Loading...
1988/03/08City Hall, Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 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 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 4:10 p.m. on March 4, 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. ADmheim Hotel Partnership O.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). Councilman Bay' moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:05 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. Ernest Furness, Anaheim Adventist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Fred Hunter led the assembly in the Pledge o£ Allegiance to the Flag. 119: INTRODUCTION - MISS ANAHEIM/MISS USA UNIVERSE: Mrs. Fran Mauck introduced and presented to the Council Miss Carla Kemp, Miss Anaheim/Miss USA-Universe. Mayor Bay and each Council Member personally welcomed Miss Kemp and congratulated her on winning the title and wished her well in the forthcoming Pageants. 266 216 City Hall, An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:30 P.M. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and authorized by the uity Council: Child Abuse Prevention Month in Anaheim, April 1988, American Association of University Women Week in Anaheim, March 6-12, 1988. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 16, 1988. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,417,882.09, in accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions on the Consent Calendar were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 88R-102 through 88R-104, both inclusive) Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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-102 through 88R-104, 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 Elias J. Castaneda for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 10, 1987. b. Claim submitted by Paula Brown for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 18, 1987. c. Claim submitted by Margaret Costa for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 24, 1987. d. Claim submitted by Shtrlea Griswold, Cindy Griswold, Gwendolyn Griswold, Reace Shanks, Alice Shanks, Estate of Michael Griswold (c/o Feinberg, Gottlieb & Grossman) for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 7, 1987. e. Claim submitted by Inez Toland for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 7, 1987. f. Claim submitted by Cynthia Nichols for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 7, 1987. 267 213 City Hall~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1988, 1~30 P.M. g. Claim submitted by Andrew Shirkey for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 7, 1987. h. Claim submitted by Gall Smith for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 23, 1987. i. Claim submitted by Pat Zachry for indemnity for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 30, 1987. j. Claim submitted by Motorcycle City, USA, Inc. and Joseph H. Weston, Jr. for indemnity for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 17, 1987. k. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for indemnity for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 5, 1987. 1. Claim submitted by Myra Shirley Licker for indemnity for damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 14, 1986. m. Claim submitted by James V. Buck for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 3, 1988. n. Claim submitted by Peteris Simsons for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 5, 1987. o. Claim submitted by Madeline S. Roddam for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 4, 1988. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 173: Notice of Public Hearing regarding Orange County Transit District's potential changes in fares. b. 105: Minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board, meeting of January 27, 1988. c. 140: Anaheim Public Library, Monthly Statistical Report, Month of January 1988. d. 105: Community Kedevelopment Commission Minutes, meeting of February 10, 1988. e. 105: Minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission, meeting of December 10, 1987. f. 105: Minutes of the Community Services Board, meeting of December 10, 1987. 3. 123: Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an amendment to the existing contract with Boyle Engineering Corporation in the amount of ~150,000 for the interior improvements and renovation connected with the Detention Facility, at the Police Department. 268 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:30 P.M. 4. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (WEIR CANYON ROAD ELECTRICAL DUCT BANK) (Bids to be opened March 31, 1988 at 2 o'clock p.m.) 5. 160: Accepting the low bid of Pirelli Cable in an amount not to exceed $51,945.30 for 50,000 feet of 15KV URD Primary Cable, in according with Bid #A-4539. 6. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the six months ended December 31, 1987. 7. 175/123: Approving an agreement with Lieberman Research West, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $23,980 for the purpose of conducting research among Anaheim water and electric consumers to determine consumer knowledge, attitudes and opinions regarding the Public Utilities Department. 8. 175/123: Approving a License Agreement to allow Anaheim Land Associates Ltd. Partnership to enter onto City property for construction purposes - to install an eight inch diameter water main across Anaheim Stadium property and connect it to the existing public water system near the Amtrak Station. 9. 170/123: Approving the assignment of interest in the Reimbursement Agreement dated October 15, 1985 between the City of Anaheim and Prado Corporation, pertaining to Tract No. 12147, to Municicorp of California. 10. 103/171: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-103: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AGREEING TO A REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAXES FORANNEXATION NO. 274 - SERRANO AVENUE NO. 3. (The area proposed for annexation consists of approximately 4 acres presently located in County unincorporated territory) 11. 123: Approving the Amended and Restated Agreement for solid waste disposal services with Consolidated Volume Transporters Inc. Said Amended and Restated Agreement will update the expiration date to December 31, 1997; update language in sections on insurance and indemnification; establish a formula for determining appropriate rate increases to the Contractor; update sections on equipment. 12. 123: Approving the Amended and Restated Agreement for the collection and disposal of residential solid waste within the City of Anaheimwith Jaycox Disposal Company, Inc. Said Amended and Restated Agreement will update the expiration date to December 31, 1994; update the sections on default, bankruptcy and insurance; and reflect operational changes. 13. 123: Approving the Amended and Restated Agreement for the collection and disposal of commercial and industrial solid waste within the City of Anaheim wtth Anaheim Disposal, Inc. Said Amended and Restated Agreement will update the current expiration date of December 31, 1997; update language in the sections on default, bankruptcy and insurance indemnification; and reflect operational changes. 269 211 City Hall, Anahe~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988~ 1:30 P.M. 14. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-104: ADOPTION OF A NEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING THE T~RMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMPLOYEES IN CLASSIFICATIONS REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2899. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 88R-102 through 88R-104: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-102 through 88R-104, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED. 177.109: EM~_.RGENCY SHELTER GRANT AWARD NOTIFICATION: Submitted was report dated February 24, 1988 from the Community Development Department recommending, if the Council chooses to accept the $9,000 awarded the City by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that the funds be awarded to the Anaheim Interfaith Shelter and authorize the necessary actions relating thereto. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to (1) accept the Emergency Shelter Grant Award in the amount of $9,000 and authorizing the Acting Executive Director to sign the necessary forms and certifications for submission of the application; and, (2) awarding the funds to Anaheim Interfaith Shelter Inc. to operate a shelter for the homeless in the City. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bay. It was the intent of the City not to become overly involved in the administration of the subject program but that any money coming from federal or state funds be forwarded directly to the Anaheim Interfaith Shelter, Inc. to operate a shelter for the homeless in the City. He is pleased that the recommendation brought forward today and the action taken accomplishes that intent. 179: AMENDING CONDITION NO. 10 OF VARIANCE NO. 3709, NUNC PRO TUNC: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-105 for adoption, amending Condition No. 10 of Variance No. 3709~ as set forth in Resolution NO. 87R-495, nunc pro tunc, as recommended in memorandum dated March 4, 1988 from the City Attoxney. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-105: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CONDITION NO. 10 OF VARIANCE NO. 3709 AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 87R-495, NUNC PRO TUNC. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None 270 212 City Mall; An~he!m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1988, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-105 duly passed and adopted. 134/179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING -APARTMENT PROJECT - 3620 TO 3640 SAVANNA STREET: Councilman Bay moved to deny the request for rehearing and Declaration of Merit submitted by Rose Leach, 849 So. Marian Way, regarding GPA 234, Reclassification 87-88-25 and Variance No. 3727, to construct a 70-unit, 3-story, 36 foot high apartment building at 3620, 3630 and 3640 Savanna Street, which project was approved by the Council at a public hearing held January 26, 1988. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENT TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: Recommendation for appointment to vacancy on the Project Area Committee, submitted by Gary Masciel, Chairman. Recommended appointee is Mr. Keith B. Olesen, 321 North Philadelphia Street, Anaheim 92805. Councilman Pickler moved to continue the appointment on the Project Area Committee for three weeks. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Hunter voted no. MOTION CARRIED. 105: RESIGNATION OF TENANT HOUSING COMMISSIONER: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the resignation of Tenant Housing Commissioner, Jeannette Siegel; declaring a vacancy on the Housing Commission, and directing the City Clerk to post notice of unscheduled vacancy on the Housing Commission. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood requested that a letter of thanks be sent to Mrs. Siegel for her service on the Commission. 105: RESIGNATION FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the resignation of Allan B. Hughes from the Economic Development Board, as tendered in his recent letter; declaring a vacancy on the Board and directing the City Clerk to post notice of an unscheduled vacancy on the Economic Development Board. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood requested that a letter of thanks be sent to Mr. Hughes for his service on the Board. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Comm{ssion at their meeting held February 17, 1988, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2983AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, c/o D. A. MANAGEMENT, INC., 7777 Center Avenue, Suite 500, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 AGENTS: FEEDBACK FOUNDATION, INC., VIP ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE CENTER, 1101 S. Grand, Ste. L & M, Santa Ana, CA 92705, Attn: SHIRLEEN JONES LOCATION: 1156 - 1158 Knollwood Circle To permit an adult day health care center. 271 209 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1988, 1:30 P.M. CUP NO. 2983 - GRANTED, by the City Planning Commission, with limitation of 50 persons, PC88-54. Approved Negative Declaration. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2984 WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTAND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: WONSON KIM & HAE SOOK KlM, 11443 E. Stapleton Court, Cerritos, CA 90701 AGENTS: D. W. KIMMEL COAST INC., 747 S. Brea Blvd., Ste. 33, Brea, CA 91621 LOCATION: 1142 N. Brookhurst Street To construct a 2-story, 36-unit motel with waivers of maximum structural height and minimum number of parking spaces. CUP NO. 2984 - DENIED, by the City Planning Commission, PC88-55, DENIED Waiver of Code Requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2986 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: DWIGHT D. HASTINGS, INSILCO FINANCIAL REALTY CORP., 6100 S. Garfield Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90040 AGENTS: ERNEST RAMIREZ, JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL INC., 12161 Mill Creek Road, #100, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 1440 West Lincoln Avenue To permit an automotive lubricating facility. CUP NO. 2986 - GRANTED by the City Planning Commission, PC88-56. Negative Declaration approved. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2855 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED: OWNERS: RICHARD G. SAYLOR & BARBARA L. SAYLOR, 804 West Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 804 West Broadway Petitioner requests deletion of condition pertaining to improvements of ri§ht-0f-way tn conjunction with a bed and breakfast inn with waiver of maximum area of freestanding sign. Ihe City Planning Commission by motion recommended that the City Council review the above request, therefore the issue will be set for public hearing before the City Council. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1218 - Request from Eric Heiden for review of proposed uses (4 wheel drive repair), property located at 3051 La Jolla Street, Suite A. The Planning Commission determined the applicant should apply for a CUP. 272 210 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988~ 1:30 P.M. B. EVALUATION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM'S DEFINITIONS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS THEY R~LATE TO RESTAURANTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS' PROJECTS AND EXAMINATION OF RI.