1988/07/26City ~!1, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 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 Wnite
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CITY ENGINF. ER: Gary Johnson
SENIOR PLANNER: Greg Hastings
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:00 p.m. on July 22, 1988 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the meeting to order at 12:00 noon.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball
Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No.
40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership, 0.C.S.C.C.
No. 46-96-59; In re City of Anaheim EPA Docket No. TSCA-09-88-0021.
b. To discuss labor relations matters - Government Code Section
54957.6.
c. To discuss personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its Attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
e. To consider such other matters as are orally announced by the
City Attorney, City Manager or City Council prior to such recess
unless the motion to recess indicates any of the matters will not be
considered in Closed Session.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(1:39 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Dr. Bryan Crow, Garden Church of Anaheim Hills, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickier led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
738
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988:~ 1:30 P.M.
119: DECLARATION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the family of Sarah
Gust. Mrs. Gust will be celebrating her 100th birthday on August 5, 1988.
She has been a valued citizen of Anaheim since 1891. Mayor Bay extended
warmest congratulations on behalf of the Council and the City.
119: PRESENTATION: Mayor Bay asked the Public Utilities General Manager
Gordon Hoyt to come forward and, while he was doing so, the Mayor read the
reasons why Mr. Hoyt had received the "Alex Radin Distinguished Service Award"
- the highest award granted by the American Public Power Association and
bestowed in recognition of exceptional leadership in and dedication to public
power locally and nationally. The Mayor and Council Members congratulated Mr.
Hoyt personally and as a token of appreciation, recognition and
congratulations, presented him with a specially made trophy recognizing the
important occasion.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned
regular meeting of June 7, 1988 and the regular minutes of the meeting held
June 14, 1988. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,491,135.48, in
accordance with the 1988-89 Budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS AND OF, DINANCES: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances on the Consent Calendar were read by the City
Manager. (Resolution Nos. 88R-295 through 88R-302, both inclusive, and
Ordinance Nos. 4947 through 4949 for first reading)
Councilman Pickier moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and
ordinances. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CAR/tIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CAI.FA[DAR: On motion by Councilman Pickier,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member' and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickier
offered Resolution Nos. 88R-295 through 88R-302, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance
Nos. 4947 through 4949, both inclusive for first reading.
Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken
as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Diane Marie Burns for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 30, 1988.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - Recommended to be
denied:
b. Claim submitted by George G. Tatlock for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 15, 1987.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board
meeting held June 9, 1988.
739
City ~ll, A~_aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
A3. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission
meeting held June 9, 1988.
A4. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment
Commission/Project Area Committee joint meeting held June 8, 1988.
AS. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment
Commission meeting held June 15, 1988.
A6. 175: Receiving and filing as correspondence - Application No. 88-05-009
from Pacific Bell (U 1001 C) for a review of its cost of capital and capital
structure.
A7. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis from the
Director of Finance for eleven months ended May 31, 1988.
A8. 105: Approving the Mother Colony House Advisory Board revised By-Laws.
A9. 114: ORDINANCE NO. 4947: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION 1.12.010 OF CHAPTER 1.12 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE REIATING TO MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
Al0. 164: Assessing liquidated damages in the amount of $1,100 and granting
an extension of 23 days to Zagros Company, for the construction of Placentia
Avenue Storm Drain.
All. 164: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Placentia
Avenue Storm Drain by Zagros Company, and authorizing the Mayor to sign and
the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.
Al2. 150: Approving Contract Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $78,374.85
in favor of Henry Construction Company, Inc., for additional work required to
correct existing site utilities and provide complete drainage for the building
and park areas.
Al3. 167: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Downtown
Traffic Signal Improvement Phase I, by Steiny and Company, Inc., and
authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file the Notice of
Completion.
Al4. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-295: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS (88-4A). (Declaring the intention to abandon a
10 foot electrical easement on a parcel of land between Lincoln Avenue and
Westport Drive West of Peregrine, and setting a public hearing date of
August 23, 1988 at 3:00 p.m.)
Al5. 160: Accepting the Bid of Central Moloney Company, c/o R.A. Young, in
the amount of $80,676.60 for thirty (30) each 75 KVA Single Phase Subsurface
Transformer, with switch, and accepting the bid of Kuhlman Corporation, in the
amount of $73,839.60 for thirty (30) each 75 KVA Single Phase Subsurface
Transformer, witho~ -~witch, all in accordance with Bid Proposal #A-4601 as
publicly advertises
74O
120
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Al6. 160: Accepting the bid of Walsh Engineering Company, in an amount not to
exceed $116,000 for residential sidewalk replacement.
Al7. 160: Accepting the bid of General Electric Corporation, in the amount of
$40,446.42 for forty-four (44) single phase conventional transformers;
accepting the bid of RTE Corporation, in the amount of $43,782.24 for (60)
single phase conventional transformers; and accepting the bid of Wesco
Company, in the amount of $16,570.98 for eighteen (18) single phase
conventional transformers; and accepting the bid of Central Moloney Co in the
amount of $6,610.16 for four (4) single phase conventional transformers, all
in accordance with bid proposal #A-4602 as publicly advertised.
Al8. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-296: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-263 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT.
(Administrative Services Director, and designating that classification
eligible to receive an automobile allowance, effective July 22, 1988)
Al9. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-297: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL UNIT AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (To
adjust the rates of compensation for Power Resource Specialist I and Power
Resource Specialist II)
A20. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-298: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE FOR>~ OF AMENDMF2~T NO. 6 TO THAT CERTAIN
REVOLVING CREDIT AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL
TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION AND MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NE~W YORK.
(To provide a back-up line of credit for maturing Revenue Anticipation Notes)
A21. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-299: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL OFFICERS TO EACH BE AN "AUTHORIZED
PERSON" UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 4415 AND EACH AN "AUTHORIZED OFFICER" UNDER THE
REVOLVING CREDIT AGRE~MFJ~T RELATING TO THE CITY'S WATER REV~qUE AWfICIPATION
NOTES. (Authorizing an additional officer, (Assistant General Manager-Finance
and Administration) to be an "authorized person" under Ordinance No. 4415)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-300: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL OFFICERS TO EACH BE AN "AUTHORIZED PERSON"
UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 4417 AND EACH AN "AUTHORIZED OFFICER" UNDER THE REVOLVING
CREDIT AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE CITY'S ELECTRIC REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES.
(Authorizing additional officer, (Financial Services MaDmger) to be an
"authorized person" under Ordinance No. 4417)
A22. 182/153: Approving the appointment of Lisa Stipkovich to the position of
Community Development Director.
A23. 161: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-301: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF A~NAHEIM CONSENTING TO A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FOURTH
AMENDMenT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PlAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA,
AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DATE, TIME AND PLACE THEREFOR, AND
AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION ANDMAILING OF NOTICE OF SUCH JOINT PUBLIC HEARING.
741
117.
City Hall, Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
(Consenting to a joint public hearing on the proposed Fourth Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha, (Santa Fe Pacific Plaza -
southwest corner of Tustin and La Palma) authorizing the establishment of a
date, time and place, and authorizing publication and mailing of notice of the
joint public hearing)
A24. 130/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4948: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
NEW CHAPTER 1.02 TO TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
FRANCHISES.
A25. 123: Approving a Hold Harmless Agreement with Gannett Outdoor Company
for the placement of a two-sided porta-panel trailer to be parked on property
at 610 N. Brookhurst between August 1 - 9, 1988, promoting "National Night
Out" a nationwide anti-crime campaign, and authorizing the Maintenance
Department to sign the agreement on behalf of the City.
A26. 123: Approving an agreement with Anaheim Family Y.M.C.A. to relocate the
Anaheim Athletic Boxing Club from the First Presbyterian Church to the Anaheim
Family Y.M.C.A.
A27. 139: Opposing Assembly Constitutional Amendment 63, which would
authorize the legislature to provide for the addition of federally insured
industrial loan companies for the deposit of public money, and authorizing the
Mayor to communicate this position to Assemblyman Patrick Johnston.
A28. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-302: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY 0FANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
A29. 129/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4949: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER
i6.30 RELATING TO INSPECTION FEES. (Amending Title 16 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code to add Chapter 16.30 to establish a Reinspection Fee and a Self
Inspection Program in connection with Fire Prevention Bureau regulations)
A30. ]~ Opposing the proposed amendments to SCAQMD Rule 1136 pertaining to
the a~ cation of coatings to wood furniture, and authorizing the Mayor to
commu~ ne that position to our Orange County board member representatives of
the gCA~.
A31. 175.123: Approving the consent agreement and final order in EPA Docket
No. TSCA-09-88-O021, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to
execute same.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 88R-295 through 88R-302:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSEWI':
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-295 through 88R-302, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
742
1'18
Cit~ Hall, Am_aheim, C~l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
End of Consent Calendar. Councilman Ehrle abstained from voting on item A26.
