVICE AND INTERRUPTIBLE
TRANSMISSION AGREEMENTS: Councilman Bay moved to approve (1) Amendment No. 1
to the Edison-Anaheim Intermountain Power Project (IPP) Firm Transmission
Service Agreement, and (2) Amendment No. 3 to the Edison-Anaheim Interruptible
Transmission (ITS) agreements, as recommended in memorandum dated January 22,
1988 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held February l, 1988, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 12619:
C.J. Queyrel, Request is for an extension of time to comply with
conditions of approval on property located southwesterly of the
intersection of Silver Dollar Lane and Eucalyptus Drive.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to expire
February 3, 1989.
2. NOTICE FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA - OPERATION OF A PAROLE OFFICE AT AT 1400
NORTH BURTON PLACE:
The City Planning Commission recommends that the City Council inform the
State Department of General Services that the operation of a State Parole
Office at 1400 North Burton Place is not consistent with the City's
General Plan designation (General Industrial) and Zoning (Industrial,
Limited) for the site, and further that should they wish to pursue their
proposal they should proceed with a Conditional Use Permit application to
provide an opportunity for the surrounding property owners to be informed
and to comment on the proposed use.
179
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Jack White. He does not have a problem with the first part
of the recommendation, that the proposed use is not consistent with the
City's General Plan designation. However, he does not agree with the
second part that if the State wishes to pursue their proposal, they should
~roceed to file a CUP application with the City of Anaheim. Legally, the
State is not required to comply with City zoning in connection with
locating a state facility. The City can ask them to comply and the State
would have a choice of whether to file or not. If they did and the
Planning Commission or Council denied the use or, if approved, they would
have to comply with conditions imposed, under both scenarios, that would
not be the case. While the Council could request them to comply, he is
not sure legally that would be the wisest course of action.
Mayor Bay. He agrees with the City Attorney. The State should be
notified that what they are proposing is not consistent but there is no
way the City can force the State to apply for, or enforce a CUP.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the City inform the State that
their intention to operate a Parol Office at 1400 North Burton Place is
not consistent with the City's General Plan. Councilman Hunter seconded
the motion.
Before action was taken, City Attorney White clarified that there are two
different avenues they could pursue - determine if the State is complying
with the CEQA to determine whether they have done an EIR or a Negative
Declaration and if there is a problem in that regard, that they be
notified. Secondly, some research could be done with regard to the site
as to potential deed restrictions or other conditions that might exist.
After further discussion on the issue, a vote was taken on the foregoing
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: REVIEW OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISIONS - JANUARY 28, i988:
1. VARIANCE NO. 3712, EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 5
®
OWNER: Gary Richard Johnson, 268 Flower Street, Costa Mesa, 92627
LOCATION: 2200 South Loara Street
Waiver of minimum structural setback to retain a trash enclosure in a
front yard.
Decision No. ZA88-01 - Approved in part.
CEQA FINDING: Categorical Exemption approved.
VARIANCE NO. 3752, EIR- NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNERS: Arnt G. Quist, 3737 Birch Street, Suite 200, N.B. 97660
AGENT: E1 Centro Foods, 693042 Tujunga Avenue, N. Hollywood 91605
LOCATION: 300 South Anaheim Boulevard
Waiver of required number of parking spaces to permit a take-out
restaurant in a proposed commercial center.
Decision No. ZA88-02 approved Variance No. 3752.
CEQA FINDING: Negative Declaration approved.
180
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
The decision of the Zoning Administrator on Variance No. 3752 was set for
a public hearing at the request of Councilwoman Kaywood.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held January 18, 1988, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
The following items were considered by the Planning Commission at their
meeting held January 18, 1988 and are considered final and effective unless an
appeal is filed prior to 5:00 p.m. this date or a member of the City Council
sets an item for Public Hearing.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 224 (READVERTISED)
CEQA FINDING: Negative Declaration
INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92805
LOCATION: Subject study area is in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and
Monte Vista Road
To consider an amendment to the General Plan proposing the designation of
a police station in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and Monte Vista Road.
APPROVAL recommended by the City Planning Commission, PC88-21, in
accordance with Exhibit A.
Negative Declaration approved.
2. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-01 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 283
OWNERS: RICHARD ~].IAN WAIJ.ACE, ET AL., c/o The Register, 625 N. Grand
Avenue, Santa Aha, CA 92711
AGENTS:FRANK ELFEND, ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES, 1151 Dove Street, Suite 130,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: Subject location is approximately 325 acres located southeast of
the southerly terminus of Weir Canyon Road & southwest of Santa Aha Canyon
Road, Sycamore Canyon (Formerly Wallace Ranch)
Request for adoption of a Specific Plan including zoning and development
standards, and a Public Facilities Plan and to consider a Fiscal Impact
Analysis for the Sycamore Canyon Development to provide for the
development of up to 1~119 residential units~ 20 acres of commercial uses~
133 acres of general open space (including 2 parks) and a junior high
school.
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED for Specific Plan 88-01, PC88-22
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED for Zoning & Development Standards, PC88-23.
CEQA FINDINGS: EIR NO. 283 Certified
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: That the City Council review
these actions.
Public Hearing scheduled this date, see page 17.
City Planning Commission requested City Council review of these
applications, public hearing scheduled this date. See public hearing
portion of today's agenda.
181
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 237 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-24~ CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2970,VARIANCE NO. 3746 - CEQA FINDING: NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
o
OWNER: ANGELO BRUTOCA0 ET. AL., 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: HUGO A. VAZQUEZ, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 1925 W. Lincoln Avenue
To consider an amendment to the General Plan to redesignate subject
property from General Commercial land uses to Medium Density Residential
land uses.
CL to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waivers of (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum building site area per
dwelling unit, (c) maximum structural height and (d) minimum distance
between buildings to construct a 220-unit, 58-foot high, 4 to 6-story
"affordable" apartment complex.