~VATOR REQUIREMENTS AS IT RRL&TES TO SENIOR CITIZENS' APARTMENT PROJECTS. The City Planning Commission recommended that an ordinance be initiated. C. TRACT NO. 8520 - LOTS 4 THROUGH 9: - Request by Salkin Engineering Corporation that they be granted a waiver of the requirement of the City of Anaheim Hillside Grading Ordinance as it relates to the location of lot lines at the top of slopes with Tract No. 8520 for Lots 4 through 9, inclusive. Approval by the City Council is recommended by the City Planning Commission. D. ORANGE COUNTY EMA - Request to determine conformance with the General Plan - East Richfield Channel RESOLUTION NO. PC88-57 determined conformance. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2977 - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: WORLD OIL COMPANY, 9302 S. Garfield, South Gate, CA AGENT: THOMAS J. SHEPOS, 9302 S. Garfield, South Gate, CA 90280 90280 LOCATION: 1201 North Harbor Boulevard To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine in conjunction with 4000 square-foot commercial space with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CUP NO. 2977 - DENIED by the City Planning Commission, PC88-52. DENIED Waiver of Code Requirement. Negative Declaration approved. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. 7. GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2981 - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION; OWNERS: KAEMPFER/WOLFF-LA PALMA, 4 Civic Plaza, Suite 350, Newport Beach, CA 92663 AGENT: VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, 4854 Main Street, Suite F, Yorba Linda, CA 92686 LOCATION: 5464 E. La Palma Avenue To permit a church with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CUP NO. 2981 - GRANTED, by the City Planning Commission, PC88-53, GRANTED Waiver of Code Requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. 273 207 City Hall, Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:3~ P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood posed questions to staff members relative to the subject request at the conclusion of which she requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. End of Planning Commission Items. MOTION CARRIED. 105: REQUEST FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ATTENDANCE REPORT: After a brief Council discussion relative to attendance of Members of Boards and Commissions, by general consensus, the Council requested that they receive an attendance report covering the past year for all City Boards and Commissions; City Clerk Sohl stated that she would request those reports from the secretaries of their respective Boards and Commissions. 170: TENTATIVE TRACTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 29, 1988 - APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRES MARCH 10, 1988: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 273 (PREY. CERT.) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12700 including site plan VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12701 including site plan VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12702 including site plan OWNERS: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 17991 Mitchell South, Irvtne, CA 92714 AGENTS: FRANK ELFEND, ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 1151 Dove Street, Suite 130, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Subject property consists of three irregularly-shaped portions of land totaling approx. 152 acres located northeasterly and northwesterly of the intersection of Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue, having frontages along the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue and the future Highlands Road and further described as Development Areas 9, 10 and 12 of the previously approved Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (S.P. No. 87-1). Density Transfer No. 88-01: Request to transfer 4 units from Development Area 7 to Development Areas 9 and 10 in order to establish a vesting Tentative Tract No. 12701 (to establish a 135 lot, plus one open space lot) single family detached subdivision - Development Area 9 and portion of 10, and vesting Tentative Tract No. 12702 (to establish a 148 lot ~ingle family detached subdivision - portion of Development Area 10. The Density Transfer Request No. 88-01 was approved by the Planning Director and dated February 24, 1988. Appeal period on the density transfer ends March 18, 1988. 161.114/177.114/127: DISCUSSION - COMPENSATION FOR REDEVELOPMEMT AGENCY AND HOUSING AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Discussion and possible action concerning City Council decision at the meeting of January 19, 1988, to establish compensation for attendance at meetings of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim Housing Authority, including the potential of placement of this issue on the November ballot. 274 208 City Hall~ An-heim, C~l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood. She would like the Council to rescind their action which established compensation for attendance at Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings and that the question of raising Council salaries be placed on the November, 1988 ballot. City Attorney, Jack White. He clarified that any action to rescind the Council's previous action would require two resolutions. Councilman Hunter. He asked for clarification that the proposed action was to rescind Resolution Nos. 88R-19 and 88R-20 adopted January 19, 1988 and that these actions had nothing to do with putting any issue on the ballot. Councilwoman Kaywood clarified her intent and offered Resolution No. 88R-10§ for adoption, rescinding Resolution No. 88R-19 of January 19, 1988 and offered Resolution No. 88R-107 for adoption, rescinding Resolution No. 88R-20 adopted January 19, 1988. Refer to Resolution Book. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 88R-106 and 88R-107) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-106: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-19 RELATING TO COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. RESOLUTION NO. 88R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-20 RELATING TO COMPENSATION FOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White clarified for the Mayor that the proposed resolutions would be effective as of today if adopted but would not apply to today's Redevelopment and Housing Authority meetings. A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions and carried by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMB~S: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter, Kaywood and Pickler None Ehrle and Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-106 and 88R-107 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Pickler. He recommended that a measure be placed on the November ballot for the citizens of Anaheim to vote on City Council compensation and whether or not it should be increased. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. 