MOTIONS CARRIED.
153: CHANGE OF WORK SCNEOULE AND SALARY FOR WATER TREATMENT OPERATER JOB
CLASSIFICATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Ehrle,
the Anaheim City Council determined that the need to act on the following item
arose after the posting of the agenda for this meeting, on Friday, July 22,
i988, at 4:00 p.m.; and consequently waived the Brown Act requirement relative
to posting the item on the printed agenda. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. {Resolution No. 88R-303)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-303 for adoption, approving a Letter
of Understanding between the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, General
Unit and the City of Anaheim to change the work schedule and salary for the
Water Treatment Operator Job Classification. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-303: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING DATED JULY 21, 1988, BETWEEN THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL UNIT AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
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-303 duly passed and adopted.
108/000/142/150: CONTINUED HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLES 3 AND 4
BUSINESS LICENSES, AMUSEMENT DEVICES AND HAT.I.OWE~EN PARADE AND FESTIVAL: To
consider proposed ordinances which would amend Titles 3 and 4 establishing a
revised schedule of business license fees. This matter was discussed at and
continued from the meetinss of June 14 and July 19, 1988, to this date.
Submitted was report dated July 22, 1988 from the City Treasurer, Mary Turner,
recommending adoption of the proposed ordinances and that the City Council
increase the appropriation to Account No. 01-156-5115 for Fiscal Year 1988/89
by $100,000 to cover costs associated with implementing the new business
license ordinance.
City Clerk Sohl announced that just before the meeting, letter dated July 26,
1988 was submitted from the President of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce,
Larry Slagle, requesting that the first reading of the proposed business
license tax ordinance be continued for 30 days. (Copies of the letter had
been distributed to Council Members).
743
City Hall, A~__~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Ehrle. He would like to continue the first reading today and that
there be an opportunity for public input on the final adoption of the
ordinance. Another group who has not had an opportunity to review the
ordinance is the Economic Development Board. Their next meeting is August 4,
1988. The Council created the Board to advise the Council and, therefore, the
Council should receive their input as well as that of the Chamber of Commerce
since the issue directly affects businesses in the community. He feels it
would be prudent to have the input from groups.
Councilman Hunter. He disagrees. The ordinances should be offered at this
time. Also, he will not be present at the meeting of August 9, 1988 which
will be the second reading of the ordinance.
Councilman Hunter thereupon offered Ordinance Nos. 4950 and 4951 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4950: AN ORDINA]~CE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 3 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, EXCEPT CHAPTER 3.20 THEREOF, AND ADDING NEW TITLE
3 PEM.TAINING TO BUSINESS LICENSES.
ORDINANCE NO. 4951: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTERS 4.14
AND 4.98 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO AMUSEMENT
DEVICES AND HALLOWEEN PARADE AND FESTIVAL.
Councilman Bay then moved to continue the second reading of the ordinances to
at least five weeks from today. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before any action was taken, Council Members Hunter and Kaywood stated that
was too long. Councilman Hunter felt that August 16, 1988 would be a
sufficient continuance. The Chamber would not need that much time to review
the ordinance.
Councilman Hunter moved that the second reading of the proposed business
license tax ordinance be on August 16, 19~8. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion.
Councilman Ehrle. He is opposed based on the fact that the Economic
Development Board has not had an opportunity to see the ordinance.
Councilman Pickler. They have procrastinated too long on the business license
fee. ~here is a police item on the agenda today that they are looking toward
the business license fee to assist. It is a policy matter which belongs with
the City Council. The Economic Development Board is looked to for assistance
in bringing businesses to the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood. The Economic Development Board was not set up to
establish fees.
City Attorney White. He clarified it does not require a public hearing and if
the Council wished, the item could be placed somewhere else on the Council
agenda.
744
City Hall, Anaheim~ Cmlffornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler. He recommended that the item be left on the agenda where
it is now but that nobody will be deprived of speaking to the matter if they
wished to do so.
A vote was then taken on the motion to continue the second reading until
August 16, 1988. Councilman Ehrle voted no. Councilman Bay abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4946 - CONVENIENCE MARKETS: Amending various sections
and subsections of various chapters of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
relating to parking requirements and definitions of convenience markets. The
ordinance was introduced at the meeting of July 19, 1988.
City Clerk Sohl announced that an Alternate B of the proposed ordinance had
also been submitted to the Council which was requested to be prepared by the
City Attorney at the prior meeting.
City Attorney White. The revised version (Alternate B) would provide that the
additional parking requirements would not be applicable to any projects that
are in process and for which there had not yet been a vested right acquired.
Section 3 of Alternate B adds language that would exempt any project for which
the City has either A - discretionary permit or building permit on or before
this date from the additional requirements of the ordinance. They would still
have to meet the requirements in effect prior to this time.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. As indicated in the documentation
submitted to the Council, there are five projects which have had building
permit submittals in the last year. One has been finalized - several are
still in Plan Check, several have completed Plan Check but are still to be
picked up and/or have corrections and have to be resubmitted. There are nine
addresses on the second page (two appear to be on the first list as well) all
of which are projects that have come before the Planning Commission and City
Council during their last year have been approved. Other than the two, seven
have not made any submittals for building permits at this time. Basically of
the overall 12 net projects three have additional parking which would permit
them automatically to have take-out food service if they wished. There are
nine projects potentially that would be affected by what the Council is
possibly going to do on the ordinance.
City Attorney White. The projects which will be in process between now and
t~e date the ordinance is in effect and seek building permits will still be
allowed to proceed because the ordinance will not be in effect if the Council
adopts the revised version for another 30 days plus two weeks or September 8,
1988. The reason it was not worded in a way which would say it will take
effect on September 8th, there may be projects that come before the Council
for discretionary permits between now and September 8 where the Council would
want to impose the additional requirement. This would give the Council the
option of doing that. If Council adopts the ordinance introduced last week,
it would have the effect of requiring projects which have not acquired a
vested development right to comply with the additional five spaces. Those
would include projects that had received either discretionary permits such as
a conditional use permit or variance or building permits from the City but
745
113'
City Hall, A~mheim~ Cm!~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
have not yet exercised those by commencing development. If the original
version of the ordinance is adopted, those types of projects would have to
comply.
Mayor Bay. He is trying to avoid having someone who is given approval with
specific conditions coming in after the fact and then imposing the new
requirement on them. In order to avoid that, he would suggest that
Alternate B be offered.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the issue; there
was no response.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4946 for amended first reading, the
amendment being the inclusion of Alternate B.
ORDINANCE NO. 4646: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING AND AMENDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS OF VARIANCE CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITION OF
CONVENIENCE MARKETS.
108/000/179: BI~J.BOARD BUSINESS LICENSE FEES - BILLBOARD BLUE RIBBON
COMMITTEE: Discussion requested by Bob Zemel, Chairman of the Billboard Blue
Ribbon Committee, regarding potential billboard business license fees. This
matter was discussed at and continued from the meetings of June 7, June 21,
and July 12, 1988, to this date (see minutes those dates).
Councilman Hunter. He is ready to offer the proposed ordinance amending the
Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) to establish a revised schedule of billboard
license fees and that the fees be as listed in staff report dated July 19,
1988 from the Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti, Page 2, showing first
the size of the boards and then the proposed tax rate for those boards.
ORDINANCE NO. 4952: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER
3.20 OF TITLE 3 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS
3.04.260, 3.04.270, 3.04.280, 3.04.290, 3.04.300 AND 3.04.310 TO CHAPTER 3.04,
AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 3.20 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ANAHE~MUNICIPAL CODE KELATING
TO ADVERTISING.
Councilman Hunter moved that the second reading o~ the ordinance not taka
place until the Council meeting of August 16, 1988 for full Council action.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler. This is something the Council has wanted. He is also
going to make a further motion as follows: That the City's present ordinance
regarding billboards be maintained as is, which does not allow freeway
billboards and that there be no further action with regard to freeway signs.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before any action was taken, Mayor Bay asked if anyone was present today who
wished to speak to the subject item; no one wished to speak.
746
City Hmll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay noted that there would be adequate time for anyone who wished to
speak at the second reading of the ordinance. The floor was now open for
Council comments on the proposed motion by Councilman Pickler.
Councilman Ehrle. He is going to vote against the motion because the
Billboard Blue Ribbon Committee's work is still in progress where they are
still discussing a number of issues. The motion would not be in the best
interest of the City at this time. The Committee may come up with
alternatives.
Councilman Hunter. The motion is moot. It is merely to keep the status quo.
In order to change it, there would have to be three votes of the Council. The
motion is only reaffirming tim ordinance as it now stands. He is agreeable to
reaffirming the ordinance in that there be no freeway billboards.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MOTICN CARRIED.