City Planning Commission requested City Council review of these
applications, public hearing scheduled this date. See public hearing
portion of today's agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED:
APPROVED GPA 237 by the City Planning Commission, PC88-24, Exhibit A.
APPROVED RECLASSIFICATION 87-88-24, by City Planning Commission PC88-25
GRANTED VARIANCE NO. 3746, by City Planning Commission PC88-26
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2970 Withdrawn)
Negative Declaration approved.
The above items were appealed by the Agent, Hugo Vazquez, and Public
Hearing scheduled this date.
5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-37 - CEQA FINDING: NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNERS: AUGUSTIN V. LOPEZ AND ZELFA D. LOPEZ, 905 S. Euclid, Anaheim, CA
92805
AGENTS: T.A.S.B. INC., 15935 San Miguel, La Mirada, CA 90638
LOCATION: 1124-1126 West Center Street
CG TO RM-1200 or a less intense zone to construct a 5-unit apartment
building.
RECI~SSIFICATION 87-88-37 DENIED by the City Planning Commission, PC88-27
Ne§ative Declaration approved.
6. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-38~ VARIANCE NO. 3745 - CEQA FINDING: NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNERS: RONALD T. BOSWRI.T. AND TESTA ALMAEMMA BOSW~.L]., 2033 Park Ridge,
Norco, CA 91763, ATTN: MARY LOUISE PLICET, 19811 Burliegh Street, Yorba
Linda, CA 92686
AGENTS: SAMAN CONSTRUCTION, 1240 N. Van Buren, Ste. 101, Anaheim, CA
92807
ATTN: RAFAT SAMAN
LOCATION: 2011 and 2017 West Ball Road
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
~aiver of maximum structural height to construct a 28-unit, 3-story
apartment complex.
182
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
GRANTED RECLASS. NO. 87-88-38 to RM-2400, City Planning Commission, PC88-28
DENIED VARIANCE NO. 3745, City Planning Commission, PC88-29.
Negative Declaration approved.
7. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PF/LMIT NO. 2976 - CEQA
FINDING: NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: PAUL REYNOLDS ET. AL., P.O. BOX 10534, Newport Beach, CA 92658
AGENT: ELBERTASHLAND, 13191 Gilbert Street, Garden Grove, CA 92644
LOCATION: 421 E. Cerritos Avenue
To permit repair of rental automobiles with waivers of (a) minimum
landscaped setback, (b) minimum number and type of parking spaces, and (c)
minimum dimension of parallel parking spaces.
GRANTED by the City Planning Commission, PC88-30.
Negative Declaration approved.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2978 - CEQA FINDING: NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNERS: CANYON ACRES RESIDENTIAL CENTER INC., 233 S. Quintana, Anaheim,
CA 92806
ATTN: DANIEL MC QUAID
LOCATION: 233 S. quintana (Canyon Acres Residential Center)
To expand an existing boarding and lodging home for 40 dependent children,
including the construction of 3 additional 10-bedroom residences, a garage
storage building and conversion of an existing ranch house into an office
and multipurpose administrative building.
GRANTED by the City Planning Commission, PC88-31.
Negative Declaration approved.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2979 - CEQA FINDING: NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNERS: JAMES W. DENNEHY AND CYNTHIA L. DENNEHY, 1915 0rangewood Avenue,
Orange, CA 92668
AGENTS: ONSHORE INVESTMENT LAND INC., 110 W. Ocean Boulevard, #354, Long
Beach, CA 90802
LOCATION: 2060 S. Santa Cruz Avenue
To permit a ch/id care nursey for a maximum of 164 children.
GRANTED by the City Planning Commission, PC88-32.
Negative Declaration approved.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2980 - CEQA FINDING: NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNERS: ROBERT F. LOTT JR. AND PATRICIA J. LOTT, 2830 E. Miraloma Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 2830 East Miraloma Avenue
To permit accessory retail sales in conjunction with an existing
contractor's supply business.
GRANTED by the City Planning Commission, PC88-33.
Negative Declaration approved.
183
71
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-18, VARIANCE NO. 3710 - CEQA FINDING: NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
--U~ SPIROS GIANNOUTSOS, 1469 Alabama Lane, Pitts., Pennsylvania
15216, WILLIAM T. & MELANIE C. BRAND, 10712 Hastings Dr., Villa Park, CA
92667, & RAYMOND JAMES & ELSA PARADA LINEHAN, 741 N. East St., Anaheim,
CA 92805
AGENTS: NARAYAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 12631 Newport Avenue, Suite 204,
Tustin, CA 92680
ATTN: BANJIT NARAYAN
LOCATION: 741, 747, and 755 North East Street
RS-7200 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 3-story (including
below grade parking level), 25-unit apartment complex.
The City Planning Commission permitted the applicant to withdraw these
applications.
12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS AND RECOMMF2NDATIONS
me
VARIANCE NO. 3265 - Request from Dennis Dutt for retroactive extension
o£ time to comply with conditions of approval for Variance No. 3265,
property is located at 1005 North Whittier Street.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTANDRECLASSIFICATION AMENDED STUDY AREA -
Planning Commission Consideration of an amended study area generally
bounded by Anaheim Boulevard, Cypress Street, the Union Pacific
Railway and La Pa]ma Avenue, (excluding the area bounded by Wilhe]mina
Street, Sabina Street, Sycamore Street and the Union Pacific Railway).
Planning Commission instructed Staff to amend the Study Area, and to
initiate the General Plan Amendment and Reclassification Studies.
13. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-31, VARIANCE NO. 3735:
OWNERS: 13222 CHAPMAN, 4201 W. Chapman Ave., Orange, CA 92668
AGENT: ANDREW HOMES, 4000 MacArthur Blvd., #680, Newport Beach, CA 92660,
ATTN: MIKE NAWAR
LOCATION: 2100 S. Lewis Street
RS-A-43,000 to RM-lZOU or a less intense zone.
Waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum
structural height, (c) maximum site coverage and (d) minimum side yard
setback to construct a 162-unit, 3 and 4 story affordable apartment
complex.
GRANTED RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-31, by the City Planning Commission
PC88-34
G~ANTED VARIANCE NO. 3735, by the City Planning Commission, PC88-35.
The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the Applicant and,
therefor, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items.
184
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
179: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO BIT.I.ROARD REGULATIONS: Proposed
revisions to Billboard Regulations, submitted as draft ordinances as requested
by the City Council at their meeting held January 12, 1988. Submitted was
report dated January 27, 1988 from the City Attorney, along with three
proposed draft ordinances. The report contained the main features of the
proposed ordinances. He also noted two minor typographical corrections
contained in the report which had since been corrected.
Mayor Bay. The matter was put on the agenda today for the Council to take a
look at the ordinances as drafted and to discuss the possibility of changes in
the City's billboard ordinances. Also he has no problem with public input,
but until something is proposed, he does not feel it should be opened up until
a majority of the Council recommends something. Otherwise he does not know
how they can get around to debating the issue.
Councilman Pickler. One company has asked the City to change the ordinance.
If they do not get input from the other companies and the citizens along with
Regency, he has a problem with that. In order to put the ordinance together
they need to have input from all aspects and that has been his contention from
the beginning. He does not want to see billboards on the freeway and would
like to keep them to a minimum in the City. He is not ready even at this time
to have a first reading of an ordinance. The matter should be set so that
public input can be received.
Council Members Hunter, Kaywood and Ehrle each reiterated their stand relative
to the billboard issue as expressed in prior meetings.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Pickler emphasized, as did
Councilwoman Kaywood, the fact that the Council can make any changes such as
restructuring business license fees, eliminating or limiting inner City
boards, etc. without allowing additional freeway boards. Allowing additional
freeway boards for one company who does not have any boards in the inner City
is going to extremes. It is necessary that a public hearing be held.
Mayor Bay. He does not disagree with Councilman Pickler's arguments but until
an issue is stated clearly he does not know how advertising could be done for
a public hearing. He has never seen a letter from anyone favoring billboards
except those who are involved with or are in the business of billboards. The
question that has to be defined - what is the Council proposing as the issue -
freeway boards~ revenue from freeway boards to compensate for removal o~ inner
City boards, etc. It is necessary to formulate a plan because nothing has
been done to reduce the number of boards in the City. It is possible allowing
freeway boards and increasing revenues which can be used for the removal of
non-conforming boards in the future, in ten years they may be down to 50 or 75
boards instead of the present 154 or maybe in 20 years there will be none at
all.
After further discussion, it was determined that public input would be
received today from those who wished to speak to the issue. Before doing so,
Councilman Pickler moved that the issue be tabled until the time the Council
holds a public hearing instead of going through all the rhetoric now. No
action was taken.
185
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Margorie Hamilton, 665 Westwood. She is extremely opposed to any more
billboards in the City of Anaheim or along freeways. If the object is
increased revenues, she is certain there are other ways without adding
eyesores to the City.
Ann Bien, representing the Broadmoor-Northridge Homeowners Association
consisting of 228 homes. Ail are opposed to the change which might come
about. She will reserve any further comments for a public hearing. She
thereupon submitted letters from the Homeowners Association expressing
opposition.
Francis Nutto, 621 Jambolaya. Billboards are a complicated issue. He
reco,~ended the establishment of a committee to study the matter and let the
committee spend all the time they need to define and resign the issues and
bring them back to the Council.
Marilyn Ryan, property owner in Anaheim and Vice-President of Coast
Advertising in Fullerton. She submitted a document to the Council which
stated Coast Advertising's position strongly opposing, "the drafting of any
new outdoor advertising ordinance which would allow the phasing out of surface
locations and permitting freeway locations unless the new ordinance stipulates
substituting a street location for a freeway location." She read the document
in full (made a part of the record) which included on Page 2 Proposal for New
Ordinance Regarding Billboard Advertising containing four items which Coast
Advertising would want incorporated in any new ordinance.
James F. Abbott, President of Coast Advertising. Coast has no objection to
paying more revenue for the privilege of maintaining their billboards in
Anaheim. They are asking for a fair and equitable ordinance. They are
willing to relinquish their surface locations if they could have some freeway
locations.
At the conclusion of input, Councilman Bay moved that discussion and
consideration of billboard regulations be continued one week. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:17 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
beln~ present. (3:40 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARJ_NG - MODIFICATION OF CONDITION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2607:
APPLICANT:
Chinese Baptist Church
412 East Broadway
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider the modification of Condition No. 2a of
City Council Resolution No. 85R-83 which requires the dedication of a strip of
land 28 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Broadway and 44
feet in width from the centerline of the street along Olive Street, for street
widening purposes.
186
?0
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
The Conditional Use Permit was granted February 12, 1985.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 28, 1988.
Posting of property January 29, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 28, 1988.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Joan Virginia Allen, Farano & Kieviet, representing the Chinese
Baptist Church.
Their letter of February 4, 1988 requested that the City could
claim the extra 12 feet on Olive Street back to the Chinese
Baptist Church. They also would like to have the condition in
2b removed or rephrased so that it will omit any reference to
Olive Street being widened.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He explained for Councilwoman Kaywood the widening of Olive
Street is no longer contemplated as it was when the project was
first presented. Therefore, the right-of-way can now be
quit-claimed back to the applicant and the dedication can be 32
feet instead of 44 feet. The Broadway widening is still in
effect and no change is anticipated.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked if the applicant was now planning to install more of a
landscaped setback since the dedication is being decreased and
if it would now be possible to have landscaping with the parking
behind it.
Joan Allan.