275 205 CitH Hall, Annheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Bay. He asked for clarification if Councilman Pickler was referring to salaries covered by the City Charter, i.e., Council salaries, and that issue be placed on the November ballot which will involve a Charter Amendment; Councilman Pickler confirmed that was his intent. Mayor Bay. The motion then is to put on the November ballot a salary change in the Charter which would be a Charter Amendment. He is going to speak against the motion. He is thoroughly against starting to change the Charter involving salaries and/or City Council compensation. Changing the Charter and the salaries in that Charter of the Council Members directly affects the Genezal Fund of the City. What had been done administratively on January 19, 1988, which was not wrong, involved only the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority administrative costs within those two budgets, and one of the reasons he supported meeting compensation for Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority. Councilman Ptckler's proposal involves the City's General Fund and he will not be a party to more costs being applied to the General Fund. City Attorney White. The Council would have a variety of options. The Charter currently contains exact amounts of salary compensation for Council Members. An amendment to the Charter could modify those amounts by changing them or by eliminating those numbers entirely from the Charter. The Council would then be in a position of establishing its own compensation. Another method would be to put on the ballot an item unrelated to Council salary compensation as an advisory measure. Legally the Council has the right to establish compensation for Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority attendance but it could be an advisory vote to allow the electorate to express their opinion relative to compensation serving in those capacities. Councilman Pickler. With that explanation, he is going to withdraw his motion. As long as there are alternatives, he would like the Council to have the opportunity to consider the matter and discuss it again in three weeks. Councilman Hunter. He is against putting anything on the ballot relative to salaries. Councilman Ehrle. A few weeks ago he proposed the formation of a Charter Review Co--,~ttee and at this time he would only support a motion to place the subject issue on the ballot if it would include a broad scope of the community to 100k at all aspects of the Charter. He does not feel it is appropriate to isolate this one issue. He also abstained on the resolutions because the Government Code of the State of California authorizes the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority to set its own compensation as he had emphasized at prior meetings. They were acting appropriately at the time and those two areas are not provided for, nor do they have anything to do with the City Charter and, in fact, the two agencies were created after the Charter was adopted. He would oppose anything going on the ballot unless they were to look at the entire City structure. He will go along with Mayor Bay and Councilman Hunter in not putting the issue on the ballot. Councilman Pickler. He agreed and thereupon withdrew his motion. Councilwoman Kaywood withdrew her second. No further action was taken on the issue. 276 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:30 P.M. 115/114/166: DISCUSSION - FLYING OF THE POW/MIA FLAG AT THE CIVIC CENTER: Mayor Bay. The Council has received requests regarding the subject. The first time the request was received, he gave his regrets to approving flying the flag at the Civic Center, his only reason being that of using property at the Civic Center to make a political statement. The POW/MIA (Prisoners Of War - Missing In Action) matter is not the issue but whether they will fly a flag for any cause at the Civic Center. If the Council majority decides they want to do so, that is fine as long as they are aware they will be opening the City up to other such requests involving issues which they may not favor. Councilman Hunter. He has no problem flying the flag but to him it is analagous to the separation of powers between church and state. The only flags that should be flown at the Civic Center are the American Flag, the State of California Flag and the City of Anaheim Flag. He agrees with the Mayor once the Council allows the flying of flags relating to particular issues, it will set a precedent making it difficult to say no to other groups with causes that may be unpopular or unsuitable. Councilman Pickler. He is speaking in favor of flying the POW/MIA flag and has no problem with doing so. Councilman Ehrle. This will open the door to requests from many other groups. He, too, believes that only the three flags as expressed by Councilman Hunter should be flown. There are other areas in the City where flying the flag would be appropriate, for instance the American Legion Hall Flag Pole. Councilwoman Kaywood. Initially a citizen spoke to the issue under Items Of Public Interest. At that time, she stated she did not feel the Council could say yes to one group and no to another. The American, State and City flags should be the only ones flown and on other occasions to look at the matter at that time. Councilman Pickler thereupon recommended that relative to the POW/MIA requests, that the Council allow the flying of the flag for a period of two weeks or a month only. Mayor Bay. The concept of the argument is that if they allow the flag to be flown, the City w~ll he open to litigation upon refusal of any other group~ to do the same. Councilman Pickler. In that case, he is suggesting that they remove all flags except the three. There are other flags being flown. If the Council decides not to fly the POW/MIA flag than that policy should apply uniformly, relative to the Civic Center. Councilman Hunter moved that the City Attorney be directed to draft an ordinance that will only allow the American Flag, the State of California and tb~ City of Anaheim Flag to be flown at the Civic Center. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. 277 City Hall, A~-heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White confirmed that if the Council so wishes to restrict the flying of flags, it would be appropriate to do so in the form of an ordinance. Councilman Pickier noted that at this time the Red Cross Flag was flying at the Civic Center and that other flags have also been flown such as the Arbor Day Flag and there are people who do not believe in either of those two causes. Councilman Bay moved to continue the foregoing motion for three weeks. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Mayor Bay. He offered the motion of continuance because he needs more information on what flags have been flown at City Hall in the past year and just what the action has been up until now. A vote was taken on the motion to continue the matter for three weeks. MOTION Councilman Ehrle recalled that some time ago the City Attorney was requested to submit a report relative to the flying of flags and banners over rights-of-way advertising certain events. He requested that the Council be supplied with that information as well. City Attorney White. He can resubmit that report to the Council. It dealt with his recommendation that Council rescind Council Policy (CP) 006 which authorizes the Utilities Director to be the one to authorize banners in the public rights-of-way across public streets to be hung from utility poles for up to two weeks duration. It would be his recommendation that the City not allow that to occur in the right-of-way. It would only take a motion to rescind Council Policy 006 to accomplish that. Mayor Bay requested that it all be brought back in three weeks. 