Mayor Bay. He confirmed then that there is no longer an argument or an issue
across the majority of the Council on whether or not there will be new freeway
boards in the City at this time.
Councilman Pickler moved to disband the Billboard Blue Ribbon Committee which
was formed to look at the issue of freeway billboards. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Hunter stated the Committee should at
least be allowed to come forward at the meeting of August 16, 1988 when second
reading of the proposed ordinance will take place. The Chairman, Bob Zemel
and the Committee Members have worked long and hard on the issue and should be
given an opportunity to make a presentation.
Mayor Bay. He agrees that since the issue of freeway boards has been "put to
bed" that there is no longer the need for the Blue Ribbon Committee and,
therefore, supports the motion.
Councilman Hunter. One of the reasons the Committee was formed was to also
look at inner-city boards and the number at each intersection. He does not
know if they have had the opportunity to do so but he would like to near from
Mr. Zemel and the Committee on the matter.
Mayor Bay recommended an amendment to the motion to sunset the Billboard Blue
Ribbon Committee at midnight on August 18, 1988. The motion was thereupon
amended.
747
_ _ City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Ehrle stated the Committee was going to
deal with specific issues such as eliminating the number of boards at
inner-city intersections, eliminating inner-city boards over a period of time,
etc., the issues he tried to raise initially. They owe the five citizen
members on the Committee and representatives of the industry an opportunity to
be heard. He cannot go along with predetermining that their work is no longer
needed.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She feels as before that it should be a Council
decision in any case. Further, Mr. Zemel had previously reported to the
Council that representatives of the billboard industry outweighed the five
citizens on the Committee and thus they were not able to get anything
accomplished. As long as there will be no more freeway boards and there will
be no change to the existing ordinance, it is an issue that no longer need be
discussed.
A vote was then taken on the motion, as amended, to sunset the Billboard Blue
Ribbon Committee as of Tuesday, August i6, 1988 at 12 midnight and carried by
the following vote:
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Hunter, Kaywood, Pickier and Bay
Ehrle
None
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the City require a conditional use permit for
any additional billboards that are proposed in the City. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White clarified that the provision
requiring a CUP could not be made a part of the current ordinance but that it
would take an amendment to the existing ordinance to do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon directed the City Attorney to draft an
amendment to the current billboard ordinance that would require a CUP for any
new billboards to be constructed in the City. Councilman Hunter seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
137/127/134/173; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER: To discuss
potential ehange~ to City Charter to be placed on November 1988 ballot. This
matter was discussed at the meetings of May 31, June 7, June 14, June 21,
June 28, July 12 and July 19, 1988, to this date. Technical "housekeeping"
Charter amendments have already been approved to be placed on the November 8,
1988 ballot. Submitted today as requested by the Council is a resolution for
a measure to support the City's critical intersection program and a resolution
setting priorities for filing written arguments.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 88R-304 and 88R-305)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
748
City Hall~ A~mheim, Ca]ffornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 88R-304 and 88R-305 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-304: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM SETTING FORTH A MEASURE FOR SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS AT THE GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 8, 1988.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-305: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY
MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ~PAKTIAL ANALYSIS.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay explained he is offering the resolutions at
this time regardless of the outcome of the public hearing on the issue of the
critical intersections. It is important that this bond issue be put on the
ballot for the people in the City to show their preference on what they
consider to be a major priority issue in the City and to set the priorities
for the entire Council to write the written arguments.
A vote then taken on the foregoing resolutions:
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 88K-304 and 88R-305:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-304 and 88R-305 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Ehrle suggested that this item - Proposed Amendments to the City
Charter - be removed from the agenda; City Clerk Sohl confirmed that the last
day for submitting additional measures to the County will be August 12, 1988
and, therefore, the last day for the Council to add any other items will be
August 9, 1988.
City Attorney White. If there is going to be any additional items and
August 9, 1988 is the last meeting date for the Council to take action, staff
will only have three days to prepare the necessary documentation.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST;
NO items of public interest were addressed.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held July 6, 1988, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
Cl. GENERAl. PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 241 (READVERTISED), RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 87-88-49 AND VARIANCE NO. 3793 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNERS: JOHNNIE J. TUREK & SHURLA B. TUREK, 1234 S. Western Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92804
RUDOLPH L. EDWARD DOLEZAL, 1226 S. Western Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804
AUSTELL SMITH, 1238 S. Western Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804
JOHN LLOYD McGOLDRICK, JR., & LINDA JEAN McGOLORICK, 3159 Lanerose Drive,
749
95¸
City Hall, Anmheim~ C~l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - J~uly 26~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: ANDREW HOMES, INC., ATTN: MIKE NEWAR, 4000 MacArthur Blvd., #680,
~ewport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 1226, 1234, 1238 S. Western Avenue and 3159 W. Lanerose Avenue
C2.
Petitioner requests amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
proposing a redesignation from the current Low-Medium Density Residential
designation to a Medium Density Residential designation.
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone with waivers of (a) minimum
building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height and
(c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum building setback, (e) minimum
recreational/leisure area, (f) minimum dimension of ground floor private
patios and (g) minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 31-unit
condominium complex. Property is approx. 1.6 acres located at the
northeast corner of Lanerose Avenue and Western Avenue.
GPA NO. 241 DENIED by the Planning Commission, PC88-171.
Reclassification No. 87-88-49 GRANTED for RM-2400 by the Planning
Commission, PC88-172.
Variance No. 3793 DENIED by the Planning Commission, PC88-173.
Approved Negative Declaration.
RECLARSIFICATION NO. 88-89-01, VARIANCE NO. 3809 AND NEGAYIVE DECLARATION
OWNERS: CHARLES D. BOLERJACKAND DOROTHY A. BOLEKJACK, 3625 Savanna
Street, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: MICHAEL K. FRAZIER, 18200 Yorba Linda Boulevard, #201, Yorba
Linda, CA 92686
LOCATION: 3625 Savanna Street
For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone.
To construct a 3-story, 16-unit "affordable" apartment complex with
waivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum
structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum floor area of
dwelling units and (e) permitted encroachment into front yard.
Reclassification No. 88-89-01 DENIED by the Planning Commission, PC88-174.
Variance No. 3809 DENIED by the Planning Commission, PC88-175.
DENIED Negative Declaration.
Letter of appeal filed by Michael Frazier, Agent.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant
and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
C3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-02 AND VARIANCE NO. 3810 ~qD NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
OWNERS: CLINTON H. FL~qN AND RUTH R. FLYNN, 603-607 West Broadway,
Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: S & M DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ATTN: MOHAMMAD MEHDI EBRAHIMZADEH,
P.O. Box 3868 Mission Viejo, CA 92690
LOCATION: 603 through 607 West Broadway
For a change in zone from RM-2400 to RM-1200.
75O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
To construct a 10-unit apartment building with waivers of (a) maximum site
coverage, (b) minimum floor area of dwelling units and (c) required
recreation/leisure area.
Reclassification No. 88-89-02 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-176.
Variance No. 3810 GRANTED IN PART, by the Planning Commission, PC88-177.
APPROVk]3 Negative Declaration.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council
Members Kaywood and Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled
at a later date.
C4. VARIANCE NO. 3804 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OW]~ERS: DR. R. S. MINNICKAND JAN W. MINN£CK, 12269 Sky Lane,
Los Angeles, CA 90049
LOCATION: Located at the southeast corner of Oran~etnorpe Avenue and
Lemon Street.
To establish a total of 1,978 square feet of fast food restaurant area in
an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of
required parking spaces.
Variance No. 3804 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-178.
APPROVED Negative Declaration.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council
Members Kaywood and Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled
at a later date.
C5.
VARIANCE NO. 3807 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNERS: GOLDIE G. MONTGOMERY AND CLAYBORN L. GRAVES, 175 S. Lakeview,
Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENTS: R. C. BRUMFIELD, One Morning Dove, Irvine, CA 92714
MORGAN DEVELOPi~NT, 1122 E. Lincoln, #116, Orange, CA 92665
LOCATION: Property is located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon
Road and Lakeview Avenue.
To construct 4 single-family residences with waiver of maximum structural
height.
C6.
Variance No. 3807 WITHDRAWN by the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3024 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER: ANAHEIM HILLS PROMENADE PARTNERSHIP, 22 Starlight, Irvine, CA
92715
AGENT: ANAHEIM HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH, Rev. Timothy Van Heest, 6503-A
Serrano Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 6503-6505 Serrano Avenue
To permit a 4,480 square-foot church facility with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
CUP NO. 3024 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-179.
Waiver of Code Requirement GRANTED by the Planning Commission.
APPROVED Negative Declaration.