They will abide by Council decision. If possible to get
additional parking spaces through maintaining the waiver, they
would prefer to do that. Their only position today was to have
the 12 feet quit-claimed back. They will look at the matter
with their architect, traffic and planning.
City Attorney, Jack White.
Answering Mayor Bay, the applicant has requested that, rather
than an abandonment, the 12 feet be handled through a
quit-claimed deed. It is his opinion that it can be done
through that process. A resolution is necessary to amend the
187
67
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
condition from 44 feet to 32 feet and secondly a motion is
necessary to approve a quit-claim deed for 12 feet along Olive
Street to be deeded back to the applicant and authorizing the
Mayor and City Clerk to sign the deed.
Joan Allan.
She has no disagreement with that. Also Condition No. 2b should
be revised to omit the reference to Olive street being widened;
City Attorney White had no problem with that being done.
Counciiwoman Kaywood.
She reiterated they were given a waiver of landscaping because
of dedication and footage. If they are not going to have to
dedicate, then there should be landscaping installed.
Joan Allan.
When they talk to the architect they can work the landscaping
out with the Planning Department and have it subject to their
approval.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
Planning Staff will be happy to work with them at Council's
direction.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-68)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-68 for adoption, approving
modifications of condition to Resolution No. 85R-83 as follows: Amending
Condition No. 2a, changing 44 feet to 32 feet and Condition No. 2b deleting,
"and 0live Street." Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-68: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMEAFOMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2607 AND AMENDINGRESOLUTION NO. 85R-§3.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-68 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve a quit-claim deed for the 12 feet of
land along Olive Street. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
188
City Hall, AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that more landscaping be included subject to an
agreement with the PlAnning Department; motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Pickler did not feel that action was necessary. The Council had
made its intention clear.
155: PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 88-01, SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 283:
APPLICANT: Richard Allan Wallace, et al., c/o The Register
625 N. Grand Avenue, Santa Aha, CA 9271i
Agents: Frank Elfend, Eifend and Associates,
ilS1 Dove Street, Suite 130, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: Subject location is approximately 325 acres located southeast of
the southerly terminus of Weir Canyon Road & southwest of Santa Ana Canyon
Road, Sycamore Canyon (Formerly Wallace Ranch).
Request for adoption of a Specific Plan including zoning and development
standards, and a Public Facilities Plan and to consider a Fiscal Impact
Analysis for the Sycamore Canyon Development to provide for the development of
up to 1,119 residential units, 20 acres of commercial uses, 133 acres of
general open space (including 2 parks) and a junior high school.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The City Planning Commission recommended approval
of Specific Plan No. 88-01 including Public Facilities Plan, PC88-22 by
Council adoption of an ordinance, and further recommended approval of the
Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standards, and certified EIR No. 283.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 28, 1988.
Posting of property January 29, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 28, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See extensive Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 18, 1988
which included 141 staff recommended conditions of approval.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, Planning Consultants for
the §ycamore Canyon Project.
He introduced members of his staff and other principals who were
present in the Chamber audience. He expressed his appreciation
for the positive relationship with the City and staff and
thanked them for the time and effort expended. They have been
working on the project since late 1986 in preparing a
comprehensive land use plan. They have prepared a presentation
to communicate the planning and development process for the
Sycamore Canyon specific plan. He then explained why they chose
the specific plan process for the project as outlined in staff's
report to the Council dated January 18, 1988. Mr. Elfend then
narrated a slide presentation showing vicinity maps, explaining
the planning and development process, production type in the
189
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
nine development areas etc. (See s-mmmry booklet - Sycamore
Canyon - Woodcrest Development Incorporated, the developer and
actual builder of the project -made a part of the record -
which contained hard copies of most of the slides in Mr.
Elfend's presentation.
After his slide presentation and detailed explanation of the
project, Mr. Elfend referred to the staff recommended conditions
of approval which they had worked out with staff. (Mary
McCloskey, Senior Planner submitted the conditions to Council
Members). These included five items proposed to be amended,
deleted or added to the 14i conditions imposed on the project.
On a separate sheet was a listing of Condition No. 24 - a
condition that both Woodcrest and Kaufman & Broad (K&B) have
negotiated regarding reimbursements to their property. The
condition has been accepted by K&B based on the understanding
that the water and drainage fees are funded by Code established
fees. The items are ones which they have agreed upon with staff
and will then be included in the conditions of approval.
Two other items they would like to approach - (1) any condition
included in the conditions of approval regarding the formation
of any assessment district. At present staff is suggesting any
assessment district be formed prior to the recordation of the
first final map. They believe that is an undue burden created
upon the developer and are recommending instead that the
assessment district process be initiated prior to the final map,
and completed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Mayor Bay.
He has a problem with that. Unless the assessment district is
created and the assessments known prior to sale rather than
occupancy, he does not know how the owner who is buying the home
is going to be aware of the assessment.
Mr. Elfend.
They would have no objection to that - that the assessment
district be created prior to sale instead of prior to
OCcupancy. The second item was brought to his attention today
relative to area no. 8. There should have been a development
standard providing for a 40% lot coverage as a development
standard for development area no. 8. They want to be able to
put a quality house of a larger nature on a 5,000 square foot
lot which is more than other development standards. It was
accidentally omitted. Those were the only other two comments
that he has. He would be happy to answer any questions.
City Attorney White.
Relative to deferral of the creation of the assessment districts
until occupancy or sale of the homes as opposed to the current
condition that requires assessment districts be created prior to
first final tract map, he recommends that condition not be
190
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
changed. It is not currently known what type of assessment
districts will be formed. It is possible once final tract maps
are recorded, those individual lots can be sold irrespective of
whether a house is ever built on any of them. It is also
possible they could be dealing with up to 1,i00 different
property owners in the formation of an assessment district.