179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4910: WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4910) Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the 0rdinanee. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4910 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4910: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRLATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property covered by zoning and development standards for Specific Plan No. 88-1, designated Chapter 18.71 (SP88-1) Sycamore Canyon Project) Roll Call Vote: 278 204 City Mall, Ansheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:30 P.M. AYES. ' NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4910 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4911: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4911 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4911: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE R~IATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 87-88-11 located at 700 South Magnolia from the RS-A-43,000 to the RM-1200 zone) ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed. 114: REQUEST FOR DECLARATION: Councilman Pickler reported on an event he attended honoring Bernice Hird on the occasion of her retirement from the Public Relations Department of the Hunt Wesson Company where many Orange County City and also County representatives were present. Mrs. Hird has been involved in community service not only in Fullerton but also Anaheim and throughout Orange County. He asked that a Declaration be prepared for the City Council to present to Mrs. Hird at a subsequent Council meeting to recognize her for her volunteertsm and community service which she has unselfishly given to the City of Anaheim. 144: UPDATE ON ORANGE COUNTY CALL BOX STATUS: Councilman Pickler reported on the recent meeting held at the Garden Grove Community Center regarding freeway call boxes in Orange County. Ninety-two call boxes have now been installed and are operative on the Garden Grove freeway. By completion of the program, there will be 1,000 call boxes on 137 miles of Orange County freeways fully operable by the fall of 1988. He again emphasized that they will only be one-quarter of a mile apart. RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess until public hearing time at 3:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARILIED. (2:47 p.m.) AFTE~ RECESS; The Mayor called the meeti~ to order, all Council Members being present. (3:08 p.m.) 155: PUBLIC NFARING - PROPOSED FACILITY PLANS FOR THE SANTA ANA CANYON AREAS OF BENEFIT AND CEQA- NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider approval of the following facility plans for the Santa Ana Canyon Areas of Benefit: Police Protection Facilities Plan; Fire Protection Facilities Plan; Public Library Facilities Plan; Street Maintenance Facilities Plan. The purpose of the hearing is to determine: (1) the boundaries of the particular areas of benefit; (2) the facilities planned for the area of benefit; and (3) the method of fee apportionment. 279 City H-11, An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 8, 1988, 1:36 P.M. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 29 and February 26, 1988. City Clerk, Leonora Sohl. Staff has requested that the City Council continue the subject public hearing to April 19, 1988. Mayor Bay asked if anyone was present on the subject public hearing; one person was present, Mr. Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates. Councilman Bay moved that the public hearing on the proposed Facility Plans for the Santa Aha Canyon Areas of Benefit and CEQA - Negative Declaration be continued to Tuesday, April 19, 1988. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor called upon Mr. Elfend. Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates. He is present today on behalf of the Highland's project, Sycamore Canyon and Oak Hills. He thanked the Planning Director, Joel Fick for agreeing to the April 19, 1988 continuance request but he has two comments to make. He has yet to receive the items noted on the agenda (the four Facility's plans). They concurred in the continuance which they requested based upon the understanding they would have that information and have enough time to review it and be able to comment on it and subsequently bring it to the Council in a solution-oriented manner. If the information is provided later or there are certain clarifications they will need on the information provided, they may very well come back at a later time and request a further continuance. Joel Fick, Planning Director. Mr. Elfend is correct. The Planning Department, Police Department, City Attorney and other Departments have been working to try to expedite the plans to fit the schedules everybody has been working with. It was anticipated that the plans would be ready to be presented today but they have not yet been prepared. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to continue the public hearing to April 19, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. 179/142: PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 4897 - BILLBOARDS: To consider the extension of Ordinance No. 4897 prohibiting the construction or erection of off-premise advertising structures (billboards) within the City of Anaheim, pending the study and adoption of permanent new regulations, for an additional period of time to expire January 25, 1989, unless otherwise extended or sooner repealed. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 26, 1988. 280 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposed extension of Ordinance No. 4897; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4912 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4912: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4897 ADOPTED AS AN INTERIM MEASURE PURSUANT TO SECTION 65858 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH A ZONING PROPOSAL THE CITY COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING OR STUDYING AND DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS AN URGENCY MEASURE WHICH SHALL TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT. City Attorney, Jack White then read the entire ordinance in full since it is an Urgency Ordinance and will take effect immediately. After reading of the ordinance in full, a Roll Call Vote was taken: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4912 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Bay. Even though the ordinance was passed unanimously, as they start to look at changes and recommendations from the Committee on the draft ordinances previously presented, those could occur much sooner than January 25, 1989. They have the option at any time they choose to change the ordinance thereby rescinding the Urgency Ordinance. It does not mean there will not be any action between now and January 25, 1989. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3747 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Peralta Ltd., 3150 E. Birch, Brea, CA 92621 REQUEST/LOCATION: Waiver of maximum structural height to construct up to 38 single-family residences at a height not to exceed 35 feet~ Tract No. 12576 (approximately 40 acres located on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-36 denied Variance No. 3747; approved ElK - Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the Applicant, Mr. Vic Peloquin of Peralta Ltd., and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 25, 1988. Posting of property February 25, 1988. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 26, 1988. 281 199 City Hall, An,he~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1988, 1:30 P.M. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 1, 1988. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Vic Peloquin, 280 Chrisalta Way, Anaheim. At the Council's request, they did initiate a survey and balloon test by an independent consultant, Mr. Phil Schwartze of Phillips, Brandt and Reddick (PBR), in order to mitigate concerns expressed that the requested 35-foot height waiver would block any existing views. The proposed homes will be very large and a 25-foot height, (the maximum standard) would restrict roof lines and in some cases not allow steeples or chimneys to be built on 2-story structures. His request today is that the height variance be granted. Mr. Phil Schwartze, Vice President - PBR. He referred to the documents previously submitted, one of which was a computerization of all of the lots in the tract on which the balloon test was conducted. (See minutes of the Council public hearing held December 1, 1987). That information was presented along with slides showing the balloon test in progress on many of the lots, the conclusion being that there was no significant view blockage involved with any of the lots and the houses that would be built on those lots. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. (It was determined by a show of hands that 12 to 15 people were present in opposition to the height variance request). PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Donald Van Hoff, 5202 Rolling Hills Drive, Anaheim, Ca. 92807. He is speaking on behalf of families and homeowners who will be adversely impacted on the east end of the Peralta Hills development specifically: Jack and Nancy Roberts, Frank and Diane Roberts, Don and Mona Van Hoff, Don and Melina Piliero, Michael Chan and Jan and Jim Decaro. He then presented large photographs (No. 100 through 107) that were made from the slide presentation narrated by Mr. Schwartze on behalf of the developer at the public hearing of December 1, 1987. The homeowners did not feel slides were fairly represented in showing the adverse effects and impacts. They are prepared to challenge any and all variances above the 25-foot level and, further, are suggesting an 18-foot height limitation on the east end. Assisted by Mr. Don Piliero, he submitted the large photographs individually and briefed several emphasizing that the balloon test could not show the full impact that the structures themselves would have on their homes. (The photographs were overlayed with red cellophane bands to show the mass effect of the homes after they are built rather than a 282 2O0 City Hall, AnAheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988~ 1:30 P.M. small balloon). He also presented a map showing the east end of the property and the lots which are of concern to the residents in that area. The development has eliminated their wildlife preserve, their views and peace and quiet. In exchange they are requesting consideration of an 18-foot height on the houses on the east end because they are being so badly impacted. He confirmed for the Mayor that he is specifically referring to lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37. Mr. Don Piliero, 411 Brook Lane. He questioned why they are present again regarding variance requests when it has been proven there is no hardship on the land. They want single-story homes on the lots on the east end and are asking the Council's protection against the adverse visual impact that will be created on himself and his neighbors if a height variance is granted or if those lots are not held to single-story homes. They feel the balloon study was presented inaccurately as well as being biased. Although it has previously been reported that all pads were lowered, approximately 21 pads were raised including those pads adjoining th~ development on the east end and some as high as 22 feet. If that had not occurred, the residents would not be present today. He asked that the Council help them and not let the developer push them into the Courts. They want their property and rights protected. The developer did not meet with those who would be most affected by any height waivers. Robert Zemel, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition. Mr. Peloquin stated that other variances have been granted in the area. While that may be the case, none have been granted on unseen products. There is no hardship involved but just that the applicant finds the existing height ordinance limiting. There are homes in the million-dollar price range and up in the immediate area with a 25-foot height limit. If the request is approved, conditions must be attached. (Mr. Zemel then read from a prepared statement portions of which were contained in his 3-page letter dated March 3, 1988 to the City Council - previously made a part of the record). (1) Any height variances ~hould be conditioned upon approval of plans when they are available. Approval or denial would then be given by the Zoning Administrator in a public hearing format. (2) Lots 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 should be limited to 25 feet since these lots back up to Nohl Ranch Road and if a 35-foot height limit is allowed, roof lines will protrude above the wall from 1 to 7 feet which will be a vertical extension of the wall for 1,035 linear feet. (3) Restrict the heights on lots 33 through 37 to single-story and not to exceed 18 feet in height. He continued that they have carefully looked at pre-and post grade - elevations of the lots and have concluded that relative to the impact on homes to the east (lots 33 through 37) the height study shows that if homes had been built to the original topography, existing homes on Brook Lane would have looked over the roof top of 25-foot 283 197 City Hall, An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:30 P.M. homes in front of them. (See Page 2 of the March 3, 1988 letter which contained an explanatory diagram). Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive. He is speaking for himself and a number of concerned citizens regarding the implication of a blanket variance to the City of Anaheim. He is concerned about the welfare of the City and the canyon in particular. If the Council grants a blanket variance, they are in essence saying the procedures that have been long established are no longer necessary. There should not be a blanket variance but each variance considered on its own merits. Otherwise, they should give up the City's development standards and variance procedures for varying from those standards. Phil Schwartze, PBR. The balloon test is the normal proven methodology to look at heights in the City. He also believes in the statement he made that 35 feet for the peak is for the peak and it is not the average. Thirty-five feet on the peak under normal construction of this kind of house will present a peak-a-boo affect. It is also his understanding there are three lots on which a variance is not be requested - lots 34, 35 and 36. They have a height under present Code of 25 feet and no height waiver is being requested on those lots. The purpose of the balloon test was to look at the differential between a 25-foot and a 35-foot height and the test adequately did that in presenting the information to the Council. Vic Peloquin. The reason they removed lots 34, 35 and 36 from the request was to mitigate any intrusion along the easterly property line. Those lots are not in question today. (Mayor Bay interjected that those lots may not be in question from his viewpoint but if the Council chooses, all lots can be included; City Attorney White confirmed Council has the discretion to include all lots). Lot 37 was included because that lot is tucked in against Nohl Ranch Road. There is no intrusion and the emBankment~ ar~ approximately 45 feet in hei§ht. It is not impacting any homeowners alon§ the easterly property lime. Relative to lots 18 through 22 along Nohl Ranch Koad, if there is an impact from those lots, it would not be a solid roof line but small projections of chimneys or peaks. If they did protrude above the wall, it would not be for the 1,000 plus feet mentioned by Mr. Zemel. He is asking for a blanket variance without impact for the majority of the lots. They are asking for a variance where there is no impact to the people in the area. COUNCIL INPUT: Mayor Bay. In his opinion, the Council cannot come to a good resolution on 284 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:30 P.M. the issues without involving all of the lots minus the three that have already been approved (lots 10, 29 and 32) leaving 34, 35 and 36 out since no variance is being requested on those lots. Mr. Zemel explained that due to the pad changes, they are now requesting lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 be granted an 18-foot height limitation only and then taking lots 18 through 22 and limiting them to the existing Code so that they do not protrude above the wall. They are attempting to deal with the degree of intrusion. In reviewing the balloon test and looking at the small balloon, he can agree with Mr. Van Hoff's argument that a balloon is not going to look the same as a structure. On the other hand, the photographs presented by Mr. Van Hoff with the bands of red cellophane is going to the other extreme. Coming to a conclusion about degree or percentage of visual impact is very difficult. If they are going to do that, they will have to deal with all of the lots.. Councilman Hunter. The Planning Commission denied the variance request by a 7-0 vote. He is inclined to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. If the majority of the lots are allowed the variance, then he feels there must be some burdens placed to uphold the privacy of those on the east end and also to uphold the scenic view of those driving Nohl Ranch Road. If a height variance is allowed on lots 18 through 22, than anything done with regard to the wall has been for naught. If a blanket variance is granted, then lots 18 through 22 should be restricted to Code, or 25 feet, and lots 33 through 37 should be restricted to single-story. If there is not a majority vote for that compromise, then he is of a mind to deny the variance in total. Councilman Ehrle. The people on the east portionhave a vested interest in not only their property but also in the view from their property and it is important that the Council protect those people. He does not agree that those homes abutting the property on the east end will decrease in value. He feels that they have to address the problem once and for all so that the homeowners and Mr. Peloquin do not have to come back to the Council on each lot. The project is one that the community should be proud of. There has to be some compromise, however, and at this time he is inclined towards a height limitation on lots 34, 35, 36 and 37. He has not made up his mind on lots 18 through 22. Councilman Pickler. He is opposed to doing anything with lots 18 through 22 since they do not have any bearing on the issue. He is concerned about the people on the east end. He has no problem with lots 34, 35 and 36 but he is also going to include 37. The Code should be maintained on those lots. The development is going to be an enhancement in the area and will increase the value of homes around it. 285 195 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:50 P.M. Joel Fick, Planning Director. Answering Councilwoman Kaywood he explained that the variance, if approved, could be conditioned in its entirety - a blanket situation as proposed by the developer or alternatively there could be any level of review attached to the development by the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood. It is not conceiveable that the development could lower the value of any homes in the area if no one's view is impacted. The balloon test is used as a standard in the City, even in the Disneyland area where it involves possible intrusion from large buildings. It is a valid test. There is no question that lots 34 to 37 should be limited to 25 feet. She is not sure if lot 37 would have an adverse impact. She feels she can support the requested height variance other than on lots 34, 35 and 36. She would like to see a review by the staff on Specific Plans and also with the lots that are fronting Nohl Ranch Road so that no complete roof line would be obstructing the view. Mayor Bay. For the Council to give a blanket variance with nothing back from the developer, it is all a plus for the developer. It is only reasonable to ask, and he will side with Councilman Hunter, that lots 33 through 37 or at least 34 through 37 be held to 18 feet. He has a strong feeling anything above single-story on the east end will obstruct the view of the existing homes. Regarding lots 18 through 22, he does not buy the argument of absolutely preserving the wall line along Nohl Ranch Road because he feels it reaches a point of tmpractability. If the homes are lowered at the east end of the development he will go along with the blanket variance on the remaining lots at 35 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, 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. Councilman Pickler offered a resolution granting Variance No. 3747, approving a 35-foot height on all the lots in the development with the exception of lots 34, 35, 36 and 37, those lots to remain at Code or 25 feet. He confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he was not including having staff look at the plans as they come in on lots fronting NohlRanch Road. Mayor Bay. He is speaking against the resolution because it is all take and no give; Councilman Hunter agreed. It is his intention to offer a resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision denying Variance No. 3747, which they did unanimously. 286 196 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Ehrle. He is also speaking against the proposed resolution. His original intent was that lots 34 through 37 be held to single-story homes at 18 feet which will give adjoining residents maximum benefit as well as enjoyment from their homes. He still is having difficulty relative to the homes fronting Nohl Ranch Road. They are going to be unique and different. There will only be a peak-a-boo effect as Mr. Schwartze explained instead of a long line of roof lines. A vote was then taken on the proposed resolution by Councilman Pickler. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay None Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-108 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3747, including lots 34, 35 and 36 even though a height variance was not requested on those lots, the intent being to approve the 35-foot height variance on all the lots involved in the tract other than the three previously approved (10, 29 and 32) and that lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 be limited to a height of 18 feet only from the existing pads. That is his intent. City Attorney White. To accomplish the intent, it is his recommendation that the variance be offered approving a 35-foot height limit for structures located on lots 1 through 9, 11 through 28, 30, 31 and 38 through 41 only and subject to all interdepartmental conditions and a new condition added as follows: That prior to the issuance of any building permit for any structure in excess of 25 feet in height on lots 1 through 9, 11 through 28, 30, 31 and 38 through 41 the property owner shall record an unsubordinated covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney agaimst lots 33 through 37 and in favor of the City of Anaheim limiting the maximum structural height on lots 33 through 37 to a m~imum of 18 feet above finished grade as such grade is shown on the existing grading plan for said lots heretofore approved by the City Engineer. In the event of conveyance and separation of owmership of any of the lots specified in this condition prior to recordation of the covenant required herein, this variance and all entitlements specified herein shall be null and void. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-108) Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 287 193 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8~ 1988, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the resolution as articulated by the City Attorney, including the additional condition as stated: Roll Call Vote: AYES. ' NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay Pickler None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-108 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, City Attorney White stated so that it is clear, under Code, the developer still has the right to build the houses at 25 feet for each lot but if he chooses to build at 35 feet as granted under the variance, then he will have to limit the height on lots 33 through 37 to not more than 18 feet. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:42 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:01 p.m.) 134/179: REHEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 237, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-24, 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 EIR Negative Declaration approved. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 5, 1988. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 25, 1988. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 1, 1988. 288 194 City Hall~ Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988~ 1:30 P.M. The applicant proposed originally to construct a 220 unit, 58-foot high, 4 to 6 story "affordable" apartment complex. The City Council considered the above referenced applications at a public hearing held February 9, 1988, and denied the GPA, the Reclassification and Variance. Subsequent to that action, on February 16, 1988, the applicant applied for and was granted a rehearing to review a revised plan for the subject project. Public hearing was readvertised for this date and time. Mayor Bay. He clarified that the hearing is a de novo hearing and, therefore, any and all aspects of the project is open up for rediscussion and modification. Prior to opening the hearing, he announced that he received a request for continuance from a representative of the neighborhood for two or three weeks. He asked to hear from the developer in that regard. Hugo Vazquez, 619 So. Live Oak Drive. He was agreeable to the continuance. They have had four neighborhood meetings with the people able to be contacted. They are working diligently to come to a compromise so that they are not before the Council again asking the Council to make a decision that should be made between the residents and himself as a developer. However, there is one issue that needs to be discussed to get Council input relative to an existing problem regardless of the development of the site and that is the issue of ingress and egress onto Lincoln Avenue. Mayor Bay asked to hear from a representative of the neighborhood. Glenda Flora, 106 No. Bernice. They are close to an agreement with the developer but they do have some concerns. The drawings posted on the Chamber wall are not appropriate to what they are going to be dealing with. There are two concerns they would like resolved. Their approval is contingent upon accessibility to Lincoln Avenue eastbound. They have come up with a plan that is appropriate £or them. They also want to make sure that the plans are feasible engineering wise. She confirmed that they are for a continuance of the public hearing. Mayor Bay. He asked if there were people present who wanted the public hearing to be held today and oppose to a continuance. No one was present in opposition. No one indicated their opposition to a continuance, MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue to Tuesday, April 5, 1988 at 8:00 p.m. to be the first public hearing to be discussed at that night meeting (the first meeting of the month). Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. 289 191 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 8, 1988, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay asked to hear from staff relative to the concerns particularly where it pertains to ingress and egress traffic-wise on Lincoln Avenue. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. He briefly met this afternoon with Mr. Vazquez concerning some methodology whereby the neighborhood can make a left turn onto Lincoln and Lincoln for eastbound traffic. He has not had an opportunity to look at the situation in depth. At this time it does not appear that a traffic signal would be warranted at Aladdin. Mayor Bay. He does not want to engineer the problem now but wants to be certain, as negotiations continue, if help and expertise is needed from the Traffic Engineering Department that that help will be available so that the neighbors and developer do not agree on a solution that is not feasible. He (Bay) does not feel the only answer is at Aladdin. It may be Dahlia or something else that would give the residents better egress. It is necessary to look at all alternatives. As part of the motion to continue the public hearing, he wants to see that the City furnishes that kind of help in resolving the problem. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. He would be happy to give his assistance. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, continuing the public hearing to April 5, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:12 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK Councilwoman Kaywood seconded 290