751
City ~11, Amaheim~ Cnltfornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
C7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3025 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER: WINSTON INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, 2201 E. Winston, #A, Anaheim, CA
92806
AGENT: ST. LUKE'S REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH, P.O. Box 6731, Buena Park,
CA 90620
LOCATION: 2201 Winston Road, Suite Q
To permit a church facility with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
CUP NO. 3025 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-180.
Waiver of Code Requirement GRANTED by the Planning Commission.
APPROVED Negative Declaration.
C8.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3027 CATEGORICAIJ.Y EXEMPT, CLASS 3
OWNERS: ROBERTO I. NOGALES AND ALEJANDRA G. NOGALES, 817 W. North Street,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 817 West North Street
To construct a 611 square-foot Granny Unit with waiver of minimum rear
yard setback.
CUP NO. 3027 GRANTED by th~ Planning Commission, PC88-181.
~aiver of Code Requirement GRANTED by the Planning Commission.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council
Members Kaywood and Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled
at a later date.
C9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3029 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNERS: EVERETT A. HOLMES AND LOUISE M. HOLMES, 715 Webster, #10,
Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT: PLANTATION MOBILE ESTATES, INC., ATTN: DUDLEY FRANK, 505 N.
Tustin, #151 Santa Ana, CA 92705
LOCATION: 1842 South Mountain View Avenue
To establish a 5 space mobile home park with waivers of (a) minimum depth
of required front yard, (b) minimum depth of required side yard and (c)
minimum depth of required rear yard.
CUP NO. 3029 GRANTED by the Planning Commission, PC88-182.
Waiver of Code Requirement GRANTED by the Planning Commission.
APPROVED Negative Declaration.
C10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3032 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER: WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT, INC., ATTN: JAMES A. HIGHLAND, 17911
Mitchell, Irvine, CA 92714
AGENT: THE GARDEN CHURCH, ATTN: BRIAN L. CROW, 5425 E. La Pa]ma Avenue,
;maheim, 92807
LOCATION: 23472 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road
To permit a semi-enclosed "Garden Church-- for 3 years maximum with waivers
of (a) required improvement of parking area and (b) permitted number and
size of freestanding identification signs.
752
City ~11, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
CUP NO. 3032 GRANTED IN PART, by the Planning Commission, PC88-183.
Waiver of Code Requirement GRANTED IN PART, by the Planning Commission.
APPROVED Negative Declaration.
Cll. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3008 (KEADVERTISEO) ~qD NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER: OLYMPIA STATIONS, 405 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y.
AGENT: GARY ENGINEERING, 2207 Garnet Avenue, San Diego, CA 92109
LOCATION: 100 N. Beach Boulevard
Amendment to certain conditions of approval pertaining to fast food sales
in a convenience market with gasoline sales.
The readvertised changes were WITHDRAWN by the applicant. See Public
Hearing on original CUP No. 3008, item D1 this date.
C12. VARIANCE NO. 3615 (READVERTISED) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER: NEVADA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, INC., ATTN: JOHN E. ~IMMONS, 220
Congress Park Drive, Suite 230, Del Ray Beach, Florida 33445
AGENT: PETER GENOVESE, 23211 South Pointe, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
LOCATION: 1841 West Lincoln Avenue
To permit fast-food restaurant uses in a previously approved 5,000 square
foot commercial/retail building with waiver of the minimum number of
parking spaces.
Variance No. 3615 GRAY, TED by the Planning Commission, PC88-184.
APPROVEO Negative Declaration.
End of Planning Commission Items. MOTIONS CARRIEO.
179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A PD-C/RM-2400 ZONE FOR ANAHEIM
BOULEVARD: Recommendation from the Planning Commission that a new zone
(pD-C/RM-2400) be established for North Anaheim Boulevard. Action was taken
by the Planning Commission to recommend the proposed ordinance to the City
Council at the Planning Commission meeting of July 6, 1988.
Councilman Ehrle. He would like to request a continuance on the first
reading. He has received a number of phone calls on the proposed ordinance.
He would like more information relative to the streets that are included since
it seems that those have been expanded from what the original intent was.
Greg Hasting, Senior Planner. The intent of the Planning Commission was only
to create a new zone and not to establish any certain properties at this
time. It is a general concept involving those properties behind the
properties on Anaheim Boulevard minus any of the single-family zones. The
individual properties have not been looked at that closely by the Planning
Commission.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4953 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4953: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 18.80
TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
753
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney White. The ordinance creates a new zone; it does not zone any
property into the zone. Before that would happen, there would be public
hearings relating to the property that would be potentially zoned into the
zone. T~is only creates the mechanism for commencing the hearing process to
rezone property. Even if adopted, it has no effect on any property in the
City. The only way it could affect a piece of property is if the Council,
after a public hearing, would rezone the property into that zone.
Greg Hastings. At this point, the Planning Commission was just interested in
establishing the zone. There has not been a meeting date set for the actual
properties to be rezoned.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She does not want to delay the reclassification from
RM-1200 to RM-2400 but she is concerned if there is a misunderstanding. A
letter has been submitted to the Council expressing concern over the proposed
change and others who live in the area are present in the Chamber audience.
She would like to hear from them at this time.
Mayor Bay. The second reading will take place on August 9, 1988 and that will
give time to get additional information regarding the proposed ordinance. The
public will have adequate time to speak at the meeting of August 9, 1988 when
the ordinance is scheduled for adoption.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERi, IT NO. 2888 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Requested by David
K. Ipson, La Rue Frey, Inc. 12171 Country Lane, Santa Ana, CA 92705. The
request is to permit a church on KS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at
441 Fairmont Boulevard, with Code waiver of maximum structural height for a
retroactive time extension (from April 21, 1988, to expire April 21, 1989) to
comply with conditions of approval.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the requested extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2888, retroactive from April 21, 1988, to expire
April 21, 1989) to comply with conditions of approval to permit a church on
RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at 441 Fairmont Boulevard, with Code
waiver of maximum structural height. Councilman Ehrie seconded the motion.
Councilman Hunter abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3791 AND NEGATIVE DECLAKATiON:
OWNER; LEDGER SMITH, 1716 N. Ross Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92706 ATTN:
Security Pacific National Bank, P.O. Box 7120, Newport Beach, CA 9265~
AGENT: GERALD M. GRECO, 2225 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806, and
THOMAS K. CANNON, 27665 Foches Road, Suite 204, Laguna Niguei, CA 92677
LOCATION: 2225 E. Katella Avenue
Variance No. 3791 granted by the Planning Commlssion (PC88-123) and after
a public hearing before the Council, the Council granted variance No. 3791
allowing 3 free-standing signs under Resolution No. 88R-254 and also
subject to City Planning Commission conditions.
A Declaration of Merit and request for rehearing on'the Council's decision was
subsequently submitted by Roy Castanon, Stadium Motors, Inc.
754
City M-11, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay. He noted that the only statement listed under the Declaration of
Merit regarding the request for rehearing was, "conditions set forth for
Variance approval No. 3791." It is, therefore, difficult to ascertain the
specific reasons for the request. He asked if the petitioner was present;
there was no response.
City Attorney White. The decision to grant a rehearing needs to be only on
the basis of the declaration submitted and not input from the public. There
is no reason for the requestor to be present.
Councilman Bay thereupon moved that since the reason for the request for a
rehearing is not stated in the declaration, that the request be denied on the
basis of an incomplete request. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler asked if Mr. Castanon could come
back with another request; City Attorney White answered no. He has requested
a rehearing but has not specified the grounds. He has just indicated that he
is unhappy with one or more of the conditions imposed. If that is the case,
he should seek an amendment to the conditions and not a rehearing.
134/173/158: PROPOSED CODE ~NDMENT PERTAINING TO CRITICAL INTERSECTION
RIGHT OF WAY: At their May 9, 1988 meeting the Planning.Commission proposed
and recommended to the City Council an ordinance concerning acquisition of
right-of-way to implement the City's Critical Intersection Design.
This Ordinance will be considered at the conclusion of the Critical
Intersection Hearing (GPA 210).
Submitted for information only.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4954: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4954 for first
reading.
ORDINA/~CE NO. 4954: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RF. IATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 76-77-40(2)
Tract No. 9601 from RS-A-43,000(SC) to RS-HS-22,000(SC).
179: REQUEST FOR REHEAiLING - CONDITIONALU§E PERMIT NO. 3009, CATEGORICALI~
~XEMPT, CLASS-3:
OWNERS: JERRY L. MADREN AND JUDY A. MADREN, 503 South Vicki Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 503 South Vicki Lane
The original request was to permit a 640 square-foot "Granny Unit".
The Planning Commission granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3009
(Resolution No. PC88-127). Subsequently after a public hearing held
before the City Council, CUP No. 3009 was again granted subject to
additional conditions (see Resolution No. 88R-243).