Further, assuming the districts are not yet finalized but that
the properties are all in escrow, he can envision a situation
where there is a an unconscionable amount of pressure brought to
bear both upon the City staff and Council relating to
finalization of those assessment districts. There will be
serious time pressure relating to properties that may be in
~scrow that cannot close until the district is actually
finalized. For those two reasons, he would not be in a position
to recommend that the Council change the existing condition of
the timing of the assessment district.
Frank Elfend.
They would accept a condition which would specify that before
there would be any sale of the lots that the districts be in
place. There is no intent other than it is purely a timing
consideration in being able to get the assessment districts in
creation before there is any great need.
City Attorney White.
He has not changed his recommendation in spite of Mr. Elfend's
offer. The time schedule conditions are often tied to after the
tract maps are recorded, the next milestone being the issuance
of building permits. After that, the only one left to tie
conditions to is the Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Elfend.
There are several conditions which require the formation of a
covenant to be provided indicating non-objection to the
formation of any assessment district. In the conditions right
now there is an adequate amount of protection as it relates to
the formation of covenants in that regard. In the conditions of
approval right now, there are two conditions providing for that
which they have asked for where the formation would be at a
later date. The problem is the timing involved. If the
condition is tied to the final map, it will be difficult if not
impossible to move forward with certain items until that is met.
Discussion followed between Council Members and staff regarding
that specific condition and Mr. Elfend's request for
modification at the conclusion of which, City Attorney White
stated in a spirit of compromise, he would suggest a change in
the wording, leaving the current wording as to the timing, but
providing such wording - "unless such other time is approved by
the City Council." If that eventuality comes, they can look at
it and have the time to reflect upon what protections are needed
and make a decision at that time.
19i
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
That would involve an amendment to Condition No. 11 on Page 8;
Mr. Elfend stated it would in essence be an amendment to any
condition where that is so designated in addition to Condition
No. 11.
Mayor Bay.
Out of 141 conditions, Mr. Elfend is asking for some flexibility
in Condition No. i1 and technical changes in agreement to
Condition No. 44.
Frank Elfend.
He answered yes and the conditions that were submitted to the
Council by staff in addition to Condition No. 24 and an addition
adding that development standard for development area 8 on 40%
lot coverage. That is it.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
The items distributed by staff reflect meetings and agreements
which have been reached as late as this morning. The first page
identified as point 1 and 2, addresses the City's working with
the developer to permit the filing and processing of what is
called a financing parcel map. At the Planning Commission
hearing, the legal language to provide the City with a comfort
level and letting the financing parcel map proceed had not yet
been completed. That issue has since been resolved and Item
Nos. 1 and 2 reflect not only the wording but the agreement
reached.
Relative to Item No. 3 - staff is in agreement that condition
can be deleted (Condition No. 95) with the understanding a tree
removal plan will be submitted.
Item No. 4 indicates a change to Condition No. 21. All that
does is add the words, Tract No. 12994 to that condition. Staff
is in agreement.
Item No. 3 - there are two changes to the parking standard
(guest parking). It now reads .25 both in the specific plan and
in the existing zoning standard. Staff is in agreement there as
well.
In development area 9 there was a typographical error in the
staff report that nobody noticed until yesterday. The minimum
square footage for the lot area is 4,000 square feet and 3,500
feet is proposed similar to other development areas for RS-5,000
zoning.
Relative to Condition No. 24, it reflects the agreement reached
between Kaufman & Broad and Woodcrest regarding reimbursement
for facilities that have already been constructed or provided
for within the Bauer Ranch development. Both Woodcrest and K&B
are in agreement with that amended language.
192
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Two additional items were mentioned, the first being the
assessment district timing which was already discussed.
Finally, Mr. Elfend identified the standard for coverage for
development area 8 in the RS-5,000 zone. Apparently that was
not submitted in the original specific plan request. The
coverage requirement proposed today is consistent with, and even
not as wide a variance, as proposed in several of the other
development areas with similar zoning. It is compatible with
the proposal and the other development areas.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition. There being no response, he closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to staff regarding
park sites, the four corners pipeline and the width of the
private streets which were answered by appropriate staff members.
At the conclusion of discussion, the following actions were taken by the
Council:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 283 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact
Report No. 283, having been reviewed by City staff and recommended by the City
Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the
State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon
such information and belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, that Environmental Impact Report No. 283
is in compliance with City and State guidelines and adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations Nos. 1 through 5, Page 10 of staff report to the
Planning Commission dated January 18, 1988. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The title of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 88R-69 and 88R-70)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARILIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 88R-69 for adoption, approving
Specific Plan No. 88-01~ Exhibit A and Resolution No. 88R-70 for adoption,
approving Speci£ic Plan zonin~ and development standards includin~ the
specific findings as required and set forth in Section 18.93.070 of the Gode,
also including the amendments submitted by staff Item Nos. l, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as
discussed as well as approval of the coverage requirement in development area
8 as requested by the developer and the change to Condition No. 24 as stated
per the agreement between Kaufman & Broad and Woodcrest, including the
additional language on Condition No. 11 . . . or at such other later time as
may be approved by the City Council." Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-69: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-1, EXHIBIT A, (INCLUDING A PUBLIC
FACILITIES PlAN SECTION) FOR SYCAMORE CANYON.
193
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-70: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAM~.IM APPROVING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PLAN
88-01 FOR SYCAMORE CANYON.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Fick stated the only other thing he
was going to add was that there are several conditions that do
address assessment districts and relative to those conditions
that the same wording be incorporated into all as appropriate;
Mr. Elfend stated he was agreeable.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-69 and 88R-70 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance for Specific Plan Zoning and Development. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CAR/tIED.
Before concluding, Mayor Bay thanked all representatives of the
developers who were present today, as well as staff members for
all their work bringing approval of the development to fruition
today. The Council is most appreciative that not problems but
solutions were brought forth enabling Council approval without
prolonged or additional hearings.
Frank Elfend.
He agreed. It is a much more pleasurable experience when the
principals can agree on everything and not have to bring issues
before the Council for solutions as was the experience in the
past.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (4:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:04 p.m.)
Since all of the principals were not present for the next and last public
hearing, the hearing was tabled temporarily and other scheduled items on the
agenda discussed awaiting their arrival.
127: PROPOSED FORMATION OF A CHARTER BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE: Councilman
William Ehrle. At the prior meeting, he asked that the subject be placed on
the agenda in order to present to the voters in the November Presidential
Election proposed changes to the City Charter. The most important reason for
doing so is to keep a campaign promise to bring local government closer and
more accessible to the people. He then read from a prepared statement the
justification for his proposal at this time. He subsequently offered for
discussion the creation of a 1988 Charter review committee composed of a broad
194
City Hall, AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
base of representation from the community, specifically a committee structured
similar to the first official committee of 1976, consisting of 16-members with
16 alternates as follows: Ten (10) Council appointees, 2 for each Council
Member (one member - one alternate) and one representative from each of the
following organizations: Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, H.O.M.E., H.0.M.E.
65 or Los Amigos, Anaheim Political Action Committee (Mobilehome Parks),
Anaheim Neighborhood Association and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce.
Mayor Bay. There have been a number of Charter Committees formed in the
past. In 1978, he was the Chairman of a 12 or 16-member Charter Review
Committee that took the Charter under review for three months of concentrated
work sessions. The Committee came back to the Council with 14
recommendations, of which two were accepted dealing with new financing tools
for the Utilities Department. The Charter has also been reviewed without the
Council appointing committees. One of the recommendations was the
possibilities of changing the salaries of the City Council. The final
decision was that was not a good idea since it would require a great deal of
re-educating the populace on where the Charter came from and what it stands
for and that it would very likely fail. They came to the conclusion that it
was not necessary to change the Charter. Cities that have Redevelopment
Agencies and Housing Authorities all over the county pay compensation to their
Council Members who serve on those bodies. That, in effect, was their
conclusion that the Council could raise its compensation without changing the
Charter or a vote of the people.
The Mayor then gave the reasons he did not favor the formation of a Charter
Review Committee at this time. He specifically spoke against the
possibilities previously mentioned by Councilman Ehrle at prior meetings such
as considering the formation of Councilmanic districts or increasing the
Council to seven members. He added that he also never favored the direct
election of the Mayor. Under the City Council/Manager form of government, the
Mayor should be chosen by a majority vote of the Council Members, and that
position rotated. He firmly believes in the City's present form of government
where Council Members act as the Board of Directors or policy makers to
professionals. He is opposed to tinkering with the Constitution of the City,
the Charter, which he has defended ever since he has been a Council Member.
It is not the time when the City is faced with many other problems that are
not yet resolved. Setting up a committee, particularly a committee with
membership as recommended by Councilman Ehrle, he does not favor major changes
in a form of §overnmeut which he feels does represent and responds to the
people.
Councilman Ehrle. After responding to some of the Mayor's comments he moved
for the formation of a 1988 Charter Review committee without specifying the
membership structure. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Ehrle asked that a letter received from
Robert Kuznik of the An-heim Chamber of Commerce be placed into the record
indicating his support of and willingness to participate in such a committee.
Councilman Hunter clarified that although he seconded the motion, he agrees
with the Mayor in some areas. He is not certain that increasing the Council
195
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
to s~ven members would be positive, nor the formation of Councilmanic
districts. It is possible that positive suggestions could come from a Charter
Review Committee.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She would be opposed to forming such a committee at
this time. She agreed with almost everything the Mayor said other than the
salaries. The Mayor was her appointee on the 1978 Charter Review Committee.
It was a very thorough and in depth study with very high-powered people from
all parts of the City. The two items suggested relative to Utility financing
came from the Department itself. It would not be up to any committee to
suggest that a department should work a different way. A 7-member Council and
Councilmanic districts have always been rejected. It is only necessary to
look to the County Board of Supervisors who represent districts and the one
issue of the jail to know why districts do not work. Individuals are
interested more in getting elected in their districts rather than looking at
the entire picture and what is best for all.
Councilman Pickler. He has no problem putting something on the ballot if it
is worthwhile and would like to look at the pay issue on the ballot.
Otherwise, he feels there is nothing they have talked about that warrants a
Charter Review Committee at this time.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to form a 1988 Charter Review
Committee and failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle and Hunter
Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
179: STATUS REPORT - ORANGE COUNTY STEEL SALVAGE: Submitted was report dated
February 4, 1988 from the Code Enforcement Manager, John Poole, for
information purposes. Subject: Update regarding Orange County Steel Salvage,
located at 3200 E. Frontera Road, Anaheim.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. Staff has met with the various agencies
involved and with Mr. Adams. He feels there is a solution to the number one
problem, the potential fire hazard. He talked with the State Attorney
General's Office wanting to modify the preliminary injunction under which Mr.
Adams' is currently operating. Mr. Poole then referred to the letter
submitted to the State Health Department dated February 4, 1988 and read the
six conditions contained therein which he recommended be added to the
preliminary injunction (made a part of the record). The Attorney General's
Office is going to Court to impose the conditions through the preliminary
injunction. He has discussed this with Mr. Adams.
George Adams, President - Orange County Steel Salvage. He is in agreement
with everything. Relative to Item No. 4, he has spoken with Mr. Poole and
Fire Marshal Dory. The 50-foot barrier on the west side of the pile, the
shredder and processing equipment is approximately 20 feet away from the
pile. They can maintain the 50 feet except where the City and Fire Marshall
196
City ~,ll, AnAheim, Callfornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
agree that a shorter distance is acceptable. It is impossible for him to get
the 50 feet on the one side of the pile. They are going to slope and reshape
the pile to make it safe and more manageable. They are in the process of
doing engineering studies to see about capping the pile with the dirt. He
believes he can resolve the issue with the Health Department and feels they
will be in agreement with allowing the Anaheim Fire Marshall to set the
boundary.