Councilman Ehrle referred to the Declaration of Merit and request for
rehearing submitted by Mrs. Madren attached to which was letter dated July 21,
1988. He asked to hear from the City Attorney.
755
127
City Ha]i~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES - July 26, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney White. His opinion is much the same as the previous request for
a rehearing which is really a request for an amendment of one of the
conditions of the existing permit. He believes the real problem is a
misunderstanding of the one condition, No. 4, of Resolution No. 88R-243. It
does not require that the structure be demolished but that it be brought into
conformance with the Code so that it does not constitute a second residential
unit. The requirement needs to be more fully explained to the applicant or if
still dissatisfied with that explanation, that a more appropriate remedy would
be to apply for an amendment to that condition.
Judy Madren. When she received the resolution and read Condition No. 4, she
was surprised how it read. She came down to City Hall and asked to see the
City Clerk and then the City Attorney but since they were not available, she
spoke with the Planning Department who suggested that she bring the matter to
the City Clerk and request a rehearing. She understood that it would be the
proper course of action in order to delete Condition No. 4.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Mrs. Madren spoke with her. When
the condition in question was discussed at the public hearing before the
Council on June 21, 1988, she (Madren) did not understand what the condition
meant. She thought it referred to the other condition stating that the
occupancy be by one or two people of 62 years of age or more. At the hearing,
she agreed to the condition instead of questioning what she was being asked.
When she saw the condition in writing she was sure she had misunderstood.
There was no discussion other than the Council questioned her whether she
would object to a condition like that. It is an unusual condition on granny
units. They may have done it once before but it also may predate the Granny
Unit Legislation at the State which says a granny unit shall be approved when
the applicant meets the conditions that are appropriate. She believes that
this granny unit is in complete compliance with City and State regulations.
Mayor Bay. As the City Attorney just explained, if the Council granted a
rehearing, it would be a hearing de novo or a hearing on the CUP in its
entirety. Under those circumstances, the applicant could lose everything
already gained whereas the City Attorney stated if she applies for a change in
the condition, the request for an amendment would come through the regular
process and the rest of the conditional use permit would not be put at risk.
City Attorney White. He explained the application fee for an amendment to
conditions will mean additional costs to the applicant but the City Clerk has
indicated that the fee to apply for a request for a rehearing ($50) can be
applied toward the fee for filing for an amendment to conditions ($200).
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the request for a rehearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 3009. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:10 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:30)
756
128
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1988, 1:30 P.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3008 AND NEGATIVE
DECIARATION:
APPLICANT:
Olympia Stations, Inc.
405 Park Avenue
New York, New York, 10022
AGENT:
Gary Engineering, Inc.
2207 Garnet Ave., Suite G,
San Diego, CA 92109
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 100 North Beach Boulevard.
request is to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales.
The
PIANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-126 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 3008; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler at the meeting of May 31, 1988. This matter was continued from the
meeting of June 28, 1988, to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 16, 1988.
Posting of property June 17, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 17, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 1988.
Mr. Bob Faudoa, 4055 Raffee Drive, San Diego and Mr. Brad House,
10219 Pinewood, Tujunga were present.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Pickler.
There is a gas station on the corner at present. He is very
familiar with the corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue
and the traffic and circulation is a problem even now and that
is his main concern. The applicant is proposing a convenience
market with gasoline sales which he feels will have a negative
impact. He notes that beer and wine is not to be sold at the
location. He asked if hot food is proposed to be sold and also
if parking is adequate.
Bob Faudoa.
They will be selling hot food and parking is adequate.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
The applicant is proposing an irrevocable offer of dedication
for a critical intersection in order to mitigate traffic.
757
125
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler.
He feels with the use being proposed and the fact that this is a
critical intersection, it will be too much for that corner. The
Traffic Engineer has indicated that it will not affect traffic
due to the fact that widening will occur but such widening is
not expected to take place perhaps for years.
Paul Singer.
The use will increase the number of trips and he would object if
there are no mitigating circumstances, but the applicant has
consented to mitigating the traffic.
Bob Faudoa.
Currently there is a 2-base station on the property which they
will be demolishing. The way they have situated the new station
would direct the traffic flow pattern better than it is at the
present time. They are also limiting two of the approaches
going to the main arterials and are working with the Traffic
Engineer to move the approaches (driveways) outside of that
intersection as much as possible which would result in improved
traffic flow and this will occur immediately.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She noted that Item No. 9 on Page 4 of the staff report stated
that there would be no sale of alcoholic beverages and that no
fast-foods would be served.
Bob Faudoa.
At the last Planning Commission hearing, the Commission approved
the sale of fast-food.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
After the Council set the item for a public hearing, the item
went back to the Planning Commission as a revised item. The
applicant submitted a new set of drawings, Revision No. l, which
included nine parking spaces to accommodate the fast-food
service as well as providing separate men's and women's public
restrooms. The original scheme did not include the fast-food,
had 1~ parking and a unisex restroom set-up. Because Council
had taken it out of the Commission's hands, Commission's action
had no significance whatsoever. The Council has before it the
resolution first acted on by the Planning Commission. While it
is similar, it is meant to have public men's and women's
restrooms, take-out food and nine parking spaces. If the
Council takes favorable action today, the Planning Commission
resolution needs modification and Revision No. 1 plans.
Bob Faudoa.
The posted plan shows only two revisions, but the new plans
submitted May 16, 1988 show four revisions.
758
126
City Hall, Anaheim~ Cml~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
COUNCIL ACTION:
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
~VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. ~Resolution No. 88R-306)
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-306 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 3008, subject to City Planning Commission
Conditions and modifications as discussed at this hearing. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88K-306: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3008.
Before a vote was taken, Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated that
it would involve deletion of Condition No. 9, modify Condition No. 16 to read
Revision No. 1 of Exhibits 1 through 3 and provided, however, that at least
nine parking spaces shall be provided. The attorney just noted that the beer
and wine was still intended to be excluded; therefore, nine is modified to
delete the reference to fast-food but not to beer and wine off-sale. The plan
on the wall, Revision No. 1, shows separate men's and women's public restrooms.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution including the modifications
to the conditions as articulated by the Zoning Administrator:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES;
NOES:
ABS~{T:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and BaY
Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88K-306 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HmARING - CONDITIONAL USE PE~{IT NO. 3015 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
La Mirada Cleaners, Inc.
135 W. Ball Road,
Anaheim, CA 92805
759
City Hall, AnAheim, Cal~forn:ta - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
AGENT:
Meior Slani
9301 Wilshire Boulevard, #509,
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 135 W. Bail Road. The request
is to permit a 6,880 square-foot, 10-unit, commercial retail center with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-150 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 3015; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Councilman Pickler
and Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of June 28, 1988, and public hearing
scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 14, 1988.
Posting of property July 15, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 15, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 6, 1988.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Pickler.
His main concern is traffic and circulation at that busy
intersection (Ball Road and Lemon Street) and the request to put
a i0-unit commercial center on such a small piece of property.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Charles Sadgh, 2901 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 509, Beverly Hills.
The plans snow 8 units; 10 was a maximum number. Yhere will
probably be only 8 units but they requested the maximum. The
number of units will not have much impact. They have provided
full size parking spaces with no compact spaces. If the Council
feels 8 units will be enough, he will go along with that. He is
~tipulating to a maximum of 8 spaces. One business may take up
3 spaces.
STAFF INPUT:
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
There are separate driveways from Lemon Street and Ball Road
which are sufficiently removed from the intersection. There are
medians in Ball Road, thus eliminating any left-turns into the
driveway. It will increase the number of trips, however, they
are drive-by trips. As long as there are no restaurants to
over-rule the parking, he has no problem with the PrOPosed
development.
760
124
City M~ll~ Anahe~m~ California - C0UNCi[L MINUTES - July 26~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Sadgh confirmed that the number of parking spaces they are
short is 3 and not 2 as stated in the report or 35 spaces
provided vs. 38 required.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
furtker finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-307)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 88R-307 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 3015, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions but that the maximum number of units be 8 instead of 10. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-307: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3015.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MFliBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-307 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3802~ CATEGORICALLY EX~PT~ CLASS 3-A:
APPLICANT: OWNER:
Chander P. Sharma and Venu Sharma
3356 West Ball Road,
Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT:
Developers' Engineers
Attn: Gary Perkins,
1401 North Batavia, Suite 104,
Orange, CA 92667
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 5151 E. Crescent Drive. The
request is for a waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 2-story,
31-foot high, single-family residence.
761
City Hall, Anaheim, C~!~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: Variance No. 3802 was approved by the Zoning
Administrator (for a maximum height of 29 feet), Decision No. ZA88-36. The
project was determined to be categorically exempt from the requirement to file
an EIR, Class 3, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore,
exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and Councilman Pickler at the meeting of June 28, 1986, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 14, 1988.
Posting of property July 16, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 15, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator dated June 16, 1968.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Gamal Iskander, representing the architect, 14150 Vine Place,
Suite 106, Cerritos, Ca. 90701.