Councilman Pickler. If ne could, he would close the business down. He has a
report that says it is going to take 18 months before even a shovel of any of
the waste pile can be moved. What the State does is their problem. He wants
to incorporate the six conditions outlined in the letter to the Department of
Health Services into the Conditional Use Permit that Orange County Steel
Salvage has from the City of Anaheim, and if there is any violation of any one
of the conditions, that the business be closed down.
City Attorney White. It will be necessary to set a hearing to modify
conditions of the CUP. There are two aspects to the operation, one is whether
the operation continues to shred fluff which is controlled by the City and
requires a CUP. If revoked, they would not have the ability to continue to
operate but it would not assure or result automatically in the existing pile
being removed because that is controlled by the State.
Mayor Bay. He does not agree with Councilman Pickler. What staff is
recommending is to take the six conditions and add them to the injunction.
The Court is controlling Mr. Adams' functions. The City is involved and has
concerns and want the tightest controls possible. He cannot think of a
quicker way than to make the conditions a part of the injunction by the Court.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the staff recommendation requesting
that the six conditions listed in the February 4, 1988 letter to the
Department of Health be added to the State's preliminary injunction.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler then moved that a public hearing be set to
consider modification of existing conditions of the Orange County Steel
Salvage operation. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White answering Councilwoman Kaywood,
explained that if the City can get the six stipulations included in the
injunction, he feels comfortable the City will have protection at that level.
If the conditions are not included, the Council may want to entertain putting
those in a CUP as conditions. Putting them in both places does not hurt but
is not necessary. He does not know if it will offer any greater protection.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT - DECISION NO. ZA 88-03, DECISION DATE
FEBRUARY 5, 1988:
Applicant:
Ca 92804
Mr. & Mrs. Gene A. Conti, 1347 Scarborough Lane, Anaheim
197
City Hall, AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Request is for waiver of AMC Code sections 18.12.080.020 and
18.26.062.020 "Maximum Lot Coverage" to construct a 997 square foot
addition to an existing single-family residence in the RS-7200 zone.
(40% coverage permitted, 44% proposed).
GRANTED by the Zoning Administrator (ZA 88-03).
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4899: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4899 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4899: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER
18.03 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ZONING
PROCEDURES. (to remove reference to transfer of zoning files from Planning to
the City Clerk's Office)
179/134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 237 RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 87-88-24 , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2970, VARIANCE NO. 3746 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Angelo Brutocao et. al.
2240 W. Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: Hugo A. Vazquez
2240 W. Lincoln Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92801
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider an amendment to the General Plan to
redesignate subject property from General Commercial land uses to Medium
Density Residential land uses. CL to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waivers
of (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum building site area per dwelling unit,
(c) maximum structural height and (d) minimum distance between buildings to
construct a 220-unit, 58-foot high, 4 to 6-story "affordable" apartment
complex.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The City Planning Commission approved GPA No. 237
Exhibit A; Resolution No. PC88-24 - approved Reclassification No. 87-88-24,
Resolution No. PC88-25 - Conditional Use Permit No. 2970 - Withdrawn by the
applicant and granted Variance No. 3746, PC88-26; approved EIRNegative
Declaration approved.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 28, 1988.
Posting of property January 29, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 28, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 1, 1988.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Hugo Vazquez, 619 So. Live Oak Drive.
The original proposal was a 243-unit apartment complex with
mixed use which included commercial fronting on Lincoln. After
198
City Ma!I, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
two public hearings before the Planning Commission and several
neighborhood meetings, it was completely redesigned to the new
lower density 220-unit complex. They will also institute a new
concept which will be the formation of an association such as a
condominium project with bylaws. The proposed complex is "state
of the art" and has not been seen in Anaheim.
Ernie Vasquez, Director of Design, McClairen-Vasquez, Costa Mesa.
He narrated an extensive slide presentation first showing the
subject site and its location in the community via aerial and
ground photos, present use on the property and the plans and
renderings of the proposed use. Slides were also included of
other complexes designed by his firm similar in size and scope
to the proposed project (one being Seabridge Village in
Huntington Beach). He also showed their previous plans which
included retail use fronting on Lincoln Avenue which has since
been revised. The proposal now has the 4-stories off Muller
Street with 1 and 2-stories on the side adjacent to
single-family residential. Shadow studies were also conducted
which confirmed that there will be no intrusion relative to
light from the proposed buildings on the single-family
residential. The distance from the buildings on the east side
of the apartments to the first house is 70 feet on average from
property line to building line or 64 feet away on the front
portion and 75 feet away for approximately 80% to the back.
Robert E. Holland, 439 East Chapman, Orange, Attorney
representing Mr. Vazquez.
The concept being proposed is not addressed in the staff report
to the Planning Commission. He clarified that the concept does
not address the management of the apartment complex. It is a
proposal wherein the apartment project of 220 units and its
amenities could be kept and maintained in a proper and
acceptable condition if the apartment house owners fail to
maintain the apartment house and its amenities in a proper
standard of repair, maintenance and cleanliness. It is a
concept that has been used for many years in the development of
a planned community, to~ra houses and condominiums. A
recordation of declarations of the CC&R's against the land upon
which the apartment houses are to be built, and in the
declaration would be set forth specified standards of repair,
maintenance and cleanliness with which the apartment owners
would have to comply. Approval would have to be given of the
proposed document by the City Attorney. The second significant
element is enforcement of the declaration, and the third is
notification, amendment or change. The developer proposes that
the declaration contain provisions enabling the City Manager or
his authorized representative, possibly the Code Enforcement
Manager, to enforce the applicable provisions of the
declarations of the CC&R's if not complied with. This gives
teeth to the ability to do something about developments that are
not kept in quality condition.
199
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
The following people from the residential area bordering the
subject property expressed their opposition and noted their
concerns for Council consideration:
James Halbrook, 106 No. Carol Drive.