The project has been approved by the Zoning Administrator. The
maximum height has been reduced from 31 feet to 29 feet or 4
feet above the allowable height. It will not obstruct any view
from the houses surrounding it. The range of height between 25
feet and 29 feet will not affect any of the views.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She knows that in the Peralta Hills and Mohler Drive areas in
the scenic corridor, the height limitation is 25 feet. Her
concern is to stay with that 25-foot limitation. The Planning
Commission recently affirmed the 25-foot height limit but that
chimneys may be higher. She wants to abide by the 25-foot
height limitation in accordance with the wishes of the people
who live in those areas and with the agreement, whether verbal
or written at the time of annexation to the City that heights
would not exceed 25 feet. She is asking the Council to honor
the decision made many years ago and which has been abided by
since that time. If there is a specific topographic reason for
such a request that would be different, but this is strictly
architectural.
Gamal Iskander.
The Civil Engineer has outlined reasons for the request and it
is stated in the decision made by the Zoning Administrator. The
area around the house was surveyed and the elevations
determined. That is why they reduced the height from 31 feet to
29 feet so there would be no objection. There are Engineering
documents in City files to document what he has just said. They
have surveyed the area and have done their homework. They did
762
242
City Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
look at building the house at 25 feet but the result will be a
shopping center look and not a house.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Sonja Grewal, speaking on behalf of the Executive Committee of
the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition.
They have been concerned about the inconsistencies granting
height variances in the Anaheim Hills area. Even though the
Planning Commission is consistent, the Zoning Administrator
looks at requests from a personal point of view and rules that
she does not have a problem as long as no one's view is
blocked. The purpose of the ordinance is to present development
standards which establish a whole, not the individual project.
She then read letter dated July 25, 1988 from four residents in
Hidden Canyon Estates (made a part of the record) opposing the
granting of height variances in the Anaheim Hills area and that
the negative impact on surrounding properties be considered. In
closing, Mrs. Grewal asked that the Council uphold the Zoning
Ordinance which protects the scenic qualities of the scenic
corridor.
Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive.
Variance No. 3802 does not meet the requirements of the City
Code. To detract from the standards would detract from the
existing area of Peralta Hills. He then reiterated many of the
concerns he has expressed at prior hearings relative to height
variances especially in the Peralta Hills area. He is asking
that any new structures live within the existing Codes as the
current residents of Peralta Hills have done.
Robert Smith, 5157 West Crescent.
He lives on the north side of the property in question. He
wants the height limitations honored as he has done. The
applicant should be made to adhere to the standards.
Dick Bucola, 5159 East Crescent, directly across the street.
He does not see any reason to increase the height for any other
purpose than for the benefit of the owner himself. He is happy
to see the home going in but it must stay within the current
restrictions.
Gene Schluter, 531 Peralta Hills Drive.
Bigger and bigger dwellings are going up around him but many
times stay within the height limit. Recently more variances are
being requested. The 25-foot height limit should be adhered
to. Some of the structures are getting to look like a "Ramada
Inn" and not a home. He objects to those who do not wish to
abide by the rules. He then read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Frank
763
239
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
S. Liggett, 571 Peralta Hills Drive, asking the variance request
be denied especially since there is no hardship to the applicant
(letter made a part of the record).
Rich Hermann, 150 Cerro Vista.
If this variance is granted, those who were denied previously
will be back again asking for the same consideration. He asked
that the Council reaffirm the City's agreement between Peralta
Hills and Anaheim.
Andrew Carrano, 5i40 East Crescent.
The Code should be maintained. If the variance is granted and
the house constructed, it will tower everything around it.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Gamal Iskander.
He asked if the roof were at 25 will the Council still approve
the massiveness of the house. It seems the question is not only
the height, but also the size of the structure.
Councilman Pickler explained if the house were at 25 feet they
would not be having a public hearing today.
Mr. Iskander continued that he would not be able to build a
house at 25 feet. He also confirmed that they did not grade the
pad to make it higher. It was done by the Civil Engineer and it
is lower than it was. They have lowered the elevation in order
to provide for the pad so they had to shave off part of the hill
in order to bring the pad to the level they wanted to build the
house. He reiterated, the height between 25 and 29 feet does
not obstruct any view. The ordinance was instituted 17 years
ago when there was no type of architecture as exists today.
There should be some flexibility to accommodate the new design
ideas in architecture. Peralta Hills lends itself to this type
of design and structure.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner.
Answering Councilman Pickler, stated that the main reason for
approval of the variance by the Zoning Administrator was that
the immediate area is of a hilly nature and the pads on the
various properties in the area alternate between higher and
lower in relationship to this property.
Mayor Bay.
The Zoning Administrator's decision is based on what Council nas
voiced policy wise - that the height limitation not be an
unreasonable impact view wise on the neighbors. The issue today
is no flexibility to a Zoning Ordinance. The people of Peralta
Hills are asking that since there is a 25-foot height limit
764
City Hall, Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
standard, there should be no flexibility one way or the other.
If the Council took that attitude toward all the zoning
regulations and Codes, there would be very few hearings, the
premise being that there would be no exceptions for any reason.
Homes are being developed to the design and the price of the
present and in this case, that design requires 4 feet over and
above the 25-foot limitation. If Council decides once and for
all regardless of the impact to the property owner and his
rights that they are never going to approve anything over 25
feet, there will be no more of these hearings over that argument.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
This is the first Council that has not honored the agreement on
annexation to the City to preserve the ?eralta Hills area. It
is very special to the City and it is the only one acre minimum
lot area in the City. For years everyone has built to that
height limit.
Mayor Bay asked for clarification from staff that the 25-foot
height limit has never been exceeded and this would be the first.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
He would like to address that in two ways. There has been
discussion about prior agreements with Peralta Hills and staff
researched that because of the previous interest. The only
thing staff could find vis-a-vis written documentation and
agreements pertained to Engineering standards, rolled curbs,
street widths and some of the rural attributes. They were able
to uncover discussions or mcknowledgments that certain
individuals who represent~dMohler Drive and the Peralta Hills
area sat in on meetings where zoning standards at that time were
discussed for those areas.
Mayor Bay.
He asked for clarification if the Planning Director was saying
that there were no written documents showing any such agreement
that has been stated over and over again by Councilwoman Kaywood
that the City has certain ~r~tten agreements for certain
limitations in those areas,
Joel Fick.
There are annexation agreements that pertain to certain types of
development standards such as street width, roll curbs,
sidewalks and street lighting as they relate to development
standards. In practice, when there have been requests on
development standards in Peralta Hills, by and large those
standards have been upheld. Whether there have been several
instances to the contrary he cannot answer at this time. In
several of the neighborhoods in both Peralta Hills and the
Mohler Drive area some of the homes were also developed prior to
annexation to the City or prior to the current standards. Off
hand he cannot recall an instance the Council is asking about.
765
237
City Hall, Anmheim, Cmlffornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Roland Krueger.
He has a resolution, not with him, from 1970 wherein it states
specifically that the City of Anaheim will honor the zoning
requests - the one acre zoning, and in recognition of its
special character that it will uphold this against attempts by
developers to break that zoning and to try to maintain the
special character of Peralta Hills. He clarified for the Mayor
that it specifically does not mention height limitations because
at that time the scenic corridor was not in effect.
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.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-308)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARI{IED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 88R-308 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3802, reversing the findings of the Zoning Administrator. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-308: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3802.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MF~ERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-308 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct the Zoning Administrator to uphold the
25-foot height limitation in the Peralta Hills/Mohler Drive areas unless the
request is directly related to the terrain. The motion died for lack of a
second.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-56, VARIANCE NO. 3805 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
Raymond L. Phillips
9297 Batavia Street,
Orange, CA 92667
766
238
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
AGENT:
Nick Gomez
4871 Sunnybrook Avenue
Buena Park, CA 90621
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 3629 and 3633 Savanna Street.
The request is for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less
intense zone, and to construct a 3-story, 20-unit apartment complex with
waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) maximum site coverage.
PIANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-158 denied Reclassification
No. 87-88-56; Resolution No. PC88-159 denied Variance No. 3805; approved EIR -
Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Nick Gomez, Agent, and
public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 14, 1988.
Posting of property July 15, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 15, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 20, 1988.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Raymond L. Phillips, 9297 Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92667.
General Plan Amendment No. 234 redesignating the subject
property from low medium density to medium density was approved
by the Council on January 26, 1988. Two variances have also
been granted in the area, Variance No. 3727 to build 70 units
and Variance No. 3739 to build 86 units both in the same general
vicinity. His agent, Nick Gomez is present who will answer any
questions.
Nick Gomez.
He worked very closely with Planning staff and complied with
most of the recommendations about the general design. ~e will
answer any questions.