He submitted approximately 146 additional signatures in
opposition, in addition to those already submitted. There were
only two night meetings held by the developer with the
neighbors. They are opposed to the variances requested. He
spoke to and gave the reasons for opposition to the requested
variances. Variances are generally approved if there is a
hardship on the lot and not because the developer paid too much
for the land and needs to recoup his investment. Relative to
the shadow study, it was conducted at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
The people on Thalia and probably on Carol will not be able to
see sunrise or sunset as soon as the building goes up. This is
a very important issue to the residents.
Gienda Flora, 106 No. Bernice Drive.
The residents want to see Lincoln developed in a proper and
orderly manner. In the slides of similar projects, she has
visited the one in Huntington Beach which is on Beach Boulevard
where there are no surrounding single-family dwellings. Theirs
is a long established residential community. The project would
be larger and more massive than anything on Lincoln Avenue until
reaching the downtown area. The property does not qualify for
or necessitate the use of variances. If rezoned from CL to
RM-1200, the developer should only be allowed to build to the
height of 1 or 2-stories. She first explained and then
submitted photographs showing the area with its present land
uses as well as a picture of the Huntington Beach development to
convey how massive a building is being proposed. She urged that
the Council not approve the project but direct that there be an
overall plan for the area. The only action the Council should
take at this time is to reject the proposal.
Melanie Heinbruck, 123 No. Aladdin.
High-rise apartments would be detrimental because there will be
loss of privacy to single-family homes on Thalia, additional
traffic congestion on Lincoln, additional school-aged children
in the area. There are already crowded conditions at Gauer
School. She asked that the Council direct the developer to
resubmit a project with lower density or another type of
development. A negative declaration was granted the project by
the Planning Commission. She questioned how a project of the
magnitude proposed could not have an impact relative to noise,
traffic, generation of school-aged children and the ultimate
2OO
City Hall, Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
impact on the residents. She would be more amenable to a lower
density town home or condominium project.
Ivan Hatfield, 127 No. Aladdin Drive.
An apartment house development previously built in their area
was approved only after the residents concerns were answered
which resulted in no intrusion or detriment to their homes. He
would hope the Council would also do the same in this case and
have the developer build more in line with other developments in
the area. He would see no problem with commercial along
Lincoln. The proposed density of the complex is too high and
the traffic pattern will be affected. The area needs better
ingress and egress.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Hugo Vazquez.
The Planning Commission would not have voted approval of the
project if they did not see that it would bring a good quality
of life to the location. They have provided over three times
the required amount of recreational and leisure area. He
recounted what took place at the three meetings with the
neighborhood. A 75-foot high commercial building could be built
on t~le site approximately 150 feet away from the single-family
residential. They are proposing a minimum of 64-foot setback in
the front area from a 2-story building. A complete redesign has
been submitted. He spoke to the revisions that were made to
mitigate the concerns of the single-family residents. The
shadow study was done on their own to alleviate residents'
concerns. A commercial project would impact traffic and parking
to a much greater extent. The 2.5 parking spaces per unit are
being provided in a completely underground garage except for
guest parking. The project will have no impact on schools as
stated in a letter from School Superintendent Lopez previously
submitted. Any students residing in the complex would have to
be bussed. Any noise generated would be less than a commercial
operation. The building is 4-stories and not 5. Even though
the garage is completely underground, it is considered a story.
Mayor Bay.
All through the neighborhood opposition, he heard the same
concerns, that the structure is too massive for the area.
Ernie Vazquez, Architect.
If they were to build single-family homes, they could be 20 feet
away from the property line with 2-stories. The project will
have less intrusion because it is 70 feet away. A 75-foot high
office building could be built 150 feet away from the residents
without any variances which would be more intrusion and create
many traffic problems. The mass of the building is kept to
Muller Street.
201
81
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Annika Santalahti.
She confirmed for the Mayor that a 75-foot high building could
be built 150 feet from the single-family residents by right.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She has a problem with the vastness of the project and the
height. It is time to go back to the drawing board. Residents
have said they have no objection to retail or commercial on the
front facing Lincoln. They are very concerned with the high
density, the magnitude of the project and blocking of their
light and air.
Councilman Ehrle.
A project like this is needed in Anaheim and he feels it is an
excellent one. However, he is not sure it is the right location
for the project. The residents have expressed a desire to have
residential units on the property such as townhomes or
condominiums. There has to be a compromise to satisfy the needs
of the neighborhood.
Councilman Hunter.
It is the wrong project for this location. There is too much
density. It has to be scaled down with some condominiums
included. He feels if single-family homes were not adjacent to
the property, no one would be complaining about the project.
Councilman Pickler.
He feels the project would enhance the area. People living in
the project will not be using any of the residential streets. A
75-foot high office building would not be an enhancement. This
project would be a plus and it is needed. He would like to see
mixed use with some condominiums. He asked if there was any way
the developer could come back and change his plan unless he gets
approval from the Council.
Annika Santalahti.
Two things would happen if the project is approved. The zoning
would be approved and if the developer changes his mind and
wants to do another project, they would then have to develop
under Code. The other is, they have a variance and would have
to develop in accordance with the plans and any changes would
come back to the Council under a new public hearing for revised
plans.
MOTICN: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the CEQA finding of a negative
declaration. The motion died for lack of a second.
202
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickier, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 88R-71, 88R-72 and 88R-73)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 88R-71 for adoption disapproving
GPA No. 237. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-71: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DISAPPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT
NO. 237.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-71 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 88R-72 and 88R-73 for adoption
denying Reclassification No. 87-88-24 and denying Variance No. 3746. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-72: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN
A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-72: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3746.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
Pickier
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-72 and 88R-73 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (7:56 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, ail Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (8:16 p.m.)
203
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn.
seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent.
(8:16 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
Councilman Pickler
MOTION CARRIED.
204