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.
She noted the Planning Commission denial was partly based on the
3-stories proposed at 21 feet from RSA-43,000 and 135 feet from
single-family residences in Buena Park. The Council has never
granted closer than 50 feet. There was also 74% coverage
proposed when 55% is the maximum.
767
L,59
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
He too does not recall the Council approving anything within 21
feet of Ri but this is RSA-43,000 and in all three cases, or at
least two, the intent is to RM-1200. It is not a fair
comparison.
Council Members Pickier and Kaywood noted that the Planning
Commission denied the reclassification on a 6-1 vote and the
variance was denied on a 7-0 vote.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
The Commission's concern was that the density was high and that
RM-2400might be more appropriate.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 88R-309 and 88R-310)
Councilman Pickier moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Ehrie seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 88R-309 for adoption and Resolution
No. 88R-310 for adoption, denying Reclassification No. 87-88-56 and Variance
No. 3805, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-309: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-56.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-310: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3805.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay stated the Council did approve every
development to RM-1200 in the immediate area on Savanna Street not too long
ago. He asked relative to the applicant's request and considering what nas
happened in the rest of the area if it is one within logic of the law.
City Attorney White.
The request is one that is within the logic of the law. On the
other hand, it is within the prerogative of the City Council to
act to either approve or deny the reclassification. The only
768
170
City Hall, Anaheim, Csllfornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
limitations by law are that the Council's decision not be
arbitrary and capricious. This is a legislative action as
opposed to an administrative action. As long as there is some
original basis for not rezoning into that zone at this time, the
Council legally has the ability to deny the request.
Mayor Bay.
He is not arguing against the proposed resolution but wants to
make sure that the words in the resolution cover the legal
findings the same as on the Planning Commission. He is assuming
that reasons are traffic flow on Savanna or infrastructure
limitations or maximum site coverage.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator.
The Planning Commission's concern was that Savanna Street, being
as small as it is, even though there have been similar density
proposed approvals, that this should be RM-2400.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-309 and 88R-310 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Bay. To explain his abstention, he does not necessarily disagree with
the Planning Commission's decision but does sometimes wonder how they can
approve large, very dense developments across the street or within an area and
then turn down others of the same magnitude.
108: PUBLIC HEARING - AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION PERMIT NO. 1003:
APPLICANT: OWNER:
Setyu Yogi
5035 Greensboro Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 30 East Orangethorpe Avenue.
Tha raquest is to establish a 64-machine amusement arcade.
A public hearing was requested on the application by Councilwoman Kaywood at
the meeting of June 28, 1988. The application had been approved by the
Planning Department since no opposition exceeding 50% was received.
Subsequent to the matter being set for a public hearing, on July 14, 1988, Mr.
Yogi submitted a formal withdrawal of his amusement arcade application
request. The public hearing had been legally advertised but notices were not
sent to surrounding properties because the withdrawal had been submitted, nor
was the property posted.
769
235
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Ca~!~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney White. This is not a Zoning Code action but an arcade
application which is under a different section of the Code. Therefore, the
Council has the prerogative of allowing to withdraw without holding a
hearing. That is why it was not continued to be publicly noticed after the
withdrawal request was received.
Dr. Steve Minnick, i2269 Sky Lane, West Los Angeles.
They have been advised that a hearing cannot take place because
it was not properly advertised. He is present to request that
the case be reinstituted to be heard at some subsequent proper
date. The cancellation is based entirely on a misunderstanding
which he explained. Mr. Yogi felt he should withdraw his
application since Councilwoman Kaywood was bringing it before
the City Council and it would be automatically denied. The Yogi
Family has been in the amusement business for 20 years and
conduct a totally family business. He is present to request
that Mr. Yogi be given an opportunity to have his case heard.
Mayor Bay.
Another application submitted by Mr. Yogi was denied at another
location on the same day the subject application was set for a
public hearing. He can understand Mr. Yogi jumping to the
conclusion that he did. He then asked the City Attorney if the
withdrawal request can be withdrawn.
City Attorney White.
He answered yes if Mr. Yogi is present and will come forward and
stipulate that he wishes to reinstate the application, the
hearing would have to be continued three weeks to properly
advertise it and bring it back before the Council on August 16,
1988.
Seyiu Yogi, 5035 Greensboro Lane,Anaheim, CA 92807.
Regarding his letter of July 14, 1988, he is withdrawing his
request that Amusement Arcade Permit Application No. 1003 be
withdrawn and that the matter be reinstituted.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to reinstate the public hearing on Amusement
Arcade Permit Application No. 1003 to Tuesday, AuSust 1, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. and
that proper notification be given to surroundin~ properties and all other
legal public hearing requirements met. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134/172: PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 285, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 210 - CIRCU~mTION ELF2iENT - RECOMMENDED CODEAMENDMENT:
APPLICANT: OWNERS:
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
REQUEST/LOCATION: EIR NO. 285 and GPA No. 210 to designate the following
critical intersections:
770
City M~ll, Anmbeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 2~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Anaheim and Ball*
Anaheim and Cerritos*
Ball and Beach
Ball and Brookhurst
Ball and Euclid
Ball and Harbor
Ball and Lewis*
Ball and State College*
Beach and Lincoln
Brookhurst and Katella
Brookhurst and La Palma
Cerritos and State College*
Convention Way and Harbor
Convention Way and Haster
Euclid and La Palma
Euclid and Lincoln
Harbor and Katella
Harbor and La Palma
Haster and Katella
Howell and Katella*
Katella and Lewis*
Katella and State College*
Kraemer and La Palma
Kraemer and Orangethorpe
La Palma and Imperial Highway
La Palma and Lakeview
La Palma and Magnolia
La Palma and State College
La Pa]ma and Tustin
Lincoln and Magnolia
Lincoln and State College
Orangethorpe and Imperial Hwy.
Orangewood and State College*
*Previously adopted as critical intersections in General Plan Amendment
No. 214 on March 17, 1987.
This General Plan Amendment proposes to enhance the intersections by up to 12
feet for a distance of 600 feet from the corner right-of-way line. The intent
is that prior to issuance of building permits, Conditional Use Permits,
Variances or other related zoning and building actions on the adjacent
properties, that the property owners make an irrevocable offer to dedicate
such additional right-of-way as required. The cost of widening will be borne
either by the City or major property developers.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Recommended certification of ELK No. 285. The
GPA No. 210 circulation element was approved by the Planning Commission under
Resolution No. PC88-117. The City Planning Commission also recommended staff
to prepare a draft ordinance for Code Amendment to provide for acquisition of
Right-of-Way, per Exhibit No. 1.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 30, 1988.
Posting of property June 24, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 24, 1988.
PLANI~ING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 1988.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
He introduced the City's Traffic and Transportation Engineer,
Paul Singer, who will make a presentation regarding the proposed
General Plan Amendment No. 210.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
He is bringing to the Council today the concept and General Plan
Amendment for the critical intersections that have been
discussed over the past several years. He then briefed staff
771
233
City Hall, An,heim, CalifOrnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
report dated July 5, 1988 from the Public Works/Engineering
Department - subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Critical
Intersection - GPA No. 210 recommending that:
(a) That the City Council, by Motion, certify Environmental
Impact Report No. 285 with overriding considerations.
(b) That the City Council, by Resolution, approve General Plan
Amendment No. 210 of the Circulation Element.
(c) That the City Council, by Motion, establish a policy on a
critical intersection implementation strategy.
He reported that the critical intersection plan was developed to
bring the land use element of the General Plan into conformance
with the circulation element which is currently inadequate to
accommodate traffic from existing land uses. The plan is
intended to increase intersection capacity at critical
intersections that exceed vehicular capacity and to improve
intersection capacity (level of service) by 36% for current
traffic and 21% for the year 2000 traffic. Attachment A of the
staff report shows the relative cost of the plan with estimates
of $31.2 million to a high of $87 million depending upon the
methodology adopted for the implementation of the plan.
The current Municipal Code requirement requires property owners
must fully dedicate and improve their property frontages of
street right-of-way. It is proposed by staff that the critical
intersection implementation program require adjacent property
owners to only dedicate right-of-way and not be responsible for
relocation of public improvements but require only an
irrevocable offer of dedication at the time of a building permit
or when entitlement for an affected property is granted by the
City. Proposed ordinance, Attachment B, reflects that
proposal. An important point is that it is not the intent of
the program to acquire right-of-way through dedications from
property owners that do not intend to make any improvements or
chan~es on their properties.
This implementation strategy follows the current procedure for
dedication of right-of-way but relieves the property owner of
installing the improvements or paying an in-lieu cost of the
improvements. Staff feels this is a fair procedure.
The Planning Commission's recommendation is to adopt GPA No. 210
but not require dedication from the adjacent property owners and
that the City should acquire and pay for all right-of-way as
well as installation of public improvements. The cost to
implement this program is $87 million. The ordinance reflecting
this implementation strategy is shown in Attachment C. Staff
feels the excessive cost of acquiring all of the right-of-way
would delay the program and may render'it not feasible.
772
234
City Hall, An-heim, Cal~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Among the many benefits that will be provided by the plan is
that the business climate of the City will be substantially
improved by a safer and less congested arterial street system.
The Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Board and Vision
2000 Citizens Advisory Committee have all endorsed the critical
intersection program.
Before concluding, Mr. Singer narrated a slide presentation
showing existing conditions at various intersections compared to
a critical intersection where the improvements have been
installed. The critical intersection design provides three
through lanes, a separate right-turn lane and two left-turn
lanes as well as an acceleration lane and bus bay for each
approach.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that Mr. Singer had
stated, if someone does not come in for any changes, dedication
would not be required.
Mr. Singer answered yes. It is an important point that many
people have misunderstood. There are eight intersections
previously approved in the Stadium area. The City does not have
the dedication of the right-of-way but the General Plan
Amendment is in place. There are 36 properties that have
already made a dedication and several others are in the
process. The ones that have dedicated and those in the process
are between 50 and 60 properties. Staff has no problems with
applicants when they come in and ask for an entitlement because
they can understand why it is needed.
Mayor Bay.
Most of the intersections in Anaheim have strict commercial
involving small businessmen who may want to make a relatively
minor change. The City approves the change but the owner will
have to dedicate 12 feet which will wipe out half of his parking
for his business or he will be put out of business or cannot
even get a loan because the City took 12 feet. He wanted to
know how such situations will be handled.
Paul Singer.
The program is not intended to injure anyone. If there is a
small improvement necessary on the property, they are not going
to ask that type of exaction from them. It will be the same
procedure used for normal dedication and improvements on
right-of-way on arterial streets. Where there are small
improvements that will exceed the cost of the dedication, they
will not exact that.
JackWhite.
The current Code provides an exemption for anything under 1,000
feet. Anything over provides that the dedication is required.
To not require the dedication if the development meets the
773
231
City M~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
criteria in the Code currently the City would require the
applicant to process a full blown zone variance. Due to the way
the Engineering Department has administered the existing
ordinance, the City has not encountered the problem where
someone has seen fit to bring that through the administrative
level to the City Council. Past history is the judge of the
fact that staff has applied this in a logical and reasonable
manner.
Councilman Ehrle expressed the fact that there should be a
Master Plan developed along with other cities rather than
Anaheim instituting such a plan since some of the intersections
border other cities. If those cities do nothing, the problem
will not be alleviated.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer.
Orange County Transportation Commission (0CTC) is in the process
of completing a study to look at the entire County Master Plan
of arterial highways. The recommendation will be to 0CTC and to
the County of Orange that the County-wide Master Plan recognize
the need for critical intersections at major intersections
throughout Orange County. The County would then take the lead
in identifying these on the County Master Plan and request the
cities to place them on their plan. Anaheim is a fore runner
because they have taken the initiative to do something in a
positive way. The Transportation Commission and the County are
looking favorably at doing that because it is a realistic way to
provide relief.
Something that was identified in the EIR and information Council
should have, projects for the year 2000 indicate about a 21%
growth in traffic for north/south traffic in the County and 24%
east west. The intersections identified are all at or over
capacity today. The compounding effect of that growth would be
devastating to traffic in the City without some approach,
whatever it may be, to relieve it. Staff believes this is a
reasonable approach. Staff had an open house on December 10,
1987 and approximately 60 people attended who asked questions
and gave input. Subsequent to that, there wa~ a lot of
follow-up with telephone calls and people coming to the office
and two hearings were held - one on April 1 and the other on
May 9, 1988 before the Planning Commission.
Mayor Bay opened the public hearin~ and asked if anyone wished to speak.
The following people spoke to the proposed Critical Intersection Plan and the
highlights of their concerns or comments is included:
Dale Lewis, 511 North Brookhurst.
He first stated he felt there was some confusion regarding the
meeting time and that Council will not get the full impact and
views they would have gotten if there was not some confusion.
774
City Ha!J, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
This meeting was continued from July 12, 1988 which was a night'
meeting. He thinks many in the audience who were going to be
present at this meeting thought it was going to be at 8:00 p.m.
His points of concern and opposition are as follows: (1) the
taking of property without just compensation; the magnitude of
the proposal will severely impact many property owners. The
Planning Commission made its recommendation that there be no
taking without just compensation and Mr. Singer is arguing
against that. (2) Extreme negative effect on some Anaheim
property owners for the benefit of all, Anaheim and
non-Anaheim. (3) The large scope of the project - why so many
intersections are included and why some are even on the list.
He personally viewed the Kraemer/0rangethorpe intersection and
the criteria used to designate it as a critical intersection was
not evident but only at certain times and at those times could
be solved by changing the timing of the light. (4) Negative
effects of those key intersections, will severely damage and
completely stop a viable development at key intersections within
the City.
Howard Sachar, owner at property at 1728 West Ball Road.
This is not a uniquely Anaheim problem but what is being
proposed is uniquely an Anaheim solution. Traffic is not
traveling to Anaheim but through Anaheim through adjacent
freeways. If the City makes the streets faster, it is going to
get more traffic. Over 800 parcels are affected by this
action. It would take 20 years to implement. Within 10 years
levels of congestion at the intersections will be back to what
they were before since other agencies have begun to implement
plans for relief in terms of widening freeways and
transportation corridors within the next ten years. The plan
needs to be sent back for a lot more work. This is not the
solution to the problem. He also took issue with statements
made by the Traffic Engineer.
Before continuing, Councilman Pickler clarified for Mr. Sachar
that as reported by the Traffic Engineer the Council did receive
a letter from the Chamber of Commerce dated June 22, 19U8 signed
by Bob Kuznik wherein it was explained that the Chamber approved
the general concept of the critical intersection plan.
Councilman Pickler read most of the letter for Mr. Sachar.
Julia Araiza, 1740 West Ball Road.
There are very few people present at this meeting. The Council
has not had the benefit of the presentations made at the two
previous hearings before the Planning Commission. There are two
profiles, one residential and one commercial. Residential is
already near many of the critical intersections and are close
enough now to make life intolerable. The plan will bring
traffic even closer which is dangerous and property values will
go down. This plan constitutes a taking of property. If the
City institutes the plan without eminent domain the citizens are
775
229
City Hall, Amaheim, C~]~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
going to have to pay more money to hire a lawyer and sue the
City to get what they are entitled to in the first place. She
would like the City of Anaheim to be very responsive in
addressing this issue.
At the conclusion of public input, Mayor Bay stated he was not
going to close the public hearing because he is concerned with
the comments regarding the possibility of confusion relative to
the time of the public hearing. The Council may want to give
more time for public input; Councilman Pickler felt that an
additional opportunity should be given.
Councilman Ehrle.
He had a question regarding the funding of the critical
intersection plan tied into the proposed bond issue and how the
City would pay $30 million just to begin the program if the
citizems say it is not something they want to support especially
when 'it is necessary that a 2/3's vote of the people is required
for it to pass.
Mayor Bay.
He feels it is the consensus of the Council that there must be
some improvement to the circulation on the streets in Anaheim
regardless of whether it is local or regional until each and
every city starts taking some action to cure internal problems.
Regional solutions are never going to solve all of those traffic
problems. He feels strongly this must be done in a fair
manner. Who will pay for it? In his opinion, the cost of
making the improvements to the City's intersections should be
split evenly and fairly across the whole City. Property owners
will be paying for a bond issue. Business should also pay their
fair share. Improvement in traffic will improve the business of
the property owners involved at those intersections. What is
not fair is to try to make just the business community pay for
these improvements that will be a benefit overall. Et is
important to get input on the issue. If it means planning, the
Council will listen to the criticism of that planning and will
change or modify it and come up with a fair way to pay for it.
There is no intent for government to take anything away without
paying for it.
After a brief Council discussion regarding a date for a continuance of the
public hearing, Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Environmental Impact Report No. 285, General Plan Amendment No. 210
Circulation Element and Recommended Code Amendment to the day meeting of
August 16, 1988 but specifically that the subject public hearing be held at
7:30 p.m. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
It was also determined that there would be a renotification of all who had
previously been notified of the first public hearing before the Council on the
matter.
776
23O
City Hall, Annheim~ California - COUNCTI. MINUTES - July 26, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
114/127: ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANDIDACY FOR MAYOR: Mayor Pro Tem Pickler
announced that today he had taken out papers in the City Clerk's Office
declaring his candidacy for the Office of Mayor of the City of Anaheim to be
decided at the General Municipal Election on November 8, 1988.
Mayor Bay announced that no quorum is expected for the Council meeting of
August 2, 1988.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:31 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
777